The URL can be used to link to this page

4618 PD Rezone 1100 East 1st StreetOrdinance No. 2021-4618 An ordinance of the City of Sanford, Florida relating to a Planned Development (PD) by rezoning 3.06 acres in size and creating the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD; providing for the rezoning of real property generally addressed and located at 1100 East 1st Street and assigned Tax Parcel Identification Numbers 30-19-31-506-0100-0010, 30-19-31-506-0100-0020 and 30-19-31-506-0100-0040 by the Seminole County Property Appraiser which parcels are located within the City Limits (map of the subject property attached); providing for findings and intent, development conditions and the resolution of disputes by the Planning and Zoning Commission; providing for the taking of implementing administrative actions; providing for the adoption of a map and approving of the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD Master Plan; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; providing for non -codification and providing for an effective date. Whereas, an application has been submitted proposing to rezone property generally addressed as 1100 East 1 st Street as a Planned Development (PD) zoning classification/district being named the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD; and Whereas, the owner of the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD property is Paul V. Mellini, Successor Trustee; and Whereas, the applicant for the rezoning are Richard Shassian with Vistas at Lake Monroe, LLC , a Florida limited liability company, of Winter Park (Miguel De Arcos being the only officer of the company), and Nicole Martin with the engineering firm of Madden, Moorhead & Stokes, LLC of Maitland; and Whereas, the project engineer is Chad Moorhead, P.E. also of Madden, Moorhead & Stokes, LLC; and Whereas, the project attorney is Stephen H. Coover, Esquire, of Sanford; and Whereas, the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD property totals approximately 3.06 acres in size consisting of 3 tax parcels (Numbers 30-19-31-506-0100-0010, 30-19-31-506-0100-0020 and 30-19-31-506-0100-0040 as assigned by the Seminole County Property Appraiser); and Whereas, the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD property is more specifically located on the southwest corner of East Seminole Boulevard and Mellonville Avenue just south of Lake Monroe and north of the Seminole County Services Building; and Whereas, the subject property is assigned the RMOI, Multi -Family Residential -Office -Institutional, zoning district/classification under the City of Sanford Land Development Regulations (LDRs) with an underlying future land use designation assignment of WDBD, Waterfront Downtown Business District, under the City's Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, the RMOI zoning district/classification is a planned mixed use district/classification designed to accommodate business and professional offices and high density multiple family residential and institutional land uses with a maximum residential density of 20 dwelling units per acre except, however, that multiple -family dwellings located adjacent to single-family dwellings or single-family zoning districts/classifications shall have a maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre; and Whereas, the RMOI policy district/classification has a maximum intensity of a floor area ratio of 0.35 for nonresidential development; and Whereas, to achieve the mix of uses in the RMOI policy district/classification, a development must contain at least 20% of the lesser use, residential and office/institutional, based on intensity and/or density of the uses proposed; and Whereas, the RMOI zoning district/classification expressly excludes general retail sales and services, warehousing and outside storage as allowable land uses and, pursuant Schedule "B" of the City's LDRs, various land uses including but not limited to day care facility, residential care facility, nursing home, house of worship and business training school are uses permitted as -of -right in the RMOI zoning district/classification while district/classification is intended for sites which: (1). Have accessibility to major thoroughfares or are located along the outer fringe of core commercial areas; (2). Build on the purpose and function of the central business district and Lake Monroe waterfront; (3). Encourage reinvestment in declining residential areas adjacent to commercial core areas; (4). Have potential to be served by a full complement of urban services; (5). Contain sufficient land area to accommodate good principles of urban design, including sufficient land area to provide adequate landscaping and buffers to separate existing as well as potential future adjacent land uses of differing intensity; (6). Frequently serve as a transition area which buffers residential uses located in one area from a nearby area which accommodates uses of a higher intensity. Whereas, the property is also assigned the MT, Midtown, overlay zoning district/classification and the special standards and regulations established in Schedule "U" of the City's LDRs for overlay districts/classifications apply to the entire parcel and are in addition to the underlying RMOI standards, however, when in conflict, the standards of the overlay prevail; and Whereas, the special standards established for the City's overlay districts/classifications will encourage connections between the waterfront, shopping, working and residential areas and the design of PDs must adhere to traditional design development and shall generally conform to the overlay standards for block development, site design, lot layout, prototype design, and building design with deviations from the standards contained within Schedule "U" of the City's LDRs resulting in a development that is beneficial to the City, enhances the character of the community in which it is located and is superior to a project that is designed consistent with the overlay standards; and Whereas, the overlay districts/classifications are based on the key principles of urban type development, which are walkable and designed to contain a diverse range of housing, shopping and offices with all 3 districts/classifications offering design standards for development that provide for an efficient land use form and cost effective delivery of urban services the primary purpose of the MT overlay zoning district/classification being to encourage residential uses; and Whereas, the MT overlay zoning district/classification provides for a mixed-use area for single-family, multifamily housing, offices and neighborhood serving retail, where appropriate, and is not in direct conflict with the residential usage and the site design and layout criteria outlined in Schedule "U" of the City's LDRs directly relates to the following street type identification related to the project: Street Name Designation East 1 st Street Sanford Avenue to Mellonville Avenue) Pedestrian Priority Seminole Boulevard Pedestrian Priority �� Whereas, "pedestrian priority" streets shall have building frontage requirements, established build to lines, and restrict parking and service uses adjacent to a "pedestrian priority" street; and 41(° , Whereas, the subject property, given its location, is subject to multiple layers of design and development standards including those set forth in the City's LDRs pertaining to the MT overlay district/classification; and Whereas, an as -of -right development scenario meeting the requirements of both the RMOI and MT overlay districts/classifications could yield the following: Whereas, City staff engaged in discussions with representatives of the applicant to generally ascertain what as -of -right development scenario that could be approvable as a land use entitlement without the PD rezoning action that has been proposed and the concept plan would, generally, be approvable as of right and evidences 51Ps__ Schedule U -MT Development RMOI Overlay As -of -Right Development Standard Zoning District/Classification Scenario Transitional Block Multi -family, Daycare, 4 SFR lots fronting Uses Residential Care Facility, Encourages Residential; Mellonville; 4 -story Mixed (Per Schedule B) Nursing Home, House of Mixed Use Use with 15L floor office and Worship, Office, Business top 3 floors Multi -family Training School Front Setback -North Within 5' of adjacent 30' (15' side street setback (Seminole Boulevard) 30' structures; Detached SFR could be applied for SFR compatible with existing use) Front Setback -East 30' Within 5' of adjacent 30' (Mellonville Avenue) structures Front Setback -South 30' Within 5' of adjacent 30' (East. V Street) structures Side Setback 20' Within 5' of adjacent 20' structures Rear setback 20' Within 5' of adjacent 20' structures Height 50' 2 to 4 stories 3 -story or 42' for SFR; or 56' 4 -story or 56' for mixed use Density/Intensity 20 du/acre; 0.35 FAR Not addressed in Sch. U 20 du/acre or 60 units;0.30 FAR Parking 2 spaces/residential unit; 2 spaces/residential unit; (Per Schedule H) 1 space/250sf office Not addressed in Sch. U Assumed Shared Parking Agreement for Mixed-use Whereas, City staff engaged in discussions with representatives of the applicant to generally ascertain what as -of -right development scenario that could be approvable as a land use entitlement without the PD rezoning action that has been proposed and the concept plan would, generally, be approvable as of right and evidences 51Ps__ the fact the property owner has a current reasonable beneficial use of the subject property; and Whereas, the following table outlines existing or approved developments downtown within similar Euclidean or PD zoning districts/classifications or overlay district/classification standards: Approved Heritage Park Gateway at Riverwalk San Leon Home for Good Proposed Vistas at Development (Catalyst Site) 225 West Seminole 201 Sanford 1009 East 2"d Street Lake Monroe Standard Boulevard Avenue 1100 E. is` Street Zoning/Overlay SC-3/RF SC-3/DT SC-3/MT RMOI/MT PD Proposed, RMOI Current/MT 1.5 spaces/unit Parking (on-site for 2 spaces/unit 1 spaces/unit 1.7 spaces/unit 1.5 spaces/unit multi -family) 43.47 25.89 units/acre Density 41.8 units/acre 33 units/acre units/acre 17.54 units/acre (maximum of 80 units)' Front Setback -North 11' 20' NA; 0' NA; 30' to 2nd Street 20' (Seminole Blvd.) Buffer -North 0' 10' NA; 0' NA; 5' to 2"d Street 20' (Seminole Blvd.) Height 89'-4" max 64' 56' 24' 56' (2-5 stories) ; and Whereas, The following table provides a better outline the requirements of the City's LDRs and the development standards proposed to be agreed upon relative on the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD Master Plan: I Modified at the September 13, 2021 public hearing before the City Commission. Table 2 7) Single Use Dev. RMOI Schedule U -MT Vistas at Lake Staff Development Zoning Overlay Monroe PD Recommendations Standard District/classification Proposed Transitional Block Staff finds 20' is consistent with current approvals of residential Front Setback -North Within 5' of adjacent development fronting (Seminole Boulevard) 30 structures 20' Seminole Boulevard and the Pedestrian Priority street designation per Schedule U No setback deviation requested; Staff finds 100'; the increased setback in proposing lieu of SFR with Front Setback -East Within 5' of adjacent creased setback in inu driveway access onto (Mellonville Avenue) 30 structures lieof SFR fronting Mellonville Avenue to Mellonville Avenue be an appropriate per Schedule U transition from the existing SFR to the proposed development Consistent with Front Setback -South 30, Within 5' of adjacent 10, Pedestrian Priority (East. 1" Street) structures street designation per Schedule U Side Setback 20' Within 5' of adjacent 20' No deviation requested structures Rear setback 20' Within 5' of adjacent - No deviation requested structures Height 50' 2 to 4 stories 4 stories or 56' No deviation requested or 56' Staff finds 20% is in line with the urban form of development promoted in Schedule U; RMOI is Open Space 30% - 20% a mixed use district/classification throughout the city and not specific to downtown 2 spaces/unit = 2 spaces/unit = 1.5 spaces/unit = Staff finds the request Parking 200 spaces total 200 spaces total 150 spaces total is consistent with other 7) EM Whereas, although the applicant provided a written explanation addressing deviations to the design guidelines for multi -family developments, pursuant Schedule "E", Section 16.0, of the City's LDRs which sets forth the "Multiple Family Housing Design ' Modified at the September 13, 2021 public hearing before the City Commission. 81 i._ multi -family approvals downtown and throughout the City The WDBD land use allows a maximum of 50 units/ac. Staff finds the 25.89 units per acre downtown/waterfront Density 20 units per acre - (maximum of 80 location to be units)' conducive to the higher density and in line with the WDBD and the urban standards in Schedule U Buffer -North 20' as determined by (Seminole Blvd.) 10' Administrative 20' No deviation requested Official No buffer deviation requested; Staff finds 25'; the increased buffer in proposing lieu of SFR with Buffer -East 10' with a Type I or 20' as determined by increased buffer in driveway access onto (Mellonville Avenue) II Visual Screen per Administrative lieu of SFR fronting Mellonville Avenue to Schedule 1 Official Mellonville Avenue per Schedule U be an appropriate transition from the existing SFR to the proposed development Staff finds S' on interior Buffer -South (East 151 20' as determined by 10' adjacent to 151 property lines adjacent Street) 10' Administrative Street; 5' other to uses/zoning of same Official south property lines intensity to be adequate Staff finds 5' on interior Buffer -West and All 20' as determined by property lines adjacent other Property Lines 10' Administrative S' to uses/zoning of same Official intensity to be adequate EM Whereas, although the applicant provided a written explanation addressing deviations to the design guidelines for multi -family developments, pursuant Schedule "E", Section 16.0, of the City's LDRs which sets forth the "Multiple Family Housing Design ' Modified at the September 13, 2021 public hearing before the City Commission. 81 i._ Guidelines"; provided, however, that the design guidelines do not apply to multiple family residential developments within the WDBD land use designation where a higher density and more urban character is advocated; and Whereas, as outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan, the WDBD land use designation is designed to provide centralized residential, governmental, cultural, institutional, and general commercial activities within the downtown and waterfront urban area, while preserving the City's historic character and cultural heritage through context -sensitive design with the designation providing a planning and management framework for promoting the revitalization, development and redevelopment of the historic downtown commercial area and its purpose being to: ;and (1). Generate a revitalization effort that attracts private sector investment and strengthens the City's economy; (2). Establish the area as a regional center; (3). Strengthen public/private partnerships; (4). Enhance the livability of North Seminole County by encouraging improved residential, retail, educational, cultural and entertainment opportunities; and (5). Provide the framework for redevelopment and infill. Whereas, a rezoning of the subject property to PD to establish the proposed multi -family residential use as specified on the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD Master Plan provides the improved residential component to enhance the livability of North Seminole County in accordance with the requirements of the WDBD land use designation and is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan in that regard and, indeed, the consistency review of the request with the goals, objective and policies of the City's 9� Comprehensive Plan predominantly assesses whether the request is consistent with the intended designation, discourages urban sprawl, creates neutral or minimal concurrency impacts and has minimal impacts to natural systems; and Whereas, the subject property is located in the downtown waterfront corridor along Lake Monroe and conducive to the redevelopment scenarios and, given the proximity to the established single family residential use to the east, public facilities to the south and proposed Mayfair Hotel to the west, more intense commercial activities are not ideal; and Whereas, the proposed multi -family residential use on the subject property provides a transition to the adjacent uses as well as a pedestrian connection to the sidewalk and trail system with building frontage toward Lake Monroe promotes utilizing the waterfront; and Whereas, although the rezoning request does not include building architectural elevations, the development will be subject to the architectural standards identified in Schedule "U" of the City's LDRs for the MT overlay district/classification which supports the architectural design and development pattern referenced in the policies above; and Whereas, Given the urban character encouraged within the WDBD land use designation and Schedule "U" of the City's LDRs, City staff has found the proposed multi -family development and associated master plan to be consistent with all pertinent criteria, previous approvals and the entirety of the goals, objectives and policies set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, Mr. Moorhead has informed the City that he was responsible, on 101P_�I _ . behalf of the applicant, that he was responsible for completing the Citizens Awareness and Participation Plan (CAPP) requirements of the City's LDRs and the City was advised that the applicant distributed a CAPP notice on December 14, 2020 and according to the CAPP summary the applicant made attempts to communicate with residents in the adjacent Mayfair subdivision to the east, but at the May 6, 2021 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission continued the public hearing on the application in order to provide the applicant and residents an opportunity to communicate and hold a community meeting in line with the CAPP requirement; and Whereas, Mr. Moorhead has advised the City that the applicant's efforts to coordinate and schedule a community meeting in accordance with that direction were unsuccessful; and Whereas, City staff has also been advised that representatives from the community in opposition to the development held an independent meeting on May 25, 2021, which City staff did not attend, and that the meeting was not the collaboratively scheduled "CAPP like" meeting that was anticipated; and Whereas, with regard to the May 25, 2021 meeting, the applicant and the opponents of the development may have differing accounts as to what has been said, or not said, since the last meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission between the developer and opposing community members and with regard to what meetings were held, or not held, and the reason(s) for such occurring or not occurring; and Whereas, on July 1, 2021 the City of Sanford's Planning and Zoning Commission, as the City's local planning agency, finalized a public hearing process that had been continued which process included testimony by staff, the applicant and members of the public as well as the submission of documents and a motion to recommend denial passed by a vote of 4 to 1, but, following the public hearing, it was noted by City staff that the policy from the City's Comprehensive Plan cited in the motion is a regulatory policy for the City to implement and revise the City's LDRs, as needed, in order to regulate, protect and implement the goals, objectives and policies in the City's Comprehensive Plan and, after further discussion, the denial motion was rescinded; and Whereas, in an effort to cite an applicable goal, objective or policy, a second motion to recommend denial passed by a vote of 4 to 1, but, the provisions cited, as was the case with regard to the first motion, are not provisions that, in and of themselves, can be targeted toward a particular development; and Whereas, at the September 13, 2021 public hearing Mr. Coover and Mr. Moorhead modified the proposed Vistas at Lake Monroe PD and agreed to numerous additional conditions as set forth herein and a substantial reduction in density; and Whereas, at the September 13, 2021 public hearing attorney Ralph Brookes presented the testimony of Darryl Max Fogey, AICP, who testified in opposition to the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD proposal and in support of citizens who were opposed to the proposed Vistas at Lake Monroe PD; and Whereas, the City's Planning and Development Services Department has conducted a thorough review and analysis of the demands upon public facilities and recommended that the subject rezoning application be approved having determined that the proposal is technically sufficient and consistent with the goals, policies and objectives 121:'' of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sanford, the City's LDRs, and the controlling provisions of State law; and Whereas, the City planning and development staff recommended approval of this Ordinance subject to normative development detailed development requirements and conditions some of which, if not later resolved, shall be subject to resolution by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and Whereas, the City Commission has determined that the proposed rezoning of the subject property as set forth in this Ordinance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sanford, the City's LDRs, and the controlling provisions of State law; and Whereas, the City Commission of the City of Sanford, Florida has taken all actions relating to the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD rezoning action set forth herein in accordance with the requirements and procedures mandated by State law. Now, therefore, be in enacted by the People of the City of Sanford, Florida. Section 1. Legislative findings and intent. (a). The City Commission of the City of Sanford hereby adopts and incorporates into this Ordinance the City staff report and City Commission agenda memorandum relating to the application relating to the proposed rezoning of the subject property as well as the recitals (whereas clauses) to this Ordinance. (b). The approval set forth in this Ordinance is subject to the specific conditions that are set forth subsequently in this Ordinance and the property owner has agreed that no requirement herein lacks an essential nexus to a legitimate public purpose and is not roughly proportionate to the impacts of the proposed use that the City seeks to avoid, minimize, or mitigate. (c). The City of Sanford has complied with all requirements and procedures of Florida law in processing and advertising this Ordinance. (d). This Ordinance is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sanford. Section 2. Rezoning of real property/implementing actions; the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD. (a), Upon enactment of this Ordinance the subject property, as depicted in the map attached to this Ordinance shall be rezoned to the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD. (b). The City Manager, or designee, is hereby authorized to execute any documents necessary to formalize approval of the rezoning action taken herein with regard to the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD and to revise and amend the Official Zoning Map or Maps of the City of Sanford as may be appropriate to accomplish the action taken in this Ordinance and as set forth herein. (c). The conditions to be incorporated into the pertinent development order relating to the action taken in this Ordinance include the following: (1). Pursuant to Section 4.3.G of the City's LDRs, this rezoning shall expire 3 years from the effective date of this Ordinance if all improvements have not been completed or an extension granted. (2). Unless specifically requested and approved on the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD, any required elements missing from or not shown on the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD shall comply with the City's LDRs. 14� (3). The Vistas at Lake Monroe PD property shall be developed generally in accordance with the land uses and development standards identified on the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD Master Plan, revision dated May 20, 2021, as modified by conditions imposed and agreed to at the September 13, 2021 public hearing, unless otherwise specifically set forth in any associated development agreement or order; provided, however, that all subsequent development agreement and orders shall be consistent with the provisions of this Ordinance unless the PD is revised to create a new PD zoning district/classification with required development standards and terms and conditions.. (4). New development on the subject real property shall be served by adequate parking resources which shall include, but not be limited to, off-street parking sufficient to serve each proposed new development either on site or through the provision of a shared parking agreement as approved by the City Attorney with regard to a site approved by the Administrative Official based upon reasonable proximity and sound and generally accepted planning and land development principals relating to pedestrian traffic. If off-street parking cannot be reasonably accommodated on-site as determined by the Administrative Official based upon reasonable proximity and sound and generally accepted planning and land development principals, the property owner shall contribute a sum equivalent to the development costs of each parking space not provided, as determined by the Administrative Official, which funds shall be deposited into to a special parking trust fund of the City which trust fund shall be used only for purposes of purchasing land and contributing to strategically located parking facilities which benefit the subject property (5). All outdoor improvements and uses including, but not limited to, tables, chairs and decor shall be compatible with the sidewalk cafe standards provided in Section 20 of Schedule "E" of the City's LDR (6). The final design and location of all driveways and access points including, but not limited to, cross access locations, shall be proposed within and shall be subject to City approval during, the development plan review and approval process. (7). A decorative and functional fountain shall be installed in all wet retention ponds as part of development approval which approval shall provide for ongoing maintenance requirements and responsibilities upon the appropriate party, but not the City. (8). A dog walk area with waste collection receptacles shall be provided as determined by the City for use by residents of the development. (9). A comprehensive signage program meeting the standards of the City's LDRs, shall be required for the entire development including, but not limited to, the commercial and multiple family residential uses. (10). Unless specifically requested and approved on the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD Master Plan or the associated PD development 161 P$: agreement, all development shall comply with: (a). The site design and architecture and finishes of the proposed structures shall meet the requirements of Schedule "U", Section G. General Block Standards, including figures I and J of the City's LDRs. (b). Lighting and pedestrian amenities shall be included to improve the overall image of the pedestrian network. (11). A comprehensive landscape design, including landscape and hardscape elements shall be provided to complement the existing streetscape improvements and the urban form of the Midtown Overlay zoning district/classification. The comprehensive landscape design shall incorporate landscape/hardscape elements to screen the parking area and any mechanical equipment/appurtenances from the public right of way. (12). Covered parking structures or storage units shall be provided consistent with the requirements of Schedule "E", Section 16.0, of the City' LDRs. (13). A developed recreational facility/amenity such as a swimming pool, fitness center, or the like, shall be constructed by the Property Owner (applied at the rate of 100 square feet per dwelling unit). A pedestrian trail, lawn area, park, etc., as identified in Note 15 of the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD Master Plan shall not be acceptable to meet this condition. (14). The maximum density of the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD shall bee 25.89 dwelling units per acre with a maximum of 80 dwelling units. 17 1 (15). No vertical improvements will be permitted within the setback of 20' located along East Seminole Boulevard. (16). Site plan approval of the subject Vistas at Lake Monroe PD development shall be vested in the City Commission including, but not limited to, architecturally related matters, with the Property Owner having the right to present at least 3 architectural designs to the City Commission at the meeting at which the site plan approval is considered. (17). If City staff and the property owner are unable to agree to the details of this Ordinance or the associated PD development agreement in any way, the matter will be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission for resolution at a public hearing and the matter will be adjudicated by means of a development order or denial development order relating thereto. (18). In agreeing to the above conditions in the subsequent PD development agreement, the property owner will agree that, in accordance with the provisions of Section 70.45, Florida Statutes, pertaining to governmental exactions, the City has not imposed any prohibited exaction. The term "prohibited exaction" is defined by that statute to mean "... any condition imposed by a governmental entity on a property owner's proposed use of real property that lacks an essential nexus to a legitimate public purpose and is not roughly proportionate to the impacts of the proposed use that the governmental entity seeks to avoid, minimize, or 181 mitigate." 19 1 P Section 3. Incorporation of map and Vistas at Lake Monroe PD Master Plan for the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD. The map attached to this Ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed and incorporated into this Ordinance as a substantive part of this Ordinance establishing the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD. Section 4. Conflicts. All ordinances or part of ordinances in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 5. Severability. If any section, sentence, phrase, word, or portion of this Ordinance is determined to be invalid, unlawful or unconstitutional, said determination shall not be held to invalidate or impair the validity, force or effect of any other section, sentence, phrase, word, or portion of this Ordinance not otherwise determined to be invalid, unlawful, or unconstitutional. Section 6. Non -codification; Implementation. (a). This Ordinance shall not be codified in the City Code of the City of Sanford or the City's LDRs; provided, however, that the actions taken herein shall be depicted on the zoning maps of the City of Sanford by the City Manager, or designee. (b). The City Manager, or designee, shall implement the provisions of this Ordinance by means of a non -statutory development agreement which shall be executed by the property owner, or their successor(s) in interest within 60 days of the effective date 201" of this Ordinance or the subject property's zoning classification shall revert to an un -zoned property status. (c). The non -statutory development agreement referenced in Subsection (b).of this Section shall be and constitute a development order and shall not create contractual rights of the property owner against the City nor contractual obligations of the City to the property owner and, to that end, the property owner shall have no contractual rights or remedies against the City with regard to any land use action of the City. (d). The City has not waived any rights or remedies by taken the action set forth herein or in the implementing development agreement and any successive development orders and reserves any and all rights and remedies available to the City under controlling law including, but not limited to, the protections under the laws pertaining to sovereign immunity. Attest: Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon enactment. Passed and adopted this 13th day of September, 2021. City Commission of Sanford, FIprlda_ , &,UfoA&J0_r(wuye,R?a� Traci Houchin MMC, FCRM ..9 ff h� ((I �+ City Clerk ) ��,.{�,� Approved as to form and legal sufficiencyd William L. Colbert, City Attorney e City of 2111 : PROJECT INFORMATION -- 'I 100 E. I sT STREET REZONE FROM RMOI, MULTWAMILY RESIDENTIALr0FFICE- INSTI'1"UTIONAL To PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Requested Action: Rezone approximately 3.06 acres from RMOI, Multi -Family Residential -Office - Institutional to PD, Planned Development to establish the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD, a proposed 100 -unit multiple family residential development with a project address of 1100 E. 1St Street Existing Uses: Single Family Residential and One-story office Project Address: 1100 E. 1St Street Current Zoning: RMOI, Multi -Family Residential -Office -Institutional Tax Parcel Numbers: 30-19-31-506-0100-0010, 30-19-31-506-0100-0020 and 30-19-31-506-0100-0040 Site Area: 3.06 acres Property Owner: Paul V. Mellini, Successor Trustee 201 W. 1St Street Sanford, Florida 32771 Applicant/Agent: Nicole Martin Madden, Moorhead & Stokes, LLC 431 E. Horatio Avenue, Ste. 260 Maitland, Florida 32751 Engineer: Chad Moorhead, P.E. Madden, Moorhead & Stokes, LLC 431 E. Horatio Avenue, Ste. 260 Maitland, Florida 32751 CAPP Meeting: A CAPP notification letter and conceptual site plan were sent to all property owners within a 500 -foot buffer on December 14, 2020. A CAPP summary is attached. Commission District: District 1— Commissioner Sheena Britton COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE REVIEW Planning staff has reviewed the request and has determined the use and proposed improvements to be consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Future Land Use: WDBD, Waterfront Downtown Business District Existing Land Use: Single Family Residential and One-story office Surrounding Uses and Zoning: Uses Zoning North Lake Monroe Lake Monroe South Seminole County Services Building RMOI, Multi -Family Residential/Office/Institutional East Single -Family Residential and Vacant SRl-AA, Single Family Residential and RMOI, Multi -Family Residential/Office/Institutional Page 1 of 2 West ETHNOS 360 residential building and Old RMOI, Multi -Family Residential/Office/Institutional May Fair Inn Hotel CONCURRENCY Concurrency is a finding that public facilities and services necessary to support a proposed development are available, or will be made available, concurrent with the impacts of the development. The concurrency facilities evaluated by the City of Sanford include the following: Drainage: The stormwater system will be designed to meet City and SJRWMD standards. Roadways: The average daily trips estimated for the overall project is 543 trips with 44 PM peak hour trips. A traffic impact analysis was completed April 2021. Water: Water services will be provided by the City of Sanford. Sewer: Sewer services will be provided by the City of Sanford. LOS Standard Proposed Overall Demand Facility Capacity** Potable Water: 144 gal/capita/day 35,000 gals/day* 9.02 MGD (CUP Capacity) Sanitary Sewer: 132 gal/capita/day 30,000 gals/day* 9.3 MGD Solid Waste: 2.46 lbs/capita/day 647 lbs/day* 21.5 million tons The City's Utility Department tracks water and wastewater capacities for all projects once a Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) permit has been obtained. The available capacity for a proposed project is verified but will not be reserved until a FDEP permit is obtained. Below is a breakdown provided by the City of Sanford Utility Department for current usage within the City: Potable Water Sanitary Sewer Recorded 3 -month Average daily flow: - 7.08 MGD Recorded 12 -month Average daily flow: 7.56 MGD - Projects with FDEP permits (not in service): 0.78 MGD 1.044 MGD ** As provided by the City of Sanford's Utility Department. (CUP — Consumptive Use Permit) Additional information related to water supply provided by the City of Sanford's Utility Department is attached. T:\Development Rcview\03-Land Development\2021\1100 E 1 st Street - PD Rewne\August 9 - CC\Project Info Sheet. 1100 E. 1 st Strcet.doc Page 2 of 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Appendix A Preliminary Site Plan Appendix B Approved Methodology Appendix C 2021 Seminole County Roadway Concurrency Information and Comprehensive Plan Exhibits 17& 18 Appendix D AADT and Growth Rate Calculation Spreadsheets Appendix E Raw Turning Movement Counts and FDOT Seasonal Factors Appendix F HCM Analysis — Existing Conditions and Signal Timing Sheets Appendix G ITE Trip Generation Sheets Appendix H OUATS Model Output Appendix I Projected Intersection Volume Calculation Worksheets Appendix J HCM Analysis — Projected Conditions Appendix K Turn Lane Warrant Analyses Vistas Lake Monroe Apartments Tim& Traffic Impact Analysis Traffic &Mobility ConsultantsProject IVs 21044 Table of Contents i Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS............................................................................. 4 2.1 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis.......................................................................... 4 2.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis..................................................................................... 6 3.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC....................................................................................................... 8 3.1 Trip Generation............................................................................................................ 8 3.2 Trip Distribution............................................................................................................ 8 4.0 PROJECTED CONDITIONS ANALYSIS .......................................................................10 4.1 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis.........................................................................10 4.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis....................................................................................12 5.0 ACCESS ANALYSIS.....................................................................................................14 6.0 STUDY CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................15 APPENDICES...........................................................................................................................16 Appendix A Preliminary Site Plan Appendix B Approved Methodology Appendix C 2021 Seminole County Roadway Concurrency Information and Comprehensive Plan Exhibits 17& 18 Appendix D AADT and Growth Rate Calculation Spreadsheets Appendix E Raw Turning Movement Counts and FDOT Seasonal Factors Appendix F HCM Analysis — Existing Conditions and Signal Timing Sheets Appendix G ITE Trip Generation Sheets Appendix H OUATS Model Output Appendix I Projected Intersection Volume Calculation Worksheets Appendix J HCM Analysis — Projected Conditions Appendix K Turn Lane Warrant Analyses Vistas Lake Monroe Apartments Tim& Traffic Impact Analysis Traffic &Mobility ConsultantsProject IVs 21044 Table of Contents i LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Existing Roadway Capacity Analysis............................................................................ 5 Table 2 Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis........................................................................ 6 Table 3 Trip Generation Analysis.............................................................................................. 8 Table 4 Projected Roadway Capacity Analysis........................................................................10 Table 5 Projected Intersection Capacity Analysis.....................................................................12 LIST OF FIGURES Figure1 Site Location Map....................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2 Existing Peak Hour Intersection Volumes.................................................................... 7 Figure 3 Project Trip Distribution............................................................................................... 9 Figure 4 Projected Peak Hour Intersection Volumes................................................................13 Vistas Lake Monroe Apartments TACC-vTraffic Impact Analysis Project l2 21044 Traffic & Mobility Consultants Table of Contents ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION The following Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was conducted to assess the impact of the proposed residential development of Vistas Lake Monroe Apartments on the surrounding transportation network. The project consists of 100 apartment units with an anticipated buildout year of 2022. The site is located at the southwest comer of the intersection of North Mellonville Avenue and East Seminole Boulevard in the City of Sanford, Florida. Figure 1 depicts the site location and the surrounding transportation network. Access to the site is proposed via one (1) full access driveway on East 1st Street. Access on E Seminole Boulevard is limited to emergency use only. A preliminary site plan is included in Appendix A. The analysis was prepared in accordance with the approved methodology submitted to the City of Sanford and provided in Appendix B. Data used in the analysis consisted of the preliminary site plan provided by the project engineers, AM and PM peak hour intersection traffic counts collected by Traffic & Mobility Consultants (TMC), Seminole County Summary of Roadway Concurrency Information report, and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) information. Vistas Lake Monroe Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis Project Ns 21044 Traffic & Mobility Consultants Page 1 d`v,S w h s m1 o/; f u n k N Nat to Suilc 17 SITE W 1st St E 1st St a E 2nd S! ^ '^ z a. 1'd 3rd SC5 E 3fd 5t [ 'd St E 2nd St E2nd st c s 17 E 41h St 0 a °' E 4th St Yui ;th st E 5th St 0 >h Uth St E 6th St z IN 8th 5t to E 8th St E 8th St v a> W 9th St � a �, ° E 9th St c Ln ° E E 10th St yE 11th St ey Haven Ur Adoncia M ford in `�° a1s eleryAve 415 �, a1 4ts Celery Ave C W 13th St E 13th St a m 14th St v o ' +� V y d U1 t n ° ° lumosa Dr Panany Sen' m` Valencia St SITE- ......._._. 1st Dr.-.._.... ro Tury Ln d o Escambia Dr p� ' a Ave Sty r Catalina Dr '" Whyneld Dr E 20th St r k > - TmW s Msb®ry The analysis considers the project's impact on the following roadway segments and intersections within the project's primary influence area: Study Roadways: • 1St Street o French Avenue/US 17-92 to Park Avenue o Park Avenue to Sanford Avenue o Sanford Avenue to Mellonville Avenue • CR 415 o Sanford Avenue to Mellonville Avenue • French Avenue (US 17-92) o CR 415 to Seminole Boulevard • Mellonville Avenue o SR 46 to CR 415 o CR 415 to Seminole Boulevard • Sanford Avenue o CR 415 to Seminole Boulevard Study Intersections: • CR 415 (Celery Avenue) and Mellonville Avenue (Signalized) • CR 415 (Celery Avenue) and Sanford Avenue (Signalized) • East 1 st Street and Site Access (Proposed) Traffic a Mobility Consultants Vistas Lake Monroe Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis Project Ns 21044 Page 3 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS Existing conditions were analyzed to establish a baseline for prevailing traffic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed residential development. The analysis included a review of existing roadway segment and intersection capacities. 2.1 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis Existing roadway conditions were analyzed by comparing existing annual average daily traffic (AADT) within the study area to level of service (LOS) volumes and capacities for the study roadway segments as obtained from 2021 Seminole County Roadway Concurrency Information and generalized maximum service volumes documented in Seminole County Comprehensive Plan Exhibits 17 & 18, included in Appendix C. AADT volumes obtained from FDOT Florida Traffic Online (FTO) website and Seminole County Traffic Counts Map were grown using an annual growth rate to reflect 2021 conditions. A minimum of 2% annual growth rate was applied to roadway segments for which minimal or no growth was detected. AADT and growth rate calculation spreadsheets are included in Appendix D. Table 1 summarizes the roadway segment capacity analysis. Vistas Lake Monroe Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis Project Ns 21044 Traffic a Mobility Consultants Page 4 Table 1 Existing Roadway Capacity Analysis 1 st St* French Ave/US 17-92 to Park Ave 001 2 19,360 6,631 2.00% 12,596 6,764 A Park Ave to Sanford Ave 001 2 19,360 6,631 2.00% 12,596 6,764 A Sanford Ave to Mellonville Ave 001 2 19,360 6,631 2.00% 12,596 6,764 A CR 415** Sanford Ave to Mellonville Ave C4154 1 2 19,360 6,458 6.26% 12,902 1 6,458 1 A French Ave (US 17-92)*** CR 415 to Seminole Blvd 770245 1 4 48,000 23,500 2.00% 23,560 24,440 B Mellonville Ave** SR 46 to CR 415 MLV10 2 19,360 5,399 2.51% 13,961 5,399 A CR 415 to Seminole Blvd MLV50 2 19,360 5,202 2.51% 14,158 5,202 A Sanford Ave* CR 415 to Seminole Blvd 1 378 1 2 19,360 6,077 2.00% 13,161 1 6,199 1 A Source: FTO, 2021 Seminole County Roadway Concurrency Information Report, and Comprehensive Plan Exhibits 178 18 '2020 AADTs were obtained from Seminole County Traffic Counts Map "2021 AADTs were obtained from Seminole County Roadwey Concurrency Information report -2019 AADTs were obtained from FTO As shown in Table 1, the analysis indicates that all the study roadway segments currently operate at an adequate LOS. Vistas Lake Monroe Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis Project Ns 21044 rroffi< a Mobility consultants Page 5 2.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis An intersection analysis was conducted using Synchro software and methods of the Highway Capacity Manual, 6" Edition (HCM). The analysis was performed using existing intersection geometry, existing intersection control, and turning volumes during the AM and PM peak hours. Intersection turning volumes were collected during the AM and PM peak hours on March 11, 2021. Traffic volumes were collected during the peak season; therefore, the intersection turning volumes were not adjusted. The seasonal factors were obtained from the FDOT FTO website. The raw turning movement counts and the FDOT seasonal factors used in the analysis are included in Appendix E. The existing AM and PM peak hour intersection volumes are displayed in Figure 2. A summary of the intersection capacity analysis is presented in Table 2. Detailed HCM analysis worksheets and signal timing sheets are included in Appendix F. Table 2 Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis Delay epressed in secondVvehicle Worst movement delay reported at TWSC intersections The analysis reveals that the study intersections currently operate adequately at an acceptable overall LOS during the AM and PM peak periods. Vistas Lake Monroe Apartments Al TA&!C"" Traffic Impact Analysis Trac a Mobility Consultants Project Ns 21 ffi6 Pagee 6 AM Peak PM Peak N r— /c N noa to Salo 3.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC 3.1 Trip Generation A trip generation of the proposed development was calculated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. The resulting trip generation analysis is summarized in Table 3. The ITE information sheets are provided in Appendix G. Table 3 Trip Generation Analysis Source: Trip generation analysis based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition ITE regression equations are used when R -squared is greater than 0.75 or number of studies z20 The proposed development is projected to generate 543 daily trips, of which 36 trips occur during the AM peak hour, and 44 trips occur during the PM peak hour. 3.2 Trip Distribution A trip distribution pattern was estimated using Orlando Urban Area Transportation Study (OUATS) model. The model distribution was adjusted based on local knowledge, professional engineering judgement, and the location of the development with respect to the study area attractions and activity centers to better reflect prevailing travel patterns in the study area. The adjusted trip distribution is presented in Figure 3. The raw model plots are included in Appendix H. ML Tm a Vistas Lake Monroe Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis Traffic & Mobility Consultants Project Ns 210"8 Pagee8 W Serni,,,/, lid r 107 a SITE W 1st 55%0 E 1st st E 2nd St IN 3rd 51 F 3rn' St �rin St E 2nd St E 2nd St .1 E 4th 5t W 5th St E 5th St -9 4 W 6th St o E 6th St .0 U) LL W 8th stE ,U J10% 8th St E 8th St < W 9th St w 0 E 9th St > 25% E E 10th St < Ln E 11th St Key Haven Dr Adoncla W > < R m CS W 13th E 13th st > Celery Ave (10% A 415] Celery Ave [4 ,ma Cir E 14th St , iT 0 Z; > < w 15th St v1 Plumosa Dr LA z 0 PanaN a: sen, 25% W 16th St Valencia St :a Y . .......... 15t Dr tA > E 18th stD Escambia Or ( 0 E 1901 St a Ave Vayridd or > LA Catalina Dr LA W 20th St W u E 20th St > LA :1 kA le < - C1 scum st kS 4.0 PROJECTED CONDITIONS ANALYSIS An analysis of projected conditions was conducted to determine the impact of the proposed residential development on the study roadway segments, the study intersections, and the site access driveway. The project buildout year for the analysis is 2022. 4.1 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis Projected traffic volumes on the study roadway segments are composed of the existing AADT, committed trips, and the project trips. Committed trips were obtained from 2021 Seminole County Roadway Concurrency Information report included in Appendix C. The project trips were assigned to the study roadway segments based on the project's trip generation and trip distribution pattern. Projected roadway conditions were analyzed by comparing the projected traffic volumes on the study roadway segments to their capacities and service volumes. Table 4 summarizes the projected roadway segment capacity analysis at the project buildout. Table 4 Projected Roadway Capacity Analysis Source: 2021 Seminole countys Hoaowey concurrency miormaaon Reporr & comprehensive Fran cxrnons r ra ro *2020 AADTs were obtained from Seminole County Traffic Counts Map **2021 AADTs were obtained from Seminole County Roadwey Concurrency Information report —2019 AADTs were obtained from FTO Vistas Lake Monroe Apartments Tm�cTraffic Impact Analysis Project Ns 21044 Trofiic i Mobility Consoltonts Page 10 MEN` .. o ® e • 1 st St* French Ave/US 17-92 to Park Ave 001 19,360 6,764 55% 299 7,063 A Park Ave to Sanford Ave 001 19,360 6,764 60% 326 7,090 A Sanford Ave to Mellonville Ave 001 19,360 6,764 70% 380 7,144 A CR 415** Sanford Ave to Mellonville Ave C4154 19,360 6,458 1 10% 1 54 1 6,512 A French Ave (US 17-92)*** CR 415 to Seminole Blvd 770245 48,000 24,440 1 25% 1 136 24,576 B Mellonville Ave** SR 46 to CR 415 MLV10 19,360 5,399 1 15% 1 81 1 5,480 A CR 415 to Seminole Blvd MLV50 19,360 5,202 1 30% 1 163 1 5,365 1 A Sanford Ave* CR 415 to Seminole Blvd 378 19,360 6,199 1 20% 1 109 1 6,308T A Source: 2021 Seminole countys Hoaowey concurrency miormaaon Reporr & comprehensive Fran cxrnons r ra ro *2020 AADTs were obtained from Seminole County Traffic Counts Map **2021 AADTs were obtained from Seminole County Roadwey Concurrency Information report —2019 AADTs were obtained from FTO Vistas Lake Monroe Apartments Tm�cTraffic Impact Analysis Project Ns 21044 Trofiic i Mobility Consoltonts Page 10 As presented in Table 4, the study roadway segments will continue to operate adequately at the project buildout. TM&v Traffic & Mobility Consultants Vistas Lake Monroe Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis Project 12 21044 Page 11 4.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis Projected intersection turning volumes were computed by adding the project trips and the corresponding committed trips, if available, to the existing turning volumes. Projected AM and PM peak hour intersection volume calculation sheets are provided in Appendix 1. Projected intersection volumes for the study intersections are shown in Figure 4. Table 5 presents results of the intersection capacity analysis under projected conditions. Detailed HCM analysis worksheets are included in Appendix J. Table 5 Projected Intersection Capacity Analysis Delay expressed in seconds/vehicle Worst movement delay reported at TWSC intersections The analysis indicates that the study intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS during the AM and PM peak hours at the project buildout. Vistas Lake Monroe Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis Project Ns 21044 Traffic d Mobility Consultonts Page 12 AM Peak 0 0) I^ M N t - U')129 I 104+(1)=105 237+(3)=240 U' ,�� T - y L>58 N� CO CO II II r 'Ct M C0 d r r Q 'O L O w C m Col PM Peak CO �r N I I N CD O N r 1E 117 269+(2)=271 T r 00r NCm N u n M_M + + L(7 Op N N L O Legend: Existing + (Project) = Total SITE rn r � � (3) tJ Li F 62 (6)—f 44-> SITE N r-. (8) EJ L-> F 54 (19)--T 134—> c0 o r ti0)CO � u u I^ 130+(1)=131 CO 00 � E- 389 � 4 T90 24+(1)=25--f < T 171 NC)CO r d CO � CO � r 0)o CD cD M N t - � I I 1^ + 104+(1)=105 E-321 U' ,�� - y L>58 35+(3)=38--t T F> 435 N o 31--- CD 1-d Q CO CNr C� L k Not oStyle 5.0 ACCESS ANALYSIS The residential development will be accessed via one (1) full access driveway on East 1 st Street, which is a two-lane undivided roadway with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. A review of warrants for left and right deceleration lanes were conducted for the proposed access driveway on East 1 st Street in accordance with National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 457s methodology to ensure smooth traffic flow and to maintain capacity on E 1 st Street during peak hours. The required turn lane lengths, if warranted, were calculated based on the sum of deceleration and queue storage lengths per Exhibit 212-1 of FDOT Design Manual (FDM). Left Turn Deceleration Lane The warrant analysis result shows that an eastbound left turn lane is not warranted. The left turn lane warrant analysis sheet is included in Appendix K. Right Turn Deceleration Lane The warrant analysis result shows that a westbound right turn lane is not warranted. The right turn lane warrant analysis sheet is included in Appendix K. i Vistas Lake Monroe Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis Project Ns 21044 Traffic & Mobility Consultants Page 14 6.0 STUDY CONCLUSIONS This TIA was conducted to assess the impact of the proposed residential development of Vistas Lake Monroe Apartments. The site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of North Mellonville Avenue and East Seminole Boulevard in the City of Sanford, Florida. The proposed project consists of 100 apartment dwelling units with a buildout year of 2022. The analysis evaluated the proposed development's impact on roadway segments and intersections within the project's influence area and included a preliminary access review. The results of the analysis as documented herein are summarized below: • The proposed development is projected to generate 543 daily trips, of which 36 trips occur during the AM peak hour, and 44 trips occur during the PM peak hour. • The roadway segments capacity analysis indicates that the study roadway segments currently operate at an acceptable LOS and will continue to do so at the project buildout. • The intersection capacity analysis shows that the study intersections currently operate adequately during the AM and PM peak periods and will continue to do so under projected conditions. • The site access driveway will operate at an acceptable LOS. Vistas Lake Monroe Apartments TA&!L"�Traffic Impact Analysis Project Ns 21044 Traffic 8 Mobility Consultants Page 15 APPENDICES Appendix A Preliminary Site Plan Q i X51 �IOHN ni :q?If/1 d Sb'1SI% .�eacrtaa uwmaw I o Wb4 I s z til Y^ mf Oil •30" 33WI IV SVatA NV -Id U@iSdW p E Ga �3g g� i 3 Y 8 2 t� ge j1 b d a a BBB 3 3 c m �� $ n �� (-•......._....-..._,.„.,__...� S� � $E �$ r_•� $ B 3E a o M o d i @ � $ e o�. R 1£ �E td S �� 6 m �'�{(d � � i 5 5�5 �� p � a e5 a @"� Ei -e8„sy � a7� .gib ��•a& s p��1� a� Fm��a � � @�'� G� € �� r g � a �� ga ., �__'_' �t ��c �� °•�`E as ii s 15� � � ��F orf +w n n •w w w I ! m _ 3Atl 3T1b1NOT13W N ZCNEx j I Lu W I gg Z d �O Y S L l 9i I I w g e G •E 4 7 8 ze s HR aid 34 •4{ p E Ga �3g g� i 3 Y 8 2 t� ge j1 b d a a BBB 3 3 c m �� $ n �� (-•......._....-..._,.„.,__...� S� � $E �$ r_•� $ B 3E a o M o d i @ � $ e o�. R 1£ �E td S �� 6 m �'�{(d � � i 5 5�5 �� p � a e5 a @"� Ei -e8„sy � a7� .gib ��•a& s p��1� a� Fm��a � � @�'� G� € �� r g � a �� ga ., �__'_' �t ��c �� °•�`E as ii s 15� � � ��F orf +w n n •w w w I ! m _ 3Atl 3T1b1NOT13W N ZCNEx j I Lu W I gg Z d �O Y S L l 9i I I w g e e •4{ CA I„ ��UJ ! 33 LL3 4EI4 Appendix B Approved Methodology >�M 141 Traffic & Mobility Consultants MEMORANDUM March 10, 2021 Re: Vistas Lake Monroe Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis Methodology City of Sanford, Florida Project No 21044 The following is a methodology outline for a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the above referenced project. The methodology will conform to the requirements and guidelines issued by the City of Sanford, Florida. Proiect Description The proposed project is a residential development of 100 multifamily apartments with an anticipated buildout year of 2022. A copy of the preliminary site plan is provided in the Attachments. Project Location The +/- 3.09 -acre site is located south of E Seminole Boulevard, north of E 1St Street, and west of N Mellonville Avenue in the City of Sanford, Florida, as shown in Figure 1. Project Access Access to the site is proposed via two (2) full access driveways; one (1) on E Seminole Boulevard and one (1) on E 1 s` Street. 3101 Maguire Boulevard, Suite 265, Orlando, Florida 32803 w P:(407)531-5332 m F:(407)531-5331 a www.trafficmability.com W $ef►71 3�yG ho% elVa 17 SITE W1st st E1stSt ` r E 2nd Si n v' Z 7 Z W 3rd St E 3rd St E na St c E 2nd St E2nd ;t s 17 E 4th St d Q m E 4th St W 5th St E 5th St c 0 w GO st E 6th St z W 8th 5t > E 8th S E 8th St m z Q ¢ W 9th St ca t E 9th St C ° E E 10th St 1A v ° r °' < M E 11th $t Ke Haven Dr Y Adonda M ro ro ford J `D a1s Celery Ave 41s ats a1s Celery Ave C W 13th St E 13th St rn = �nta Cir r 14th Sr m o o s ¢ � L m z rs LL c N Seminole' ilumosa Dr Panany Valencia St SITE--- ._........- 15t Dr...--.. lorry to 0. ro d o Escambia Dr pt '. 3�� a Ave r 3 � � rr.3yrirld or Catalina Dr'" Ln L 201h St ' — Q > J d South sz :! Vistas Lake Monroe Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis Methodology Project Ns 21044 March 09, 2021 Page 3 of 7 Trip Generation A trip generation analysis was conducted using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Table 1 summarizes the resulting trip generation analysis. The detailed ITE trip generation information sheets are included in the Attachments. Table 1 Trip Generation Analysis Source: Trip generation analysis based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition ITE regression equations are used when R -squared is greater than 0.75 or there are Z 20 studies As shown in Table 1, the proposed development is projected to generate 543 daily trips, of which 36 occur during the AM peak hour, and 44 trips occur during PM peak hour. Since the proposed development is projected to generate more than 500 daily trips, a TIA is required. Trip Distribution A trip distribution pattern was estimated using Orlando Urban Area Transportation Study (OUATS) model. The model distribution was slightly adjusted based on local knowledge, professional engineering judgement, and the location of the development with respect to the study area attractions and activity centers to reflect prevailing travel patterns in the vicinity of the site and the surrounding transportation network. The raw model plots are provided in the Attachments, and the adjusted trip distribution is shown in Figure 2. W 5emloole 5% dm `,. a' 17 a 5% 25% W 1st 55% E(60% 70% E 1st st SITE ° � n 25% E Ind St z z s 25% z � W 3rd Sc F 3rd St E 2nd St E 2nd St E2nd St 4 E 4th St Vd 5th St m E 5th St a' Q W 6th St E 6th St u m z C f° m LL W 8th 5t .n E 8th St E 8th St 2 W 9th St � ° E 9th St 25% t^ E E tarn St 25% y ro °i < a E 11th 5t Key Haven Ur Adoncia W Ifo d n to 415 fs 5% St ? Vistas Lake Monroe Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis Methodology Project NQ 21044 March 09, 2021 Page 5 of 7 Study Area The study area will encompass roadway segments impacted by more than 10% of project traffic or 500 daily trips (whichever is greater). Table 2 presents the roadway segments within the study area. Data obtained from Seminole County Summary of Roadway Concurrency Information report is included in the Attachments. Table 2 Study Area Roadway Segments 1st St US 17-92/French Ave to Park Ave -- 19,360 55% 299 1.5% YES Park Ave to Sanford Ave -- 19,360 60% 326 1.7% YES Sanford Ave to Mellonville Ave -- 19,360 70% 380 2.0% YES CR 415 US 17-92 to Park Ave C4152 19,360 5% 27 0.1% NO Park Ave to Sanford Ave 04153 19,360 5% 27 0.1% NO Sanford Ave to Mellonville Ave 04154 19,360 10% 54 0.3% YES Mellonville Ave to Sipes Ave C4156 19,360 5% 27 0.1% NO French Ave (US 17-92) CR 415 to Seminole Blvd -- 48,000 25% 136 0.3% YES Mellonville Ave SR 46 to CR 415 MLV10 19,360 10% 54 0.3% YES CR 415 to Seminole Blvd MLV50 19,360 25% 136 0.7% YES Park Ave CR 415 to Seminole Blvd -- 19,360 5% 27 0.1% NO Sanford Ave CR 415 to Seminole Blvd -- 19,360 20% 109 0.6% YES Seminole Blvd US 17-92 to Mellonville Ave SEB00 19,360 5% 27 0.1% NO Source: Seminole County Summary of Road iey Concurrency Information & Comprehensive Plan Exhibits 17 & 18 Vistas Lake Monroe Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis Methodology Project NQ 21044 March 09, 2021 Page 6 of 7 Therefore, the following roadway segments will be analyzed as part of the study: • 1 st Street o From French Avenue/US 17-92 to Park Avenue o From Park Avenue to Sanford Avenue o From Sanford Avenue to Mellonville Avenue • CR 415 o From Sanford Avenue to Mellonville Avenue • French Avenue (US 17-92) o From CR 415 to Seminole Boulevard • Mellonville Avenue o From SR 46 to CR 415 o From CR 415 to Seminole Boulevard • Sanford Avenue o From CR 415 to Seminole Boulevard Also, the following intersections will be analyzed as part of the study: • CR 415 (Celery Avenue) and Mellonville Avenue (Signalized) • CR 415 (Celery Avenue) and Sanford Avenue (Signalized) • E Seminole Boulevard and Site Access (Proposed) • E 111 Street and Site Access (Proposed) Capacity Analysis A capacity analysis of the study roadway segments will be conducted for the PM peak hour under existing and projected conditions. Projected traffic includes existing and committed traffic, as documented in the Seminole County Summary of Roadway Concurrency Information report provided in the Attachments. The roadway segment analysis will be based on generalized maximum service volumes as documented in Seminole County Comprehensive Plan Exhibits 17 & 18 included in the Attachments. A capacity analysis of intersections will be conducted for both AM and PM peak hours under existing and projected conditions using methods of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 6th Edition. The intersections analysis will be based on field turning movement counts and projected traffic. Planned and Programmed Improvements Planned and programmed improvements that may be available from the Seminole County Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the FDOT Work Program for any of the study segments will be utilized, if applicable. Vistas Lake Monroe Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis Methodology Project N2 21044 March 09, 2021 Page 7 of 7 Report A TIA report detailing the methods and findings of the study, including all associated graphics, tables, calculations, and supporting information, will be prepared for submittal to the City of Sanford. Seminole County Public Schools School Impact Analysis School Capacity Determination (Non -Binding) To: Richard Shassian * 407-257-7334 * miguel(cDcentralparcgroup.com Nicole Martin * 407-629-8330 * nicole(Dmadden-eng.com Amye King/Jordan Smith — City of Sanford From: Richard LeBlanc, AIA, Director, Facilities Planning, Seminole County Public Schools Date: February 4, 2021 RE: SIA Vistas at Lake Monroe Seminole County Public Schools (SCPS), in reviewing the above request, has determined that if approved, the new FLUM designation and/or zoning will have the effect of increasing residential density, and as a result generate additional school age children. Description: Proposed Rezone from WDBD/RMOI to WDBD/PD of +/-3.01 acres generally located at 1100 1 ST Street within the jurisdiction of the City of Sanford, FL. The applicant is requesting a change to the FLU and zoning designations to allow a maximum of 100 Multi -Family residential units, to be developed within the proposed land use and zoning designations. Parcel ID (s) #: 30-19-31-506-0100-0010, 30-19-31-506-0100-0020, 30-19-31-506-0100-0040 This review and evaluation is performed on proposed future land use changes and rezones, unplatted parcels, or projects that have not received final entitlement approval. This evaluation does not guarantee that the developments subject to this declaration are exempt from, or determined to meet the school concurrency requirements effective as of January 1, 2008. Changes in enrollment, capacity, any newly platted developments, and any subsequent final development approvals may affect the provision of concurrent school facilities at the point of final subdivision approval, including the potential of not meeting statutory concurrency requirements based on future conditions. Based on information received from the jurisdiction and the application for the request, SCPS staff has summarized the potential school enrollment impacts in the following tables: CSA Capacity DEVELOPMENT IMPACT ON STUDENT GENERATION BY CSA AFFECTED CSAs CSA E-10 CSA M-1 CSA H-1 CAPACITY 2,808 5,894 8,627 3 -YEAR PROGRAM CAPACITY - - 150 ENROLLMENT 2,057 4,875 7,724 AVAILABLE CAPACITY 751 1,019 1,053 SCALD RESERVATIONS TO DATE 389 1 435 566 SIA Vistas at Lake Monroe 16 6 8 REMAINING CAPACITY 346 578 ', 479 Comments CSA Evaluation: At this point, the students generated at the three CSA levels would be able to be accommodated without exceeding the adopted levels of service (LOS) for each CSA by school type, or there is adjacent capacity to meet LOS as allowed by interlocal agreement. Any planned expansions/additions in the current five-year capital plan would provide additional student capacity to relieve the affected schools is reflected in this review. https://scminoleschools.sharepoint.coni/sites/FacilitiesPlanning/Sbucd DocwncntsMew Directories/Planning/Development tracking/0 SIAs/SIA 2021/SIA Vistas at Lake Monroe/SIA Vistas at Lake Monroe/Notice - SIA Vistas at Lake Monroc.docx Zoned School Enrollment: For informational purposes, the below table indicates the analysis based on the individual school zones within the CSA under current conditions. At this point, the potential students generated would be able to be accommodated without exceeding the adopted Levels of Service (LOS) for the currently zoned school. Any planned expansions/additions that would provide additional student capacity contained in the current five-year capital plan and scheduled to be completed within the next three years are included in this review. ZONEDSCH001 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Region 3 Pinecrest Hamilton Midway CSA E-10 CAPACITY 908 794 1,106 2,808 3 -YEAR PROGRAM CAPACITY - - - - - ENROLLMENT 636 623 798 2,057 AVAILABLE CAPACITY - 272 171 308 751 SCALD RESERVATIONS TO DATE 389 - - - 389 SIA Vistas at Lake Monroe 16 35 1601 16 REMAINING CAPACITY 0 (405)[_; 272 171,C) 308 346 ZO N ED SCH001 MIDDLE SCHOOLS Markham Woods Greenwds Lakes Millennium Sanford CSA M-1 CAPACITY 1,260 1,266 1,743 1,625 5,894 3 -YEAR PROGRAM CAPACITY - - ENROLLMENT 4,303 - ENROLLMENT 1,051 998 1,403 1,423 4,875 AVAILABLE CAPACITY 209 268 340 202 1,019 SCALD RESERVATIONS TO DATE 681 35 1601 1721 435 SIA Vistas at Lake Monroe 6 - 6 REMAINING CAPACITY " 135 233 C, 180 30 578 1 ZONEDSCHOOL HIGH SCHOOLS Seminole Lake Mary Crooms CSA H-1 CAPACITY 4,868 2,948 811 8,627 3 -YEAR PROGRAM CAPACITY - - 150 150 ENROLLMENT 4,303 2,681 740 7,724 AVAILABLE CAPACITY 565 267 221 1,053 SCALD RESERVATIONS TO DATE 5491 171 566 SIA Vistas at Lake Monroe 8 8 REMAINING CAPACITY 8 k) 250 1 1) 479 Terms and Definitions: Capacity: The amount of satisfactory permanent student stations as calculated on the date of the second FDOE count in October of the current school year. The number of students that can be satisfactorily accommodated in a room at any given time and which, is typically a lesser percentage of the total number of student stations. NOTE: Capacity is ONLY a measure of student stations, not of enrollment. Concurrency Service Area (CSA): A geographic unit promulgated by the School Board and adopted by local governments within which the level of service is measured when an application for residential development is reviewed for school concurrency purposes. The CSA listed represents the area that the capacity is considered and student assignment may be in a CSA adjacent to the project. Enrollment: For the purposes of concurrency review, the enrollment level is established each year as per Public School Interlocal Agreement Section 12.4 A, which sets the level on the date of the second full time equivalent (FTE) survey for FDOE, generally taken in mid-October. Programmed 3 Year Additions: New permanent school capacity within the CSA, which will be in place or under actual construction within the first three years of the current SCPS Capital Improvement Plan. https://scminolcschools.shwepoint.com/sitc&/Facilitie Planning/Shued Doc=cnts/New Directories/Planning/Devclopment tracking/0 SIAs/SIA 2021/SIA Vistas at Lake Momoe/SIA Vistas at Lake Monroe/Notice - SIA Vistas at Lake Mome.docx Remaining Capacity: The capacity available for future development after the addition of any programmed capacity and less the reserved capacity. Reserved Capacity: The total number of student stations reserved in the respective CSA's that are assigned to projects via a SCALD certificate. School Size: For planning purposes, each public school district must determine the maximum size of future elementary, middle and high schools. Existing school size is determined solely through FISH data. Seminole County Public Schools has established the sizes of future schools (with the exception of special centers and magnet schools) as follows: i) Elementary: 780 student stations ii) Middle: 1500 student stations iii) High: 2,800 student stations School Attendance Zone: The established geographic area that identifies school assignments pursuant to Board Policy for each District school or region of schools, other than county wide magnet schools. Students shall attend the school(s) serving their residential or regional attendance zone unless otherwise permitted by Board Policy Students Generated by Project: is determined by applying the current SCPS student generation rate (calculated in the 2017 Impact Fee Study) to the number and type of units proposed. The number of units is determined using information provided by the jurisdiction and/or from the applicant's request. If no actual unit count is provided the unit count is then estimated based on the maximum allowable density under the existing/proposed future land use designation. Eventual Student assignment may not be to the school in closest proximity to the proposed residential development. Utilization: A State Board Rule prescribed percentage of student stations that a room (and proportionately, a school and school district) can satisfactorily accommodate at any given time. From a school/campus analysis perspective, "utilization" is determined as the percentage of school enrollment to capacity. Current DOE established K-12 utilization factors are as follows: Elementary 100%, Middle 90%, High 95% https://seminoleschools.sharepoint.com/sites/FacilitiesPlaeaing/Shared Do a ents/New Dircctories/Planniog/Development tracking/0 SIAs/S1A 2021/SIA Vistas at Lake Monroe/SIA Vistas at Lake Monroe/Notice - SLA Vistas at Lake Momoc.docx Schedule U Section 3.0 part F.5 for the Midtown Overlay, Transitional Residential Development 5. Transitional Residential Development. (Figures I and J) Transitional Development Blocks shall be applied to any development over two (2) stories in height that is adjacent to single-family residential zoning. The block facing a single-family residential zg n shall be single-family detached housing that is compatible with existing residential. The mid -block portion of the block may transition up to four (4) stories not to exceed fifty-six (56) feet with the following provisions: a. Setbacks. The setback shall be determined by the existing residential uses that are facing the proposed residential uses. The setback may be varied up to five (5) feet from the average of the existing residential units. The structures that are more intense than single-family housing shall follow the appropriate development block as detailed in these design standards. Explanation: The proposed building setback from the eastern property line is 100' in order to buffer from the existing residentially zoned properties east of Mellonville. We are also providing a 25' landscape buffer. b. Landscape buffer. A landscape buffer of twenty (20) feet may be required as determined by the Administrative Official or his designee. Explanation: We are providing a 25' landscape buffer adjacent to Mellonville and a 20' landscape buffer adjacent to E. Seminole Blvd. C. Lighting. The proposed development shall also control the effects of lights from automobiles or other sources. Where the site plan indicates potential adverse effects from parking or from other sources on the lot on which the non-residential use is to be located, such effects shall be illuminated, or at a minimum, prevented so that lights do not illuminate adjacent residential property below a height of five (5) feet at the residential property line, or from shining into any residential window if there is to be non-residential parking on the premises after dark. Explanation: Based on the layout of the site no headlights will affect the single family residences along Mellonville. d. Rear Yard Setback. When a non-residential use or multi -family (apartment) use is abutting any single-family residential property, there shall be an additional setback required for any yard of that use which is contiguous to the residential property, as follows: • When the rear side of a single story structure equal to or less than twenty- five (25) feet in height abuts single-family residential zoned property, that portion of the structure(s) shall be set back at a minimum twenty (20) feet from the rear property line. • When a single story structure equal to or less than twenty-five (25) feet in height abuts the side of a single-family residential zoned property, the structures shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet apart. • Trash receptacles and loading facilities may not be permitted in the rear of the property. Service areas shall be located on the side. Exceptions to the location shall be determined by the location of the adjacent single-family residential use. • When any side of a structure greater than one (1) story or twenty-five (25) feet in height abuts residential property, that portion of the structure shall be set back at a minimum of thirty (30) feet from the property boundary. • Building Design. The side of the building that is facing or backing up to any residential development must be treated with the same architectural design standards as the front of the building. Explanation: The site adheres to this section. Please note that site has frontage on first street and Seminole Blvd. The 100° building setback from Mellonville is above and beyond this requirement. h:\data\20067\cor\vistas mf standards responses 4-27-21.docx 201 WEST FIRST ST., SANFORD, FL 32771 407/321-7004 FAX 407/321-6509 April 6, 2021 Ms. Amye King, Director of Planning City of Sanford P.O. Box 1788 Sanford, FI 32772-1788 Re: Vistas at Lake Monroe- Proposed 100 Unit Project at 1105 Seminole Boulevard and 1100 East 1" Street in Sanford Dear Ms. King: I hope this letter finds you well. By way of introduction, my name is Paul Mellini, I am the President of Paulucci International and the Trustee for the Paulucci Family Trust and Estates. The Paulucci Family has been active in the Sanford area for many years and still retains an office on West 1s` Street. The purpose of my letter is to show our support for the proposed Vistas at Lake Monroe project. Mr. Paulucci always believed in a vibrant downtown where residents would support local businesses. The proposed housing units would accomplish that as well as generating ad valorem tax revenue for the city and county. The property under contract is owned by various Paulucci entities and we have decided not to renovate or develop. We believe the highest and best use for the property is residential housing that would lead to a more viable downtown with shops and restaurants being within walking distances of the project. Thank you for this opportunity to contact you and we hope you look favorably on the Vistas of lake Monroe. Sincerely, —°- A&r Paul V. Mellini President-Paulucci International Statement on Proposed Development Vista at Lake Monroe PD 1100 E. 1st Street, Sanford, FL 32771 We have lived on 2"d St in the Mayfair area since 1998, having moved from Virginia. We chose Sanford because it is a wonderful town and because of its potential. In our opinion, Sanford is the most unique and the best area of Central Florida. A significant reason for that is the openness and character of the wonderful lakefront. The proposed location for the development will be a centerpiece for what Sanford is to become in the future: how Sanford is viewed by its residents, as well as the many regional, national and international visitors. A development on that spot will create the first impression for visitors arriving from the east side. And it will be the final memory for visitors traveling along the lakefront from the west. Is an apartment complex of transient residents what we want to shape the future image of Sanford and what Sanford is to become? These are our questions: 1. Why would the city of Sanford desire a proposed property that does not meet the City guidelines Section 16.0 — Multiple Family Housing Design Guidelines? 2. Why would the city support so many exceptions? 3. Why would the city support any exceptions? 4. Why would the city permit these specific exceptions: a. Buildings more than two stories adjacent to single-family dwelling units? b. Less than 50 percent open space in the development? Scott and C. Elaine Callender Proposed Development Vista at Lake Monroe PD 1100 E. Ist Street, Sanford, FL 32771 A Special Meeting was held on May 5, 2021 at Monroe Hall by residents of Mayfair subdivision, to discuss the proposed zoning change for the above proposed property development. It was determined by those in attendance that the proposed property does not meet the City guidelines from Section 16.0 — Multiple Family Housing Design Guidelines. Below are the items that are out of compliance. This information is from the Staff Memorandum for May 6, 2021 Meeting 1. The Mayfair subdivision was not notified with said CAPP notice on January 22, 2021. Nor did the applicant attempt to communicate with said residents in the Mayfair subdivision. 2. Development Standards for setbacks are not met no 4 sides of the property. • North should be 30' and proposed is only 10' • South should be 30' and proposed is only 10' • Side should be 20' and proposed is only 10' • Rear should be 20' but none is noted or proposed 3. Development Standards for Height are 50' and proposed is 60' — Note: According to 16.0 Guidelines Buildings shall be no more than 2 stories on property adjacent to single- family dwelling units or single-family zoning districts. It goes further to state buildings may only exceed 35 feet in height for decorative purposes only and does not include habitable space. 4. Open space must be 30% and proposed is only 20%. Note: the 16.0 guidelines state open space must be 50%. 5. Parking must be 2 spaces per unit and proposed is only 1.5 per unit or 25% less. Note: new development shall be served by adequate parking resources and this is not. 6. Density must be 20 units per acre and proposed is 32.36 units per acre or 33% more density than allowed. 7. Buffer — North, South and West is 10' and noted 20' by admin. Proposed is 10' 8. Policy FLU 1.11.3 states the Lake Monroe waterfront corridor and historic commercial district shall continue to be part of an architectural design program which shall be coordinated closely with the public and private special interest groups concerned with promoting the central traditional neighborhood. No such coordination has or is being attempted. The balance of this document is going by the 16.0 Guidelines. 9. Entry shall be gated — proposed will not comply due to geometry restraints or basically not enough room. 10. A four (4) foot masonry wall shall be constructed along all property lines — proposed does not comply. 11. Entry Drives will not be a parking drive — proposed does not comply due to geometry constraints or again not enough room. 12. Parking shall be in garages, driveways or parking courts. Multiple small parking courts shall be constructed in lieu of large lots — proposed (you guessed it) geometry constraints and they will not comply. 13. Open Space shall be a minimum of 50% - proposed 20% due to space and it is due to being too close to Fort Mellon Park. 14. Common Facilities — All multifamily developments shall provide a covered shelter at the entrance to the development where children can wait for the school bus. Proposed internal clubhouse (not at the entrance) will serve as bus shelter. All multifamily developments with more than 20 units will have an area designated and designed as a car wash facility — proposed will not provide. All multifamily developments shall contain recreational facilities at a rate of 200 sq. ft. per dwelling unit — proposed 100 sq. ft. or 50% less and again because of being too close to Fort Mellon Park. 15. Building Design shall consider the compatibility with single-family character of the City's residential areas. Proposed 4 story building with 100 units is not compatible with the character of the area. 16. Building Height no more than 2 stories adjacent to single-family neighborhood - Proposed is 4 stories 17. Garages and Storage — at least 50% of the dwelling units in each building shall have garages — proposed — nothing is noted. I would surmise that geometry constraints are the issue. Schedule U, Section 3.0, part F.5 for Midtown Overlay, Transitional Residential Development 18. Traditional Residential Development Blocks shall be applied to any development over 2 stories in height that is adjacent to single-family residential zoning. The block facing the single-family residental zoning shall be single-family detached housing that is compatible with existing residential — Proposed 100' setback does not meet this standard. 19. Sewer Capicity is not mentioned on anything that I saw from the staff, but there is a great concern for the problems that occur currently when there is heavy rain and or hurricanes and that flooding and sewage back ups in the Mayfair area. There were several residents that raised this issue in the meeting tonight and it needs to be addressed. Many of the residents in attendance are not against developing the land, we are against a huge 100 unit apartment building placed next to Fort Melon Park on the riverfront and impacting our neighborhood negatively. Not to mention the significant traffic increases and street parking being nonexistent on 1 St street and Seminole Blvd., due to the lack of parking included. In closing, it is apparent that this developer had no intention of communicating to the surrounding residents in Mayfair subdivision and furthermore they are doing everything in their power to circumvent the City guidelines as noted above. This development may be appropriate for State Road 46 down near Tractor Supply or even near the Town Center Mall, but it does not fit the criteria set by the City for the residential area of the riverfront or downtown historic district where they are attempting to place it. The fact that the City Staff approved this development and actually recommended to the Planning and Zoning commission to approve it is even more disturbing. I know I speak for many of the resident and hope that the commission will see the significant compliance issues and that this development does not belong on the riverfront next to Fort Mellon Park and you will deny this application. Regards, Ven Sequenzia, Jr. 114 N. Summerlin Ave. Sanford, FL 32771 Cell: 305-525-9322 June 17, 2021 To Whom It May Concern: My name is Carol B. Learned and I own the residence at 103 N: Mellonville Ave. I am writing this letter in opposition to the planned rezone of 1100 E. 1st Street to Planned Development and the associated development plan. As proposed this development does not conform or comply with the city plans and will cause me the loss of livability and diminished property value. I believe the city has not been forthright in this process and has lowered the standards set forth by the city to an unreasonable level. Fellow neighbors and myself will most certainly feel the negative effects of noise and light pollution, safety and crime, loss of view and overall diminution of our property. Please accept this letter as my formal objection to the proposed development and planned development rezone of 1.100 E. 1St Street Sanford, FL 32771. Regards, 4�'� '& 6fa"'dl—' Carol B. Learned 103 N. Mellonville Avenue Sanford, FL 32771 June 17, 2021 To Whom It May Concern: My name is Lois S. Roe and I own the residence at 101 S. MellonviIle Ave. I am writing this letter in opposition to the planned rezone of 1100 E. 1St Street to Planned Development and the associated development plan. As proposed this development does not conform or comply with the city plans and will cause me the loss of livability and diminished property value. I believe the city has not been forthright in this process and has lowered the standards set forth by the city to an unreasonable level. Fellow neighbors and myself will most certainly feel the negative effects of noise and light pollution, safety and crime, loss of view and overall diminution of our property. Please accept this letter as my formal objection to the proposed development and planned development rezone of 1100 E. 1St Street Sanford, FL 32771. Regards, Lois S. Roe 101 S. MellonviIle Avenue Sanford, FL 32771 Colbert, Sabreena From: Sanford, FL <webmaster@sanfordfl.gov> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 3:33 PM To: Colbert, Sabreena Subject: P&Z meeting July 1 re: Vistas at Lake Monroe Message submitted from the <Sanford, FL> website. Site Visitor Name: Pat Miller Site Visitor Email: patmiller9500@hotmail.com My main concern is that many of the Land Development Regulations are not being followed, particularly in regards to Schedule H. Plans are in violation of Sections 6 thru 9 and also 11. Not only is there enough parking for cars there is absolutely no area for any golf cart parking which I am sure many of the tenants would like to have. Sanford promotes itself as golf cart friendly and if the thinking is to help out our downtown which has limited parking I am sure many of the tenants would like to go downtown in a golf cart or on a bicycle. Please see that all the P&Z commission members are provided with a copy of this along with a copy of Schedule H from the LDR. Thank you. CAUTION: This email originated from 'outside" the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Colbert, Sabreena From: King, Amye Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 8:35 AM To: Mary Penn Cc: Colbert, Sabreena; Pieras, Giuliana; Hinson, Eileen; Lonnie Groot Subject: RE: 4 story apartment complex From: Mary Penn <mpenn34@cfl.rr.com> Sent: Wednesday, lune 2, 20212:13 PM To: King, Amye <Amye.Kine@Sanfordfl.eov> Subject: 4 story apartment complex Good afternoon Amye, It has been awhile since I sent you an emails. I am still hoping one day someone in your department will take the time to update the Developments in Progress section of your website. I see someone took down the date of December 2019 but the Proposed and Under Construction sections are still out of date. That is not the purpose of this email. Unfortunately I will not be able to attend the zoning meeting tomorrow to voice my opinion against the 4 story 100 unit apartment complex down by the lake. I have no idea who could have even thought this was a good idea and it even got this far in the process. That land is zoned for 10 units per acre and you and your staff are considering 100 apartments in 3 acres?? I am a resident of Sanford and I am deeply opposed to this and ask you to vote NO on this rezoning issue. Thank you, « OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >> Mary Penn Director of Business Development t. 407-553-3013 M. 407-310-1609 e. mary@syncins.com W. http://www.syncins.com/ a. 2233 Lee Road #209A Winter Park, FL 32789 << OLE Object: Picture (Device << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >> Independent Bitmap) >> QJ ((D n = o ;' r+ UZI r° c o n �o CD 03) U CL 3 O nr (D = N ^, a CD � (�J U) C�- ER v o��: 4= oa ;7 M = E5 pm �l rt v -00 CD n0 N O 0rD O N� O cu a ( rt tP �. (D (D p C (D c c 3 °fD c (D o � a o Q m��7 � Q µ (D (rD c� rt c� 0 n C[ o O n rt O 3 (D C= �J 5 rt a) O N tl u O N 3 �1 O (D (D � O O -h o N� rn C=;, cz 5 CL V h - c 19 ( a' CLa ` o �f C n, , A QJ ((D n = o ;' r+ UZI r° c o n �o CD 03) U CL 3 O nr (D = N ^, a CD � (�J U) C�- ER v o��: 4= oa ;7 M = E5 pm �l rt v -00 CD n0 N O 0rD O N� O cu a ( rt tP �. (D (D p C (D c c 3 °fD c (D o � a o Q m��7 � Q µ (D (rD c� rt c� 0 n C[ o O n rt O 3 (D C= �J 5 rt a) O N tl u O N 3 �1 O (D (D � O O -h o N� rn C=;, n 0 -F,. 191 LA K 1\ {fly. A, � � #�y � -, .0 0."m_'• �9 �. {h y V \ }� h 1 S IS P! 0 Pictorial Documentation of Storm Water and on Seminole Boulevard/ Mellonville an District from Previous Storms Sewer Issues d Mayfair Storm Breaches of the Seawall on Seminole Boulevard fA if 4 ak Sanford Midtown. Flooding ,ZZI OINK V &asg- Nub a S aWr- d East Seminole Flooding -: W -A I ir =-- 11, M r- W I* a woi I 1=0 rM : r. - M--t- Seawall Breach on eawall Breach on Seminole Blvd at Mellonville eminol ellonville ` � � fir_ i - w.. � J �'. - � •� u R{ 1100 East First Street Flooding alotig-..Mayfair, ` Flooding District' - ;�/y r° v jr Wst Seminole Blvd Street Fading 1100 East First Street 411 Flooding br a ti t r �.� e.li •+.ems 1100 Eas' -- q'rst Street Flooding •t• t= tir Seminole Boulevard Flooding -Note debris Across Seminole Blvd A ......... ....... 1100 East First Street 'o, IMayfair Flooding/ Breached Seawall Documentation of Sanitary Overflow Er after a rain event, not dust during/ IMG_8621.MOV following a Tropical Storm or Hurricane. �®mumIMuIIIIIInm ^ � ,^1aj �1{�.-�f 'j. • tom° t15 si Sewage OVerf � �n rAY>u.*A,:A►. 3.Cr,�. i •pis - .. Ful tra nscod ed - I M G_1063.m p4 Storm Sewage Problems North of 2nd Street in Mayfair 17SUmMerlin Street )ding -Sewage as 1 well?? ti y( � Rav On V gn. ersona roperty LI IMG -7629 (3).MOV Mayfair is already experiencing Runoff Problems due to water coming from Another new development, Celery Oaks. This was only approximately 3" of rain! 9.2.2020 Day of Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Daily Flows to NWRF in million gallons per day (MGD) for the past 12 months 2021 2021 2021 2021 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 April March February January December November October September August July June May 4.768 5.736 5.391 5.092 5.988 5.6 8.012 8.44 5.464 7.064 5.268 6.277 4.775 5.601 4.864 5.061 5.382 5.084 7.542 8.212 6.263 6.959 5.195 6.148 4.783 5.741 4.717 5.615 5.332 6.435 7.689 7.708 5.326 6.937 5.005 6.68 4.777 5.007 4.61 5.063 5.451 6.383 8.095 7.666 5.529 6.967 5.585 5.403 4.5 4.879 4.787 4.981 5.356 5.876 7.252 7.045 6.122 8.182 5.3 4.614 4.736 5.141 4.974 4.879 5.397 5.679 8.179 6.985 5.883 7.195 5.746 4.621 4.479 5.366 5.039 5.03 5.472 5.651 7.902 7.208 5.781 5.742 6.6 5.852 4.48 4.979 4.669 5.044 5.436 5.956 6.819 6.362 6.099 5.955 7.285 5.937 4.621 4.922 4.745 4.969 5.28 6.302 6.718 6.458 6.795 5.811 7.565 6.017 4.715 4.901 4.882 4.996 4.571 6.345 6.879 6.524 5.669 5.736 7.142 6.586 5.68 4.894 4.951 4.337 5.272 6.488 7.576 6.372 5.563 6.025 6.739 5.921 5.11 4.8 4.907 5.273 5.56 7.072 7.713 6.787 5.608 6.085 6.228 5.88 4.847 4.777 5.375 5.203 5.582 5.725 7.778 7.584 5.447 5.763 5.984 5.743 5.779 4.578 6.193 4.574 5.942 5.322 6.526 8.058 5.588 5.322 6.429 6.023 6.421 4.954 6.057 4.759 6.028 5.552 6.536 8.222 5.398 5.519 -5.897 6.463 6.436 4.563 5.672 4.799 5.138 5.872 6.295 7.684 5.72 5.626 5.498 6.682 5.365 4.227 5.588 4.827 6.201 6.504 6.202 7.876 5.627 5.696 5.753 5.866 5.174 4.867 5.458 4.764 5.196 7.35 6.614 7.513 5.514 5.735 5.418 5.795 5.475 4.809 5.844 4.749 5.179 7.103 6.736 7.137 5.469 5.705 5.369 6.673 5.312 5.025 5.876 4.66 5.406 5.48 6.589 10.207 5.789 5.893 5.43 6.606 5.157 5.838 5.853 4.849 5.04 5.957 6.434 11.021 6.523 5.902 5.234 6.728 5.096 4.996 5.934 4.832 5.359 6.347 6.419 9.406 6.644 5.591 5.203 6.775 4.927 5.307 5.498 5.149 5.191 6.847 6.226 9.003 6.938 5.475 5.139 6.821 5.037 4.719 5.393 5.217 5.42 6.174 6.182 8.938 6.183 5.411 5.089 7.314 5.425 4.753 4.675 5.013 4.928 4.711 6.154 8.163 5.996 5.402 5.16 6.887 5.103 4.702 5.46 4.901 4.945 5.86 6.039 7.633 5.802 6.36 4.951 5.033 4.95 4.893 5.414 5.245 5.093 7.407 6.027 7.485 5.979 5.428 5.051 4.832 4.907 5.186 5.313 5.283 5.106 6.232 5.956 9.693 5.876 5.595 5.093 5.043 6.019 4.969 5.191 5.32 6.255 6.037 9.651 6.02 5.549 5.146 5.251 6.455 4.766 5.261 4.631 6.045 5.637 9.473 7.646 6.161 6.188 5.344 4.974 5.948 5.893 5.66 8.608 5.365 5.174 Z � 8 8 _L r m O [� —n eta 2 �� y m "e a's z o C0 o n JR m r 0 I CO � H A g y w $ E w D 00 P SBS€ 4SR : 6 m Cf) ca n 0 g f6fsa � n x m Z A i : Q = a $moo \r Z o '�,+ c3 Z �NOZ 111 - z �° 33 m m o X r� daFPga y I a D m Z v (n 0 m D co 5 ONm Z TI �m rn o y oo b �e VU m ORs_ o -�-� $ 1 5T, O __ lAiC Or NS7A6 0 VJO: YONROE I YAS7FA RAN (JOB N0. 2006]) �SVfit:'n o-om a V�'-VmNi4�. nM4ma�vl.wi CARLOS AVENUE "�------__ — S0_'=• RIGHT OF WAY I — I D7 P � §�� - •Ymz e � gg 74 €si .a •Y. r. - e�� •rr Eae•c { .ee �`m� oil Al C , �f •�—xe7/ 21402" Y ��+ t:,F�~ m�+3ma5 4?gl*1 y am m :o.o• fP) :. �� 3 ata � " " m I � ' �� y • 3 T4s A or 0 m� am n m.meed � E x --�—_—__.__ _. LLE ��f� � —__ _._ � .., • � y v b s4 ( PE@ PUT 60e8 . PKERICHT F �. g1 2�gr pt. ( 1: NiD T aWit J, PACE 33 €€ a. a o c p a ¢ e ■ s if �7 �q � E fi � Q � $ �8� • � 9g g�g � A9 � � i# � � �f } $� a � � � b 00 gg§ g { € L x •3 $ s � s a �$ s � f=$ r f� d g € x R $ ' ALTA/NSP ]end TR.Ia Survey SOMMAVEM SURVEYM ~ y �° s""n'•• Q6tl`® "*"' AHAPPnw CORRPOR NO ATION nm a a.mtom. a.a. s nro s m 0., evaa.a. rt r s+¢ wwa .ori vm«. rn �26.9J' 7'04 lit ............ 1.": i i 7 Egg rn t. Nj lit 14 N MELLONV7LLE AVE. 7'. ....... ... .1 —J� 1- J Alq IP A A x q xa "1 I P¢, l q �; , i 1 -1 1 �t -; " q. I i g ! �j ppH I I H 1i I I 'I 1 19 1 AEf pi W It .1 is's 1. 'IRv g IN q 0 ig, S:j 2A SA M MASTER PLAN VISTAS AT uwrz=Wr, UCrn .fll z C-3--smoc VISTAS a LAKE MONROE il: M RN -1 0� Or MFOM IZ CONCEPT PLAN ° $ VISTAS AT LAKE MWME, LW yp m n 3 aw w�aia Ac. GW oa'w� � Q g '""ce vn. VISTAS . LAKE MONROE �8 m o rn R �.,.m. Ararrz '� cr fbD aaaau M pAF PEv.9pN3 CATV OG $AHGIXtp ROPopA : 0 Jul -17-03 09:06A City o -F Melbourne 321 953 6224 P_O2 Scott Ellis Clerk Of Courts, 8ravard County #Pgs. 6 Names: 2 CFN2002204411 0&15.2002 11:02 yrn rust: 0.00 Rev. 0.00 Sew 0.00 ;t -t ud• 0.00 Excise. 0.40 OR eooklPage: 46670 1 3144 1 �t ;l Is. 4.00, Int Tax: 4.00 AUG 20 2!i2 ,: M A -N D ATE - ^r; front the CIRMT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDTCIAL'CIRCUI•T:";. ; ;- STATE OF FLORIDA TO THE CITY OIC MELBOURNE, BREVARD COUNTY, l+LORTDA. WHERi.'AS, In that certain cause filed in this court styled: i'LORTDA IN8'1`fTUTE OF -TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Florida not -for' -profit corporation, Appellant, vs CTTY OF MEX..BOURNE, VLORTDA, a municipality created and eeisting under the law of the State of Florida, Appellee. CIRCUIT CASE NO. 05-200I-Ap•-ILa97&-,iW ,W The attached order was rendered on ;tIf N 19, 2002. YOU ARE BE, IkEBY CONI?ihNUEU that such further proceedings he had in said cause in accordance with the decision and judgment of this Court, the rules of procedure and laws of the State of Florida. WITNESS T.1:TE HONORABLE JOHN DEAN IIriOXLEY, JK., Judge of the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, and the seal of said Court, at Titusville, Florida this day of August, 2002. wyti ��uRr+{ttt SATE OF FLORIDA.UNTt OP 6Rrvd"AR0 •. •. :::�' I HEREBY CERTIFY 111A 1 u7 ®bave and tare0 hr,,Q Wec4SrY of the o+M't rltad in tttis 8 EWS'k 1, and GOt yCouA R G. 258 SCOTT I;I,L . Clerk of the Circuit Court Breyard County, 'Florida D Jul -17'-03 09:06A City 0-F Melbourne 321 953 6224 P-03 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA ��]�}�UII��f��i�l� CFW200=4411 ORB=W/Fage: 4660 3145 CASE NO: 05 -2001 -060076 -AP FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Florida not-for-profit Corporation, Petitioner, VS. CITY OF MELBOURNEr FLORIDA, a municipality created and existing under the law of the State of Florida, Cn Respondent. C) 7* 0:7, r c-, C-) r Decision filed cn Kenneth R. Crooks, Esquire - Attorney for Florida Ins ' titutute of Technology, Inc. Paul'R. GougelTan, III, Esquire Maureen Monaghan Matheson, Esquire Attorney for City of Melbourne Per Curiam OPINION This matter is before the Court on B Petition for Writ of Certiorari flied by Florida Institute of Technology regarding a. Final Order entered by the City of Melbourne, on 259 r Jul -17,-03 09:06A city of Melbourne 321 953 6224 P_04 August 15, 2001 denying Site Pian approval to Florida Institute of Technology on a proposed Site Plan to construct seven {7} college dormitory apartment buildings on property owned by Florida Technology. The matter came before the Melbourne City Council meeting on June 26, 2001 for a public hearing on Site Plan Approval of the proposed project. On the evidence presented.by the Planning and Zoning Administrator for the City of Melbourne, it was conceded that Florida Institute Technology; had complied with all the Site Plan requirements as set forth -in the Melbourne City Code. After a lengthy and heated debate, the Site Plan request was ultimately denied by the City on August 1.5, 2001. Most of the evidence . presented at the public hearing in opposition to the Site Pian were residents in the .area who objected generally to it being there and to any change in the property., There was testimony regarding drainage, which evidently was of sufficient concern to the members of- the City Council that they denied the Site Plan request. It should be noted that the Ske Plan*Ordinance for the City of Melbourne does not require an engineering drainage plan at this particular phase of the process. Needless to say, Florida Institute of Technology points out that there was no competent substantial evidence presented at the hearing that would support a denial.of Site Plan Approval and; in reviewing the record; there .is merit to Florida Technology's position on this matter. Tile Site Plan Approval Is generally technical in -nature. There is a legal requirement that the Ordinance under which Site Plan Approval is sought must set out with specificity, what the requirements are so a person making. application 260 4660 3146 Jul -17-03, 09:06A City of Melbourne 321 953 6224 P.05 knows exactly what it needs to do, or not do, in order with comply with the statutory scheme. Once the applicant has met all the legal requirements as set forth in the Site Plan Ordinance, then no element of discretion remains. See Park of Commerce Associates v. City o�lro • SQL each, 606 So, 2d 633 (4" DCA, 1992), The administrative procedure for Site approval Is quasi judicial in nature and the purpose of the procedure Is to determine if the proposed Site Plan submitted by the property owner conforms to the specific requirements set out in the regulations governing the erection. or improvements on property, Property owners are entified to notice of the conditions they must meet, in order to • improve their property in accordance with the existing zoning and other development regulations of the government. In the instance case, there was not a scintilla of competent substantial evidence presented at the hearing which would permit the Cty to deny the Site Plan Approval to the applicant an the basis that it failed to comply with the Site Plan Ordinance, Most of the testimony in opposition to the Site Plan came from two (2) categories of neighborhood people. Those who complained that Florida Tech had not been a good neighbor in the past and therefore they should not get.Site Plan Approval, and those neighbors who were concerned about .elthe'r the drainage issue '.from the property or didn't want the site to change in any way from it's existing condition. As pointed out above, an engineered drainage plan is not a requlrement of the Site Plan Ordinance and therefore, Florida Technology was under no obligation to. provide such a plan at -this stage of the process. CFN:2002204411 oa BOWPage: 4660 / 3147 261 Jul -17-03 09:07A city olF Melbourne 327. 953 6224 P.C)s As pointed out in the Fifth District Court of Appeal in the case of Colonial Apartments v. City of Deiand, 577. So, 2d 593 (5th, DCA, 199 1) Owners are entitled to fair play, the lands which may represent their life fortune. and should not be subject to ad ' hoc legislation. It is true of the instant case that Florida Institute of Technology should not be subject to ad hoc legislation by the City Council of Melbourne imposing additional requirements to obtain Site Pian Approval that do not, and have not, applied to other applicants in the past. Another issue raised by Florida Institute of Technology was the obvious bias and partiality of Councliperson Poole and her participation in the proceedings. The Court is . not unmindful of the pressures,that are placed on public officials.. On one hand they are pressed to allow growth only if it is consistent with available roads and services. On the other hand, they are- pressured by landowners who wish to develop their property in such a manner that results in the largest return of capital or pleasure, and still they are subject of pressure from the neighbors of property to be developed, who are quite understandably upset by the slightest change and use of adjoining vacant property. All these Interests make it difficult to make decisions in cases such as this. However, being M1 i !, a member of City Council does -'carry certain responsibilities and one of those i responsibilities is to follow the law and -in a quasi judicial proceeding, to be an unpartial i hearing officer. In this -case, Counalperson Poole clearly showed bias and partiality in that she appeared at the Planning and Zoning Board and advocated against the proposed project, she marshaled opposition to the project to be presented to the City OR800wPag.- 4660 ./ 3148 Jul-�7-03 09:07A City of Melbourne 321 953 6224 P.07 Council and she appeared at the Department of Transportation hearing on the issue of a curbcut on Babcock Street. All of these add up to showing of bias on her part against the proposed project prior to the hearing.. Based on • those factors, Counciiperson Poole should have disquaiifiied herself as a participant in the proceeding. Fundamental due process requires that a person appearing before a public body is entitled to have the issues determined by an impartial panet. ' in any future proceedings on this particular project, Coundiperson Poole should disqualify herself and nae participate in the proceedings. The Writ of Certiorari" is granted and the order of August 15; 200I is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the City of Melbourne for proceedings not � inconsistent with this opinion-. CFN:2002204411 .: OR SaWdPs9®: 4660 / 3149 Judges JACOBUS, Bruce W., TORPY, Vincent G., and DUGAN, David W., concur. 263 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 1, 2021 AGENDA TO: Planning and Zoning Commission SUBJECT: Water, Sewer and Water Supply — Public Works and Utilities, City of Sanford Water Services: The utility services for the downtown area including Hwy 17-92 east to Mellonville Ave, and Marina Isle south to 5th Street has seen a fair amount of growth over the last 3 years thus creating more demand on the utility system. The down town area is fed by three water mains, sized from 6" to 12" and one City lift station. Because of the increase in demand the City has experienced low water pressure in the area of the Marina Isle and the Commercial Street. The proposed Vistas at Lake Monroe at 1100 E. 1St Street would be served by the same utility lines. A full Water Gem analysis of the area would need to be performed, including all water requirements of new projects to see what the developer would need to improve on the water system to insure no existing customers are affected by the additional demand. New area projects include: Heritage Park, Mayfair Hotel, First Street Station Hotel and Townhomes, San Leon and Vistas at Lake Monroe. Without providing a full water analysis on the entire area could result in inadequate water supply and pressure. Sewer: The City has reviewed the wastewater load requirements and concluded that a new lift station would be required. The Fort Mellon Park lift station would not be an option because of the already permitted and planned loads. Also the lift station capacity was increased around seven to ten years ago therefore the City does not feel up sizing it a second time is a good option. The developer could either install a private lift station or install a City lift station that the City would own and maintain. Water Supply Resources: The primary concern with water availability is with the local pressure and flow impacts to the downtown area, spoken to in the previous sections. The concerns regarding overall water resources availability; the volume of water we are permitted to withdraw, treat, and distribute, are the same as for all new development. The City will be limited by the recent Central Florida Water Initiative (CFWI) rules for central Florida aquifer withdrawals. The new rules dramatically shift the timeline for implementing alternative water sources to augment the City's Upper Floridan aquifer withdrawals. The intent of the CFWI rules as implemented by the St. John's River Water Management District is to limit groundwater withdrawals to our demonstrated 2025 demand, with water beyond this volume to be provided by alternative water sources or available offsets. 11Page Projected *it-ir-Oi-e-( Year Projected 67Facilities Plan) Service Population Projected Water Demand (MGD) ACTUAL Water Usage Potential impact of Vistas at Lake Monroe (Projected + Estimat-�A Demand) Per Conc-ency Doc S.brnitt.d, 0.035 MGD 2018 62,728 6.963 6.340 6.998 2019 64,112 7.152 6.230 7.187 2020 65,496 7.342 6.600 7.377 2021 66,784 7.518 7.553 2022 68,072 7.695 7.730 2023 69,359 7.871 7.906 2024 70,647 8.048 8.083 2025' 71.935 8.224 8.259 2026 73,060 8.378 8.413 2027 74,185 8.532 8.567 2028 75,311 8.687 8.722 2029 76,436 8.841 8.876 2030 77,561 8.995 9.030 2031 78,573 9.134 9.169 2032 79,585 9.272 9.307 2033 80,596 9.411 9.446 2034 81,608 9.549 9.584 2035 82,620 9.688 9.723 2036 83,474 9.805 9.840 2037 84,328 9.922 9.957 2038 85,183 10.039 10.074 2039 86,037 10.156 10.191 2040 86,891 10.273 10.308 Within SJRWMD (existing) CUP limit of 9.58 MGD annual average Exceeds SJRWMD (existing) CUP limit of 9.58 MGD annual average 2025' SJRWMD CUP will be renewed by or before 2025. 9.58 MGD is not guaranteed with a new permit. Colbert, Sabreena From: Cash, Michael Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 8:43 AM To: Colbert, Sabreena Cc: IFTIKHAR, BILAL Subject: RE: Vistas at Lake Monroe -utilities The pictures show flooding related to the St. Johns River. This flooding was likely due to a tropical storm or hurricane. The river staging is subject to rain and runoff from as far south as Brevard County. In many cases the lake will stage up days after heavy rains have fallen in Titusville and near the Brevard Coast. It can take months for the river to return to normal levels after a tropical event. River levels may be impacted by development but the developments that would relate to increases in river stages at Sanford are upstream of us. Encroachment into the river downstream of us can also increase our stage but this is normally not allowed without a "No -Rise" Certification. Our current codes require that any construction within the Floodplain provide compensation for any loss in floodplain storage. Most Counties and Municipalities have similar requirements. The 1% Chance Base Flood Elevation (BFE), commonly referred to as the 100 year flood elevation is 8.0 NAVD88. Any new development within the City is required to be at least two feet above the BFE. Mike Cash, CFM Public Works Engineer p: 407.688.5087 10 SXR F0R1 Colbert, Sabreena From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: That's after an hurricane Thanks Bilal From: Colbert, Sabreena IFTIKHAR, BILAL Tuesday, June 22, 2021 1:14 PM Colbert, Sabreena; Cash, Michael; BLAKE, RICHARD McKinley, Mack; Lonnie Groot RE: Vistas at Lake Monroe -Citizen Concerns Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 20211:11 PM To: IFTIKHAR, BILAL <BILAL.IFTIKHAR@Sanfordfl.gov>; Cash, Michael <Michae1.Cash @Sanfordfl.gov>; BLAKE, RICHARD <RICHARD.BLAKE@Sanfordfl.gov> Cc: McKinley, Mack <Mack.McKinley@Sanfordfl.gov>; Lonnie Groot <Igroot@stenstrom.com> Subject: Vistas at Lake Monroe -Citizen Concerns Gentlemen, I received an updated file with the video links from the same citizen as before showing stormwater and sewer issues in the vicinity of Seminole Blvd., Mellonville and the Mayfair community. Mike provided a statement in an email previously related to the storm events and floodplain but I wanted you all to be aware. The file is saved here: S:\DRT\2021\1100 E 1st Street - Vistas at Lake Monroe PD Thank you! Sabreena Colbert Senior Planner Planning & Development Services City of Sanford p: 407.688.5149 f: 407.688.5141 face book. ccm/S a nford FLCityGovt you tube. Com/Cityofsa nfordfl twitter. co m/0tySa nford FL Instagram.com/CityofSa nfordfl ,A� r u V c:. 0 .kNFORD Colbert, Sabreena From: BLAKE, RICHARD Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 1:19 PM To: Colbert, Sabreena; IFTIKHAR, BILAL; Cash, Michael Cc: McKinley, Mack; Lonnie Groot Subject: RE: Vistas at Lake Monroe -Citizen Concerns Hello, these pictures are storm related and will happen every time Mother Nature throws a fit. There is a limit to what any City can prepare for. From: Colbert, Sabreena Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 20211:11 PM To: IFTIKHAR, BILAL<BILAL.IFTIKHAR@Sanfordfl.gov>; Cash, Michael <Michael.Cash@Sanfordfl.gov>; BLAKE, RICHARD <RICHARD.BLAKE@Sanfordfl.gov> Cc: McKinley, Mack <Mack.McKinley@Sanfordfl.gov>; Lonnie Groot <Igroot@stenstrom.com> Subject: Vistas at Lake Monroe -Citizen Concerns Gentlemen, I received an updated file with the video links from the same citizen as before showing stormwater and sewer issues in the vicinity of Seminole Blvd., Mellonville and the Mayfair community. Mike provided a statement in an email previously related to the storm events and floodplain but I wanted you all to be aware. The file is saved here: S:\DRT\2021\1100 E 1st Street - Vistas at Lake Monroe PD Thank you! Sabreena Colbert Senior Planner Planning & Development Services City of Sanford p: 407.688.5149 f: 407.688.5141 facebook.com/SanfordFLCItVGOvt youtube.com/CitVofsanfordfl twitter. com/CitVSa nford FL Instagram.com/CityofSanfordfl t li NFORD a e ICi�iiq Colbert, Sabreena From: Cash, Michael Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 1:15 PM To: Colbert, Sabreena; IFTIKHAR, BILAL; BLAKE, RICHARD Cc: McKinley, Mack; Lonnie Groot Subject: RE: Vistas at Lake Monroe -Citizen Concerns We have been and are still working on tracking down the rainwater intrusion into the sewer. Mike Cash, CFM Public Works Engineer p: 407.688.5087 From: Colbert, Sabreena <Sabreena.Colbert@Sanfordfl.gov> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 20211:11 PM To: IFTIKHAR, BILAL <BILAL.IFTIKHAR@Sanfordfl.gov>; Cash, Michael <Michael.Cash@Sanfordfl.gov>; BLAKE, RICHARD <RICHARD.BLAKE@Sanfordfl.gov> Cc: McKinley, Mack <Mack.McKinley@Sanfordfl.gov>; Lonnie Groot <Igroot@stenstrom.com> Subject: Vistas at Lake Monroe -Citizen Concerns Gentlemen, I received an updated file with the video links from the same citizen as before showing stormwater and sewer issues in the vicinity of Seminole Blvd., Mellonville and the Mayfair community. Mike provided a statement in an email previously related to the storm events and floodplain but I wanted you all to be aware. The file is saved here: S:\DRT\2021\1100 E 1st Street - Vistas at Lake Monroe PD Thank you! Sabreena Colbert Senior Planner Planning & Development Services City of Sanford p: 407.688.5149 f: 407.688.5141 facebook.com/Sa nford FLCityG ovt youtube.com/CityofsanfordFl twitter.com/CitySanfordFL Instagram.com/CityofSanfordfl f Ire; Q:t COSA o e Colbert, Sabreena From: Colbert, Sabreena Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 5:41 AM To: 'berrios311 @yahoo.com' Cc: Pieras, Giuliana; Antonini, Lisa; Hinson, Eileen; Lonnie Groot; RAIMONDO, ANTHONY Subject: RE: Public Records Request Attachments: 4554 Board Residency, Amendments, DRT.pdf Good morning Ms. Berrios, I want to apologize for my delayed response to your questions related to the DRT and relative procedures. The Development Review Team was removed as a formal committee per action taken by the City Commission on April 27, 2020 as outlined in the attached ordinance. The development review staff, which includes members from multiple city departments, still hold pre -application meetings to advise potential applicants of the city's processes and requirements related to any development application. These staff meetings provide guidance but are nonbinding and may occur in person or virtually, however no agenda, minutes or recording is completed. Development review staff including multiple staff as well as the Administrative Official met with the applicant on two occasions prior to their formal application being submitted. Once the application to rezone was received, the development review staff reviewed the information and provided comment prior to the request proceeding to public hearing. One member of staff is not making decisions for any quasi-judicial matters. Staff makes a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the land development regulations and the goals, objectives and policies in the city's comprehensive plan. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Thank you! Sabreena Colbert Senior Planner Planning & Development Services City of Sanford p: 407.688.5149 f: 407.688.5141 facebook.com/SanfordFLCitVGovt youtube.com/Cityofsanfordfl twitter.com/CitySanfordFL Instagram.com/CityofSanfordfl All � r It'; 01 CTANFORD From: Amy Berrios <berrios311@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 9, 20213:56 PM To: Colbert, Sabreena <Sabreena.Colbert@Sanfordfl.gov> Cc: Pieras, Giuliana<Giuliana.Pieras@Sanfordfl.gov>; Antonini, Lisa <Lisa.Antonini@Sanfordfl.gov>; Hinson, Eileen <EILEEN.HINSON@Sanfordfl.gov>; King, Amye <Amye.King@Sanfordfl.gov>; Lonnie Groot <Igroot@stenstrom.com> Subject: Re: Public Records Request Sabreena, Thank you for your reply to my public records request, I apologize for the post -it note, I guess they were out of forms that day. Just to clarify my reason for the request was the thought that the Administrative Record would at the least include the DRT pre -application meeting. I assumed that a project of such magnitude would not come with such little discourse between the applicant and the city. Since receiving your email stating that the only information available for the development and rezone of 1100 E. 1 st Street is indeed already included in the staff analysis posted for the Planning & Zoning meeting and there are no other conversations, notes, memos or meetings held regarding this topic, I figured I would try to find the audio of the DRT meeting on the cities website. I then found out that the DRT had been disbanded, I guess is the appropriate word, as of March 2020. So my question is what is the new standard operating procedure of the city regarding these types of applications. Is the city just receiving the information from the applicant and then filling out the form as provided in the staff analysis with notations? Is this one staff member making the decision? Is there no meeting even amongst the planning department staff if not with the applicant? I'm confused and hope that by forgoing a meeting with multiple city agencies we are not selling Sanford short and missing out on valuable input which could help the planning department to make insightful decisions regarding these matters. Any clarification or information would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Amy Berrios On Tuesday, June 8, 2021, 12:15:00 PM EDT, Colbert, Sabreena<sabreena.colbert(a.sanfordfl.gov> wrote: Good afternoon Ms. Berrios, We have received the post -it note you submitted requesting information on the PD Rezone proposed at 1100 E. 1st Street that was continued at last Thursday's (6/3/21) P&ZC meeting. To date, the information that has been submitted to the city as part of the application is included in the agenda packet distributed for last week's meeting, see attached. The Planning and Zoning Commission members were provided hard copies of the "Rezone Citizen Concerns" you sent on 6/2/21 as well as staffs response that was expeditiously prepared to advise the Planning and Zoning Commission for PH -1, also attached. If you have an additional inquiry or request please let me know. Thank you! Sabreena Colbert Senior Planner Planning & Development Services City of Sanford Colbert, Sabreena From: Colbert, Sabreena Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 6:16 AM To: 'Sara Jacobson' Cc: Hinson, Eileen; RAIMONDO, ANTHONY; Lonnie Groot Subject: Follow-up to Phone Call & Inquiry on June 10, 2021 concerning Vistas at Lake Monroe PD Good morning Ms. Jacobson, Thank you for your inquiry to organize a meeting with yourself, persons selected from the community and City staff relative to the pending quasi-judicial process involving the proposed Vistas at Lake Monroe Planned Development rezoning application matter. After consultation with legal counsel, it has been determined that such a meeting would be improvident and incompatible with the current procedural posture of the matter. You and others within the community are, of course, encouraged to meet with the developer/applicant and, perhaps, come to an amicable resolution of issues currently in dispute. And, of course, City staff will provide any documents relating to the rezoning matter in accordance with any request for public records that may be tendered to the City. City staff, however, has conducted the normative professional planning and development land use analysis of the application, issued its reports and drafted and formulated matters that are to be further presented when the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on this matter re -commences. If you have any specific questions relating to specific matters pertaining to the subject application, please email them to me and we will respond in an appropriate manner in the context of this proceeding as referenced above. Sincerely, Sabreena Colbert Senior Planner Planning & Development Services City of Sanford p: 407.688.5149 f: 407.688.5141 facebook.com/5anfordFLCityGovt youtube.com/Cityofsanfordfi tw1tter.com/CitvSanfordFL 1nstagram.com/Cityof5anfordfi A.. C. I] V to M ANFORD i �14�Qq r,^FLORIDA PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 1, 20221 AGENDA TO: Planning and Zoning Commission PREPARED BY: Sabreena Colbert — Senior Planner SUB.TECT: Staff Response to Citizen Concerns — PH -1 Below is a breakdown of the citizen concerns for PH -1 submitted by Ms. Amy Berrios on June 2, 2021 including staff's response to the comprehensive plan and sections of code cited. 1. Zoning a. Though this property is currently zoned RMOI it seems that the WDBD (Waterfront Downtown Business District Overlay) supersedes the current RMOI zoning. b. This is why the engineer continues to tell us they have the right to build up to 50 units per acre, however as per the Cities Comprehensive Plan Policy 1-1.2.1 it states "Density is expressed in terms of a range up to a specified maximum. Where so stated as a range, the maximum density is not guaranteed by right." c. However within the WDBD there are overlays named Downtown, Riverfront and midtown. As referred to by the engineer and the city planner at the P&Z meeting this parcel falls under the Midtown overlay, The WDBD future land use designation provides the framework for future development patterns including thresholds for intensities and densities. The WDBD allows a maximum of 50 dwelling units per acre on a given property. The maximum density is not guaranteed by right, however the maximum density allowed within the future land use designation may be requested through the PD Rezone process as presented in the case. As outlined in the PH -1 agenda memo, staff finds the proposed density to be consistent with the WDBD land use, urban standards outlined in Schedule U and previous approvals identified in Table 1. e. The term "transitional" implies that these parcels would not have the maximum allowed density because the parcels themselves are the buffer for the transition from lower density (SR-1AA) DR (DR -SF) which allows max 6 units/acre to the gradual increase max. of 50 units/acre through the WDBD. f: In Schedule U page 1.4 the city lists some guidelines for Midtown Transitional Overlay Developments. It also has two illustrations found in schedule U page 32-33, Figures I and j, which show appropriate developments for this parcel. 1 Page The Transitional Residential Development block standards outlined in Schedule U does not address density. The Transitional blocks are applied to any development over 2 stories in height that is adjacent to single family residential zoning. The block facing the SFR zoning shall be single family detached housing compatible with the existing; transitioning up to 4 stories in the mid - block. Deviations to the requirements of Schedule U may be requested through the PD Rezone process. In lieu of providing SFR dwelling fronting Mellonville Avenue with individual curb -cuts on to the right of way, the applicant is proposing a 25' buffer and 100' setback from the property line fronting Mellonville Avenue to the east. Based on community feedback related to the addition of SFR accessing Mellonville Avenue, staff finds the increased setback and buffer provide an acceptable transition meeting the intent of Schedule U. 2. Parking a. In the Cities Comprehensive Plan Policy -1.1.7 letter fit states, "Off-street parking and internal traffic circulation as well as access to and egress from the street system" are required for all new developments. b. Under General Block Standards on Schedule U page 16 bullet 2b it states in this point vehicular access/curb cuts are not allowed on any block face less than 350 feet, The current plan submitted by the developer has the ,access on part of the property that only has 1:25 foot frontage on 1" Street. c. Also under General Block Standards on Schedule U page 16-17 bullet 4 it states regarding parking "Building in the Midtown Overlay District shall comply with the provisions of Schedule H." See Schedule H-5 chart. Multi -Family Dwelling 2 spaces per unit. The proposed PD and associated master plan identify ingress/egress as well as onsite parking standards. The internal parking and traffic circulation as well as specific ingress/egress will be reviewed in detail for compliance with Schedule H and Schedule N at time of development plan review. The parcel and current improvements fronting E. 1' Street (I 100 E. 1st Street) has 125' of frontage with an existing curb -cut on to the I" Street right of way. The adjacent properties to the east and west fronting 1st Street are not under the same ownership nor are they included in the PD Rezone request being considered. Staff finds the proposed full ingress/egress access on to I" Street to be appropriate at this location thus minimizing impacts to the existing streetscape improvements on Seminole Boulevard. Properties within the Midtown Overlay shall comply with the parking standards included in Schedule H. Deviations to the requirements of Schedule H may be requested through the PD Rezone process. As outlined in the PH -1 agenda memo, staff finds the request is consistent with other multi family approvals downtown and throughout the City. 2 1 P a g e 3. Infrastructure a. See Comprehensive Plan - Future land Use Policy 1-1..1 Bullet 4 b. See Comprehensive Plan - Public Facilities & Community Resources Chapter 2 c. See Land Development Regulations d. See Concurrency Procedures e. If you don't like to read I will tell what these documents and others from the City are: consistent in saying; Public facilities such as storm water and sanitary sewer must be in compliance before or by the time a new development is complete. There are existing public facilities and services in place and available to the site. If improvements to the existing public facilities and services infrastructure is necessary as a result of the increased demand by the proposed development, the burden of those improvements will be on the property owner. The performance standards and infrastructure improvements will be reviewed in detail for compliance with the appropriate city regulations at time of development plan review. Thus, the points made are premature. The PD zoning process relates to a planned development and not the implementation of that plan which occurs further along in the development review and approval/denial process. 4. City of Sanford noncompliance with Comprehensive Plan a. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Policy 1-1.1.1 bullet point 7 "The proposed future land use designation and its allowable uses are compatible with surrounding land use designations and with the preferred growth and development pattern of the City as evidenced by land use policies in the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment will not significantly alter acceptable existing: land. use patterns or adversely affect the livability of the area or the health and safety of the residents." b. State of Florida has ruled that cities must adhere to strict compliance with the LI.1R, Concurrency Plan, and Comprehensive plans. There is no request to amend the future land use designation. Thus, these points are not applicable to the subject application. The professional vitas/resumes of the City staff that has prepared the City staff report based upon generally accepted land use planning and development practices and principles are attached. 31Page Rezone Citizen Concerns ZMEMM Since our recent meeting I have attempted to research our situation regarding the rezoning of land located at the corner of Mellonville and 1st Street from RMOI to PD. After searching through a number of the cities documents following are the main points of interest I would like to bring to the attention of everyone. 1. Zoning a. Though this property is currently zoned RMOI it seems that the WDBD (Waterfront Downtown Business District Overlay) supersedes the current RMOI zoning. b. This is why the engineer continues to tell us they have the right to build up to 50 units per acre, however as per the Cities Comprehensive Plan Policy 1-1.2.1 it states "Density is expressed in terms of a range up to a specified maximum. Where so stated as a range, the maximum density is not guaranteed by right." c. However within the WDBD there are overlays named Downtown, Riverfront and Midtown. As referred to by the engineer and the city planner at the P&Z meeting this parcel falls under the Midtown overlay. d. The city also has a map (Schedule U Page 22) for these overlay districts that drills further down and divides the Midtown overlay parcels into Midtown and Midtown Transitional. The parcel in question falls within the Midtown Transitional. e. The term "transitional" implies that these parcels would not have the maximum allowed density because the parcels themselves are the buffer for the transition from lower density (SR-1AA) OR (LDR-SF) which allows max 6 units/acre to the gradual increase max. of 50 units/acre through the WDBD. f In Schedule U page 14 the city lists some guidelines for Midtown Transitional Overlay Developments. It also has two illustrations found in schedule U page 32-33, Figures I and J, which show appropriate developments for this parcel. 2. Parking a. In the Cities Comprehensive Plan Policy 1-1.1.7 letter f it states, "Off-street parking and internal traffic circulation as well as access to and egress from the street system" are required for all new developments. b. Under General Block Standards on Schedule U page 16 bullet 2b it states in this point vehicular access/curb cuts are not allowed on any block face less than 350 feet The current plan submitted by the developer has the access on part of the property that only has 125 foot frontage on Is' Street c. Also under General Block Standards on Schedule U page 16-17 bullet 4 it states regarding parking "Building in the Midtown Overlay District shall comply with the provisions of Schedule H." See Schedule H-5 chart. Multi -Family Dwelling 2 spaces per unit. 3. Infrastructure a. See Comprehensive Plan - Future Land Use Policy 1-1.1.1 Bullet 4 b. See Comprehensive Plan - Public Facilities & Community Resources Chapter 2 c. See Land Development Regulations d. See Concurrency Procedures e. If you don't like to read I will tell what these documents and others from the City are consistent in saying: Public facilities such as storm water and sanitary sewer must be in compliance before or by the time a new development is complete. 4. City of Sanford noncompliance with Comprehensive Plan a. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Policy 1-1.1.1 bullet point 7 "The proposed future land use designation and its allowable uses are compatible with surrounding land use designations and with the preferred growth and development pattern of the City as evidenced by land use policies in the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment will not significantly alter acceptable existing land use patterns or adversely affect the livability of the area or the health and safety of the residents." b. State of Florida has ruled that cities must adhere to strict compliance with the LDR, Concurrency Plan, and Comprehensive plans. CITY OF SANFORD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE activities satisfy established criteria of this plan and the City's land development regulations. Any potential adverse impacts caused by non-residential land uses shall be minimized by landscaping, including vegetated berms with tree canopy, and other appropriate screening and buffering techniques. These landscaping techniques shall be incorporated into the design of new or redeveloping non-residential projects located adjacent to existing or planned residential development. Similarly, perimeter landscaping techniques shall be applied in multiple family residential developments in order to appropriately screen and buffer existing and planned single family home sites from residential development having differing structure types and density. Objective 1-1.2: Allocate Residential Land Use. The Future Land Use Map shall allocate residential density based on the following considerations: • past and projected population, housing trends, and characteristics; • provision and maintenance of quality residential environments; • protection of environmentally fragile natural systems; • the need to plan for smooth transition in residential densities; and • provision and maintenance of traffic circulation and multiple -family improvements. The City shall maintain land development regulations that include performance standards regulating the allowable density on any specific site for which new development is proposed. These performance standards shall address. • Stormwater management and floodplain protection; • Traffic impact analysis; • Minimum open space criteria; • Perimeter landscaping, screening and buffering; • Wetlands preservation: • Concurrency management system; • Recreation land and facilities provision; and • Erosion and sedimentation control. F icy 1-1.2.1: Define Residential Density. For planning purposes, density is defined as the mber of residential units permitted per land area. Land area means the total area of land tained within the lot, tract or project boundary lines not including dedicated rights-of-way. lands and undevelopable areas such as flood plains Density is determined by dividing the ber of units by the total area of land within the boundaries of a lot or parcel not including icated rights-of-way, flood -prone, preservation, wetlands and undevelopable areas i4r j For any given lot or parcel, one residential unit may be transferred from within the 100 year flood zone to an area of the lot or parcel not within the 100 year flood zone provided that the area within the 100 year flood zone is at least one acre in size. In determining the number of residential dwelling units to be permitted on a specific parcel of land, a fractional unit shall not entitle the applicant to an additional unit. I Density is expressed in terms of a range up to a specified maximum. Where so stated as a range, 4, the maximum density is not guaranteed by _right.- pe i is ensity assigned to new development shall he chmpa i e an consistent wit>`i-esfeFlished residential development patterns and shall provide reasonable use of the land Criteria to be considered in allocating density shall include, but not be limited to, the following: ,S Ord. 4335 1 -10 March 2015 C7 Legend Overlay Districts Downtown Midtown Midtown Transitional FA JaARCNEw1DATAIPIA"veday Districts_fnaLmxd Rear garages must be set back a minimum of four (4) feet from an alley or rear access drive. On comer lots on 'A' or 'Pedestrian. Priority" streets with alley access, garage doors shall not face side streets. iv. Side garages may have an access from the street and are required,, at a minimum, to be set back in line with the primary structures side setback. V. Ground floor parking, including garages that are located inside the internal block are permitted on the first floor of a structure if the street facing side view of the garage blends in with the design elements of the building's primary frontage. 5. Transitional Residential Development. (Figures I and J) Transitional Development Blocks shall be applied to any development over two (2) stories in height that is adjacent to single-family residential Lo-n-ing. The block facing a single-family residential -Conan shall be single-family detached housing that is compatible with existing residential. The mid -block portion of the block may transition up to four (4) stories not to exceed fifty-six (56) feet with the following provisions: a. Setbacks. The setback shall be determined by the existing residential uses that are facing the proposed residential uses. The setback may be varied up to rive (5) feet from the average of the existing residential units. The structures that are more intense than single-family housing shall follow the appropriate development block as detailed in these design standards. b. Landscape buffer. A landscape buffer of twenty (20) feet may be required as determined by the Administrative Official or his designee. C. Lighting. The proposed development shall also control the effects of lights from automobiles or other sources. Where the site plan indicates potential adverse of ects from parking or from other sources on the lot on which the non-residential use is to be located, such effects shall be illuminated, or at a minimum., prevented so that lights do not illuminate adjacent residential property below a height of five (5) feet at the residential property line, or from shining into any residential window if there is to be non-residential parking on the premises after dark. d. Rear Yard Setback. When a non-residential use or multi -family (apartment) use is abutting any single-family residential property, there shall be an additional setback required for any yard of that use which is contiguous to the residential property, as follows: When the rear side of a single story structure equal to or less than twenty-five (25) feet in height abuts single-family residential U-14 i Ordinance No. 4.589 Adopted 2/8/2021 zoned property, that portion of the structure(s) shall be set back at a minimum twenty (20) feet from the rear property line. When a single story structure equal to or less than twenty-five (25) feet in height abuts the side of a single-family residential zoned property, the structures shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet apart. Trash receptacles and loading facilities may not be permitted in the rear of the property. Service areas shall be located on the side. Exceptions to the location shall be determined by the location of the adjacent single-family residential use. When any side of a structure greater than one (1) story or twenty- five (25) feet in height abuts, residential property, that portion of the structure shall be set back at a minimum of thirty (30) feet from the property boundary. Building Design. The side of the building that is facing or backing up to any residential development must be treated with the same architectural design standards as the front of the building. 6. Infill Development. The Infill Development illustration, Figure K, illustrates a single building within an existing built -out block. a. Setbacks. The setback shall be determined by the existing adjacent structure(s),It will be permitted to vary the setback up to five (5) feet from the average of the existing structure. G. General Block Standards. I - General Site Design. a. Form. Buildings shall form a consistent, distinct edge, spatially delineating the public street through maximum building setbacks that vary by no more than five (5) feet from those of the adjacent building. b. Open Storage. There shall be no open storage. C. Sidewalks. All buildings or developments must provide sidewalks along the street edge(s) of their property. Sidewalks shall be constructed to align with existing sidewalks and the materials shall complement the existing sidewalk materials. Sidewalk connections from the principal building to the public sidewalk must be provided. U-15 Alleys are required for residential lot widths that are So ft or less Front setbacks shall be consistent with an existing residential block face Residential units shall provide facade variations in color and/or texture per contiguous unit Minimum elevation for residential units shall be no less than 18 inches from the base floor elevation Garages and accessory units are located no less than 4 ft from rear or sideyard setback Landscape buffer may be provided when block transitions form a lower density to a higher density Parking lot landscape shall be provided Building height shall range from 2 stories to 4 stories when transitioning from lower intensity residential Garages and accessory units are located no less than 4 ft from rear or sideyard setback - % VeN Alleys are required for residential lot widths that are 50 ft or less Residential units shall provide facade variations in color and/or texture per contiguous unit M Building height shall range from 2 stories to 4 stories when transitioning from lower intensity residential A minimum separation of 20 ft shall be required between buildings (up to 6 units per buildings) Front setbacks shall be Minimum elevation for residential a minimum of 10ftand units shall be no less than 18 inches a maximum of 20 ft from the base floor elevation CITY OF SANFORD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE physical separation such as distance (building setbacks), vegetative berms, hedges or other landscape cover,- walls or fences aesthetically designed for screening purposes; and open space systems with dense native vegetation and tree canopy'. and/or • the development of a transitional use between the incompatible uses (such as low intensity office development between general retail commercial centers and residential areas). Policy Encourage Separation of Urban and Rural Land Uses through Support of the Seminole County's Rural Boundary. The City Will support the County's designated rural boundary and its intent to protect the integrity of its rural lands and to preserve and reinforce the rural character and lifestyle of east Seminole County. The City will comply with the County's provisions regarding land use changes and annexations within the rural boundary (Future Land Use Map Series) and legally described in Seminole County Ordinance 2004-36, and as amended. Policy 1-1.1.6: Implement Land Development Regulations The City's land development regulations governing zoning; subdivision, signage: landscaping and tree protection-, and surface water management shall be revised as needed in order to: 1) effectively regulate future land use activities and natural resources identified on the Future Land Use Map; 2) adequately protect property rights; and 3) implement the goals, objectives, and policies stipulated in the Comprehensive Plan. The land development regulations shall continue to be applied to: a. Regulate the subdivision of land; b. Regulate the use of land and water consistent with this Element, ensure the compatibility of adjacent land uses, and provide for open space; c Protect the environmentally sensitive lands designated in the Comprehensive Plan; cl. Regulate areas subject to seasonal and periodic flooding and provide for drainage and storm water management; Protect potable water wellfields and aquifer recharge areas and ensure consistency with the City's water conservation regulations; Regulate signage'. 9. Ensure safe and convenient on-site and off-sfte traffic flow and vehicle parking needs and prohibit development within existing and future hghts-of-way,- and Enforce the Concurrency Management System (CMS) to maintain levels of services (LOS) for public facilities. ;�_Policy 1-1.1.7: Establish Performance Criteria for New Development, New development must comply with performance criteria established in the Comprehensive Plan. The performance criteria shall be enforced through a site plan review process, The performance criteria within the plain CITY OF SANFORD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE include, but are not limited to, the following, a. Land use compatibility; b. Wetlands and aquatic habitat protection; C. Open space requirements; d. Potable water wellfields protection; e. Water quality, drainage and stormwater management; f Off-street packing and internal traffic circulation as well as access to and egress from the street system; 9. Availability of requisite services and infrastructure, level of service criteria, adequate water supply, and concurrency; h. Perimeter screening and buffering of land uses and facilities which may otherwise adversely impact development of adjacent land use activities or natural resources such as wetlands and recharge areas, i. Erosion and sedimentation control; j- Protection of historically significant properties; k. Wastewater discharge; I Floodplain and floodway protection; M. Aquifer recharge protection; n. Potable water conservation; 0. Vegetative communities protection; p- Wildlife and wildlife and aquatic habitats; q. Nuisance abatement standards regulating adverse impacts such as noise, vibration, glare, odor, fire and explosion; and r. Community appearance. Policy 1-1.1.8: Apply Residential and Non -Residential Development Criteria. Land development regulations addressing the location and extent of residential and non-residential land uses shall be applied in a manner consistent with the Future Land Use Map and the policies and descriptions of types, sizes, and densitiesfintensities of land uses contained in this Element. Policy 1-1.1.9: implement Concurrency Management System. The CMS shall be an integral part of the Future Land Use Element and shall be binding performance criteria to which all new development shall comply. Policy 1-1.1.10: Provide On Site and Off -Site Improvements, Prior to receiving a building permit, plans for all new development shall be evaluated by the City. Similarly, prior to receiving a building permit, the applicant's plans must incorporate necessary on and off-site improvements or equitable contributions required as part of a development application pursuant to the concurrency management system or pursuant to other policies of the Comprehensive Plan or any other requirement of the Code of Ordinances, as exists or as may hereinafter be amended. Institutional facilities and services shall be required to comply with all criteria cited in objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Supportive facilities, services, or other improvements as required by ordinance shall be agreed to by the applicant prior to City approval of a development order and facilities shall be constructed as agreed upon concurrent with the impact of development. The intent of this policy is that all development applications include a satisfactory plan providing for the development of required on- site and off-site improvements, or equitable contribution in order to assure that the City does not d. Landscaping adjacent to existing and proposed street sidewalks must be compatible with the city's existing streetscape standards. C. Utilities. All utilities shall be located underground. 2. Off-street parking (surface parking lots). a. A knee wall shall be constructed for the length of any parking lot which front-, a "Pedestrian Priority" or an "A" street. The knee wall shall be constructed using the following standards: (i) Minimum two (2) feet in height to a maximum of three (3) feet. (ii) The knee wall must be masonry or brick which complements the primary building's architecture by utilizing the same architectural style. b. A maximum of two (2) vehicular access/curb cuts to parking lots are allowed along "A" Street block faces, subject to Access Management regulations of Schedule N, Vehicular access/curb cuts are not allowed on any block face less than three hundred and fifty (350) feet. Vehicular access drives shall connect each parking lot with at least two (2) separate Streets, 3. Parking Garages. Structured parking decks shall be located behind "A" Street frontage buildings with vehicular access restricted to "B" Streets. Interior landscaping requirements for parking garages shall be met by providing hanging baskets, landscape planters and/or flower boxes around the exterior of the first three (3) levels of the parking garage structure. Parking structures that permit access from an "A" or "Pedestrian Priority" Street shall comply with the following requirements: a. Direct pedestrian access to each adjacent street shall be provided. b. Except for vehicle entrances as described below, the ground floor shall be developed with enclosed commercial or civic floor space to a minimum building depth of thirty (30) feet along the entire length of the structure on each facing street, unless separated from the street by another building, parking lot and/or landscaped open space with a minimum depth of thirty (30) feet. C. Vehicle entrances to a parking structure shall be a maximum of forty (40) feet in width and shall be separated from other vehicle entrances to the structure or other parking structures on the same side of the block by a minimum distance of four hundred (400) feet, E4 - Parking requirements: New, -non-residential buildings under 5,000 square feet in I area in the Riverfront Overlay District and Downtown Overlay District shall be Wt Ordinance No. 4589 Adopted 2/8/2021 exempt from parking requirements. New, non-residential buildings over 5,000 square feet in area in the Riverfront Overlay District and Downtown Overlay District shall be required to provide one space per 500 square feet of '0() Overlay y or nonresidential gross floor area over and above the initial 5,000 square feet plus one space per dwelling unit. The parking shall be located within 1,000 feet of the site. On -street parking spaces located along the lot frontage may be counted toward the parking requirements of this Code. Buildings in the Midtown Overlay District shall comply with the provisions of Schedule H. Landscape buffer requirements. Traditional buffers stated elsewhere in this code shall not apply to the Riverfront Overlay District and Downtown Overlay District. The compatibility of points of access, transitions, and buffers shall be determined during the development review process. The need and use of buffers shall be determined during the development review process. H. Building Design. The following standards apply to the building design of all types of development: I Building Frontage. Building frontages shall occupy no less than seventy-five (75) percent of a "Pedestrian Priority" street and of an "A" street facing entrance. If site constraints exist, a knee wall may be constructed with the following provisions: a. Only twenty-five (25) percent of the required frontage may be credited as part of a knee wall. i. A knee wall must be constructed as described in Subsection 0.2.a. ii, The knee wall should be no more than the length of the primary building frontage. Public Entrance. Buildings that are open to the public shall have an entrance for pedestrians from the street to the building interior. This entrance shall be designed to be attractive and functionally be a distinctive and prominent element of the architectural design, and shall be open to the public during business hours. Buildings shall incorporate lighting and changes in mass, surface detail or finish to give emphasis to the entrances. 3. Building Facade. Buildings shall provide a foundation or base, typically from ground to bottom of the lower windowsills, with changes in volume or material. A clear visual division shall be maintained between the ground level floor and upper floors with either a cornice line or awning from twelve (12) feet to sixteen (16) feet above Base Flood Elevation or grade, whichever applies to the proposed development. No more than thirty (30) feet of horizontal distance of wall shall be provided without architectural relief for building walls and frontage walls facing the street. All buildings excluding single family detached homes shall utilize at U-17 Ordinance No, 4589 Adopted 218/2021 computers, lights, etc, left on the bike. Some designs of bike lockers can be stacked so there is twice the parking density. Good protection from the weather is another benefit. Bike lockers tend to be used most f©r long term bicycle commuter parking in areas without a lot of continuous oversight. SECTION 7.0 OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS A. Number of Automobile Parking Spaces, LAND USE CATEGORY RESIDENTIAL Mobile Home Multiple -Family Dwelli MISCELLANE OUSjrayel Trailer ,_ 1 Day Care Facility PUBLIC AND SEMI- PUBLIC (Wi name 3W7 024105 MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED PER INDICATED UNIT 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lo 4.0 Per PweI�Iin, Unit Per Dwellins,U.nit Per Dwelling Unit Per Dwel!:inl Unit Per Travel Trailer Per 1,000 square feet Gross Floor Area if' r! A \1 Residential Care Facility 1.0 4Per beds Boarding House 1.0 Per Sleeping Room PLUS 1.0 Per Resident Manager Accessory Dwelling Unit; i 1.0 Per unit Accessory Residential Structure; Accessory ALncultural Housing_, Noncommercial Amusement Facility Indoor/Outdoor with fixed 1.0 Per seat or per person based on seating maximum capacity Without fixed seating 1.0 Per 100 square feet of GFA and/or Land Area devoted to Assembly or Recreation Use on the Premises FAucational Facilities Elementary School and Middle School High School, College, University or Vocational School Cultural Facility Indoor Outdoor House of Worship ME 1.0 1 Per 9 students of maximum design Per 4 students of maximum design capacity 3.9 I Per 1,000 square feet of GFA 1.0Per 1,000 square feet of GFA 11 1.0 , -- -- Per acre of facility Per 3 seats based on maximum capacity of Auditorium Or Principal Place of Assemblv CITY OF SANFORD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE The distribution range of uses in the mixed-use designations below represents an area wide composite land use mix. DENSITY/INTENSITY (MAXIMUM) - ------------ LAND USE MAP PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION (MINIMA)Q DESIGNATIONS SYMBOL 6 COMMERCIAL 1 INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL 1.0 FAR O�50 FAR 50 du/acre 1-4 High Intensity i I - -11 i , HI 50*16 18596 0%/10% i 0%140% Waterfront) 0.3512.0 FAR O�5 FAR 50 dulacre Downtown WDBD Business District 30%/70% 10% r 3W* / 40% Mixed , L I Use 1 Westside Industry 0.50 FAR 0.50 FAR 20 dulacre Districts 1 & Commerce WIC 30%/75% 10%140% 15%150% Residential/ Office) 0.35 FAR Institutional ROI n1a 20 dulacre 75%1100% 0%140% Airport Industry & 1 -0 FAR 1.0 FAR 50 dulacre (MF) Commerce AIC 1 dulacre (SF) 25%175% 50%175% - — --- - - 0%/10% Notes. dulacre d—we—Ilin-g amtsper-as dia-fi-mied in,_,_P,o,Ji_cy _1-1.2._1; F -A-0-111-1-1 family, S = Floor Area Ratio; MF = Multi - F Single Family The percent distribution represents minimum and maximum percentage mix for each use. The percentage distribution of uses is measured for the total area of the land use designation. Uses must be consistent with adjacent land uses. * The maximum intensity of nonresidential development, other than industrial, measured as a floor area ratio is 2.0 for the areas east of French Avenue, and 0.35 for the areas west of French Avenue. See policy 1-1.8.1 for more information. V'Policy 1-1.1.1: Maintain Consistency of Future Land Use Map and Related Policies. The I Future Land Use Map and related policies, definitions of land use designations and qualitative standards shall be applied in allocating future land uses. All developments are subject to the City's The e s Concurrency Management system. In addition to the evaluation criteria, which pertain to capital improvements, the City shall evaluate amendments to the Future Land Use Map for Consistency with the following criteria- • The amendment shall be consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 187, F,S) and the Growth Policy Act (Chapter 163 F.S,)-, Ord. 4336 1-3 March 2015 CITY OF SANFORD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE • The amendment shall be consistent with all elements of the City Comprehensive Plan; 0 The amendment shall be consistent with Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code; —)'- , Public facilities and services shall be available concurrent with development of the site; • There have been changes in population, land use or economic development trends and/or projections that warrant a change in the future land use designation; • There have been sufficient changes in the character of the area or adjacent lands to warrant a different land use designation; • The proposed future land use designation and its allowable uses are compatible with surrounding land use designations and with the preferred growth and development pattern of the City as evidenced by land use policies in the Comprehensive Plan The amendment will not significantly alter acceptable existing land use patterns or adversely affect the livability of the area or the health and safety of the residentsx • The land shall be capable of supporting development allowed under the proposed future land use designation as evidenced by the presence or absence on the site of soil types suitable for development, vegetative habitats, wetlands, wetland protection zones or flood -prone areas, well field protection zones, wildlife habitats, archaeological, historical or cultural resources; • The proposed amendment will create a demonstrated benefit to the City and enhance the character of the community; and • If the amendment increases the density or intensity of use, the applicant shall demonstrate that there is a need for the increase in the near planning future (10 years). Policy 1-1.1.2: Manage Future Land Use. The Future Land Use Map and performance criteria in this plan shall be applied as a planning and management tool in order to prevent development of land uses which do not conform to the City's character as reflected in the City's adopted Future Land Use Map, Policy 1-1.1.3: Manage and Coordinate Future Land Use Decisions. The City shall maintain land development regulations, including performance standards which ensure that land development activities, resource conservation, and infrastructure issues are managed in a manner that includes timely coordination with County, regional, and State agencies having jurisdictional authority. Management of land and physical improvements identified on the Future Land Use Map will be coordinated in order to protect and/or conserve natural systems, including topography, soil conditions, vegetation, natural habitat, potable water wellfields, and other environmentally sensitive land and water resources. Land use shall also be predicated on availability of man-made infrastructure and service systems required to support respective land use activities. Policy 1-1.1.4: Promote Orderly Land Use Transition, Where it is infeasible or undesirable to physically separate residential from non-residential land uses, buffering shall be required to promote a smooth land use transition. Buffering may take the form of. Ord. 4336 1-4 March 20315 CHAPTER 2. INFRASTRUCTURE INTRODUCTION Statutory Basis Florida S Statutes Section 163.3177(6)(c) Drovides that a local a ovemments grovide an element related to addressing infrastructure needs in their Commehensive P!gnigq*ecjficajly related to Potable Water, Sanitary Sewer. Solid, Waste, Stormwater and MOW Recharge, Thpp_olicies contained within this element shall ensure the adegdate provision of such infrastructureincluding methods to address current and anticl2ated deficiencies in the system and meet present and future demand. The element is also -expeected to address the Drotection of natural resource sp -e -cifically related to the orp-t-ection of water suDr)lv through its goligigs and r --mrdinanon with the Water SuDoly Plan. Section 2. Infrastructure shall serve to implement the above Legulatqr requirements, with Goals _y 2 through 6 serving as -each Sub -Element noted above. Sustainable Vision Significant components of the Infrastructure Element are intrinsically linked with the concept of resource motection, pArticularly with regard to Potable Water and Auifer Recharge 'Both sub - elements are intended to work t2gether to ensure the Protegilon ;--4water supply and water quality. These gglicies are, intended to work in concert ,with the Water Supply Plan, and the SJRWMD and FQEP to ensure the protection of this valuable resource. Suovorting DoggMents Section 2. Infrastructure is sul22grted by the Public Facilities and Community Resources Section of Volume 11whichgrovides for the inventor y of existing infrastructure for each sub -element and analysis of future needs, based on gmiected population and g owth for the ten year planniag periodwhich aggommodates projections throe 2030. The Infrastructure Mar) series is also included in Section VI of this document for reference, Other supporting documents not lg.cluded.n these Volumes, but laina significant role in this Chapter are The Sanford Water Facilities Sunply Plan, in the grocess of beng uated. 111-35 III PUBLIC FACILITIES & COMMUNITY RESOURCES GOALS, OB,IECTIVES & POLICIES GOAL 4 -INF 1: PROVIDE ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES. ENSURE AVAILABILITY AND PROVISION 2)F ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES INCLUDING POTABLE WATER, SANITARY SEWER, SOLID WASTE, STORMWATER DRAINAGE, AND AQUIFER RECHARGE IN A MANNER WHICH PROTECTS INVESTMENTS IN EXISTING FACILITIES, CONTINUES TO SERVE EXISTING RESIDENTS AND SUPPORTS ORDERLY, COMPACT GROWTH. i-nfrastructure Supr)bv & Dennand OBJECTIVE 4 -INF 1.1: Ensure Available Public Facilities, Maximize Use of Existing Public Facilities, and Prevent Urban Sprawl. The City shall require that proposed land uses be adequately served by public facilities, including water, wastewater, storm water management, solid waste disposal and hazardous waste management. The subdivision and site plan review processes shall provide a unified system for maximizing use of existing public facilities and for coordinating the efficient location, timing, phasing, and scale of public and private development. Policy 4 -INF 1.1.1 * Enforce General Performance Standards. The City of Sanford shall _a!4�tado Land Development R that_public facilities be provided concurrent With the impacts of new r4mijainnrnnint. The City si�YiiFenfd-r—ce performance standards ensuring -tRa—t-the location, scale, timing and design of development shall be coordinated with public facilities and services in order to prevent the proliferation of urban sprawl and achieve cost effective land development patterns- Urban sprawl shall be further addressed through performance standards that, • Direct future development only to those areas where provision of public facilities necessary to meet levels of service (LOS) standards are available concurrent with the impacts of the development-, • Maximize use of existing central potable water, reclaimed water and wastewater facilities by requiring that all new development hook up to the City's existing central systems-, • Require all new development connect to irrigation quality reclaimed water tines for irrigation purposes If not within the required reclaimed water connection distances as listed in the "Utilities Standards and Specifications and Design Standards for Water Conservation' (referred to as the Utilities Manual), new development shall utilize the lowest quality available water for irrigation purposes, • Avoid expensive development at very low densities surrounding the City's urban core area; ® Promote planned mixed use development within the strategically located Westside Industry & Commerce area, the 1-4 interchange, the Waterfront/Downtown Business District, and Airport Industry and Commerce area; • Conserve wetlands, natural drainage corridors, and other environmentally sensitive areas; • Prevent extended strip commercial development within the areas designated planned mixed use development by mandating access and curb cut controls together with required dedication of 111-36 III PUBLIC FACILITIES & COMMUNITY RESOURCES cross easements to restrict and/or to facilitate well planned access, internal circulation, shared parking, and egress; and 0 Provide density and intensity thresholds that promote infill. --),,Policy 4 -INF 1.1.2: Maintain Public Facility Concurrency Requirements. A concurrency ep management system LQMSLshall be maintained and enforced as part of the an -61 _0 mepA ulations LQRs for potable water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, and solid waste. Policy 4- NF 1.1.3: Eliminate Existing Public Facility Deficiencies Prior to Development Approval. The City shall issue no development order for new development which would result in an increase in demand on deficient facilities prior to completion of improvements designed to eliminate the deficiencies. The City shall include an adequate facilities requirement, -+The adequate facilities requirement shall mandate that future applications for development shall include a written evaluation of the impact of the anticipated development on the levels of services for the water and wastewater systems, solid waste system, drainage, recreation, and the traffic circulation system. Prior to issuing a site plan or building permit (whichever is first applicable), the City shall render a finding that the applicant has provided written assurance that the proposed development shall be served with each of the above cited facilities with a LOS at least equal to that LOS stipulated in this Plan. The developers application shall include written assurances that any required improvements shall be in place concurrent with the impacts of the development (i.e., by the time a certificate of occupancy is granted by the City). OBJECTIVE44INIF 1.2.- Meet Projected Public Facility Demands. The City shall plan for projected public facility demands for the short and long-term planning horizons. Policy 4 -INF 1.2.1: Coordinate with Capital Improvements Element All public facility projects shall be undertaken in accordance with the schedule provided in the Capital Improvements Element. PG1IGy 4A -0 ply M p*141-11— 4.11 majqi;P-1 *—I--- .4'.1- +-1 f- indeftaken in-aceefdar—with the sehed, -1- Gapi mentsEilemepA of thi plan- Policy 4-�INFI.2,2 444: Update Demand and Supply Information System. The City of Sanford -shall develop procedures for updating facility demand and capacity information and shall prepare annual summaries of capacity and demand information for respective facilities and/or service areas as part of the concurrency management program - Policy 4 -INF 1.2.3 44.4: Evaluate Capital Improvement Schedule, Projects proposed for inclusion in the five-year schedule of capital improvement needs will be annually evaluated and ranked by the City Commission. The evaluation and rank will be based on the following priority level guidelines. a- "Level 1" -whether the project, 0 Protects public health, safety, and environmentally sensitive natural resources. 0 Fulfills the City's legal commitment to provide facilities and services. 111-37 LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS CITY OF SANFORD, FLORIDA ARTICLE 1: PURPOSE, GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND DEFINITIONSSECTION This ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the "City of Sanford's Land Development Regulations," "City of Sanford Zoning Ordinance," "Land Development Regulations," "regulations," "ordinance," and/or "City of Sanford Subdivision Regulations." SECTION 1.2 LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY AND BINDING EFFECT The legislative authority for the City of Sanford's Land Development Regulations is as follows: § 163.3202 Florida Statutes, mandates that local governments shall adopt or amend and enforce land development regulations that are consistent with and implement their adopted comprehensive plan. §163.3202. Florida Statutes, requires that land development regulations shall contain specific and detailed provisions necessary or desirable to implement the adopted comprehensive plan and shall as a minimum: (a) Regulate the subdivision of land: (b) Regulate the use of land and water for those land use categories included in the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan and ensure the compatibility of adjacent uses and provide for open space; (c) Provide for protection of potable water wellfields, (d) Regulate areas subject to seasonal and periodic flooding and provide for drainage and stormwater management-, (e) Ensure the protection of environmentally sensitive lands designated in the comprehensive plan; (f) Regulate signage; Provide for concurrency management. The concurrency management system must require that no development order or permit for development be issued unless such order or permit is conditioned on the availability of required public facilities and services concurrent with the impacts of the development. The concurrency management system is further elaborated in Policies 8-1.4.1 through 8-1.5.1 of the City of Sanford's Comprehensive Plan. (h) Ensure safe and convenient on-site traffic flow considering needed vehicle parking. 1-1 SECTION 1.3 LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE, INTENT AND SCOPE The purpose of the City of Sanford's Band Development Regulations is to assist implementation of the City's Comprehensive Plan Among other sound and generally accepted land use and growth management practices and principles, the Regulations are intended to: (a) Manage efficient growth with the capacity to serve new development and population; (b) Strengthen the City's economy and its tax base; (c) Enhance the livability and character of the City of San -ford through an attractive and functional mix of living, working, shopping and recreational opportunities; (d) Encourage the use of existing public facilities and infrastructure through the redevelopment of infill areas: (e) Encourage private sector investment in the preservation and enhancement of downtown areas; (f) Stabilize and improve existing neighborhoods; (g) Promote development and redevelopment that will enhance the value of properties and ensure that development and redevelopment will not have a negative impact on the value ofsurrounding properties; (h) Minimize conflicts among uses of land and structures in order to protect and conserve the value of land and the character of neighborhoods; (i) Enhance the aesthetic and visual character of the community; 0) Protect water supplies, natural resources and fish and wildlife habitats; (k) Preserve floodplains, drainageways and other natural areas having hydrological functions; (1) Protect historical structures, sites, streets and neighborhoods-, (m) Promote attractive and functional gateways into the City of Sanford. (n) Balance the protection and recognition of private property rights with the appropriate regulation of land to protect the public interest consistent with generally accepted land use practices and principles. 1-2 SECTION 1.4 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The City of Sanford's Land Development Regulations, pursuant to Sections 163.3201 and 163.3202, Florida Statutes, are hereby adopted to assist in implementing the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan for managing the use of land and water resources within the City of Sanford. The Land Development Regulations are and shall remain consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as mandated by Chapter 163, Pt 11: the "Local Government and Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulation Act", I'lorida Statutes. The Land Development Regulations shall be amended as necessary to assure consistency with the City of Sanford's Comprehensive Plan. SECTION 1.5 APPLICABILITY A. General Applicability. The Land Development Regulations shall apply to all development or changes in land use throughout the incorporated municipality of the City of Sanford. No development, as defined herein, or change in land use shall be undertaken without prior authorization pursuant to this Regulation. B. Status of Previously Issued Construction Permits. The provisions of these land development regulations and any amendments thereto shall not affect the validity of any lawfully issued and effective construction permit if: "Che development activity authorized by the permit has been commenced prior to July 27, 1992 or will be commenced after the effective date of this Regulation but within 60 days following the issuance of a valid building permit granted prior to the effective date of these Land Development Regulations; and 2. The development activity continues without interruption (except because of war or natural disaster) until the development is complete. If the construction permit expires, any further development on that site shall occur only in conformance with the requirements of the City of Sanford's Land Development Regulations or amendment thereto. C. Status of Previously Approved Development Plans. Prcjects with unexpired development plans on which development activity is taking place on July 27, 1992 or an amendment thereto is adopted must meet only the requirements of the regulations in effect when the development plan was approved. If the develop- ment plan expires, any further development on that site shall occur only in conformance with the requirements of the City of Sanford's Land Development Regulations or amendment thereto. 1-3 ARTICLE VIII: CONCURRENCY PROCEDURES SECTION &I CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES A. General. Concurrency is a finding that the public facilities and services necessary to support a proposed development are available, or will be made available, concurrent with the impacts of the development. *rhe provisions of this Article are designed to provide a systematic process for the review and evaluation of the impact of all proposed development on concurrency facilities, as required by the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulations Act, Chapter 163, Part 11, Florida Statutes, and Rule 93-5.0055, Florida Administrative Code. B. Concurrency Facilities Defined. Concurrency facilities are defined as and include: I. Roadways 2. Potable Water Facilities 3. Sanitary Sewer Facilities 4. Solid Waste, Facilities 5. Recreation and Open Space Facilities 6. Drainage Facilities C. Purpose. I'lie purpose of this Article is to ensure that development orders and permits are conditioned on the availability of coneurrency facilities which meet adopted level of service requirements described in Schedule Q. Schedule Q cites level of service requirements and methods of calculating facility capacity governing concurrency determination. Further. in order to insure certainty in the development process, this Article provides procedures and mechanisms to reserve capacity for concurrency facilities. SECTION &2 APPLICABILITV AND EXEMPTIONS A. Applicability. All applicants for development approval shall submit any information, data and analysis deemed necessary by the Administrative Official to conduct a concurrency review. B. Exemptions. All applicants for development shall be subject to concurrency review unless specifically exempted below: 1. Projects Below the Minimum Threshold. The following development shall be exempt from concurrency management reviews: a. Residential projects which would result in the creation of one (1) additional single family dwelling or one (1) two family dwelling as well as structural alterations, including room additions which do not change the land use; PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 1, 2021 AGENDA TO: Planning and Zoning Commission PREPARED BY: Sabreena Colbert — Senior Planner SUBJECT: Staff Response to Citizens' Analysis Report — PH -1 The following information is provided in response to the Citizens' Analysis Report submitted by Mr. Ven Sequenzia on June 16, 2021. 1. Proposal Information Applicant: Paul V. Mellini, Successor Trustee Authorized Agent: Richard Shassian, Vistas at Lake Monroe, LLC; Chad Moorhead, P.E. Madden, Moorhead and Stokes Site Location: 1100 E. 1st Street Parcel Size: 3.09 acres Site Zoning: (RM01) Multi -Family Residential -Office -Institutional General Plan Designation: (WDBD) Waterfront Downtown Business District. The property is also within the (MT) Midtown Overlay District Permit Application: PH- I Staff has no comment on the Proposal information shown. 2. Project Locality and Setting The 3.09 -acre site is located south of E. Seminole Boulevard, north of E. l' Street, and west of N. Mellonville Avenue in the city of Sanford, Florida. Staff has no comment on the project locality and setting. 3. Project Description "The subject property is currently zoned Multiple -Family Residential -Office -Institutional (RM01) with a future land use designation of Waterfront Downtown Business District (V*rDBD) and could be entitled for up to 151 units." Source: Applicant 1 I Page "Our development application will request a rezoning to Planned Development and propose up to 100 multifamily units. The proposed site improvements will consist of one 4 story building, a retention pond, and landscape buffer on the eastern Portion. of the property adjacent to Mellonville Ave." Source: Applicant Staff, has no comment on the project description. 4. Project Analysis The project analysis is the heart of a staff report—it provides the information needed to make a decision on the proposal. 4.1 Project Analysis: Planned development process The Sanford staff report fails to explain to the public the sequence of events that take place in processing the (PD) planned development process. Our citizens' group contacted a city planner who explained to us that a two-step process is almost always used in processing a (PD) planned development. The planner also told our citizens' group that the two-step process proceeds concurrently—the two processes are reviewed by staff during the same time frame and are presented for public hearing at the same planning commission meeting. Concurrent processing assures that the entire proposal will meet the city's needs, complies with the comprehensive plan and the land development regulations. Step 1: Legislative action—planned development zoning. The zoning map must be amended to show the territory as a planned development. The process is carried out exactly as any other zoning niap, amendment (ZMA); a legislative action requiring both a planning commission hearing and city commissioners hearing. The outcome is a planned development identified on the zoning map. The first planned development bears the identification number "PH -1" and each following planned development bears a consecutive number. 2 1 P a g e "Our development application will request a rezoning to Planned Development and propose up to 100 multifamily units. The proposed site improvements will consist of one 4 story building, a retention pond, and landscape buffer on the eastern Portion. of the property adjacent to Mellonville Ave." Source: Applicant Staff has no comment on the project description. 4. Project Analysis The project analysis is the heart of a staff report—it provides the information needed to make a decision on the proposal. 4.1 Project Analysis: Planned development process The Sanford staff report fails to explain to the public the sequence of events that take place in processing the (PD) planned development process. Our citizens' group contacted a city planner who explained to us that a two-step process is almost always used in processing a (PD) planned development. The planner also told our citizens' group that the two-step process proceeds concurrently—the two processes are reviewed by staff during the same time frame and are presented for public hearing at the same planning commission meeting. Concurrent processing assures that the entire proposal will meet the city's needs, complies with the comprehensive plan and the land development regulations. Step 1: Legislative action—planned development zoning. The zoning map must be amended to show the territory as a planned development. The process is carried out exactly as any other zoning map amendment (ZMA); a legislative action requiring both a planning commission hearing and city commissioners hearing. The outcome is a planned development identified on the zoning map. The first planned development bears the identification number "PH -1" and each following planned development bears a consecutive number. 2 1 P a g e Step 2: Adjudicative action ---planned unit development proposal. The proposal may be processed as a site design review (SDR); a quasi-judicial action requiring only a planning commission hearing, if the plan ever needs to be revised, it need only go through the short site design review process. The application consists of the following items: • Site plan. A plan to scale showing proposed uses and structures. • Supporting plans. Detailed plans supporting the action. • Supporting text. Written evidence supporting the action. • Architectural renderings. The material required for a site design reviews. • Construction drawings. Construction drawings for the proposal. • Development schedule. A timeline, schedule showing all major construction steps. {Jur citizens' group would assume that the Vistas at Lake Monroe Apartments, is an application for a Legislative action—planned development zoning, due to the lack of information providers. However the city is combining the zoning map amendment (ZM A) process with the site; design review (SDR) process. If the city is combining the process, the Vistas at Lake Monroe Apartments application needs to contain much more information. Our citizens' group asks, which process is the city using: a two-step process or a one-step process. The process described above is not applicable to the City of Sanford. Article N, Zoning Amendments and Planned Development Projects, City of Sanford Land Development Regulations applies to requests for zoning amendments submitted to the City of Sanford. The staff report provides a standard format to present information pertinent to any given request, i.e. background, legal review, recommendation, etc. and does not outline development processes/timelines. 4.2 Project Analysis: CAPP Citizen Awareness and Participation Plast (CAPP). An applicant is required to create and implement a citizen participation plan before gaining various approvals. The purpose of the CAPP program is to ensure both the applicant and citizens have an adequate opportunity early in the 3 1 P a g e planning process to discuss, understand, and try to resolve neighborhood issues related to the perceived impact of a proposal. Our citizens" group has not found any evidence that a meaningful CAPP plan was developed and used to "resolve neighborhood issues." All our citizens' group found was the following letter sent out, to neighbors by Moorhead and Stokes LLC, Civil Engineers. CAPP Letter and Summary are attached to the staffreport. Moorhead and Stokes LLC, Civil Engineers, provides no evidence that they made any further attempt to communicate with the citizens of Sanford. Once the applicant failed in their attempt to communicate with the citizens of Sanford, our citizens' group would think the city itself' would have tried to provide an "adequate opportunity early in the planning process to discuss, understand, and try to resolve neighborhood issues." Please reference the Appendix of the Citizen Awareness and Participation Plan Guideline and Resource Handbook where it states the "level of citizen interest and involvement will vary depending on the application and the target area will be determined by the Administrative Official" with a minimum requirement of notifying property owners within 500 feet of the proposed property. Understanding the implications of this development and the fact we were in the midst of COVID- 19 the Administrative Official should have set more rigorous guidelines for the CAPP procedure. The city also failed to supply the list of addresses used in sending out CAPP notifications, a community member managed to finally get a list from city staff, out of 34 addresses listed less than I half were actual residents with the city having received the majority of notices. A 500 foot buffer is the stated minimum, "each development should be addressed according to the implications it imposes on the community", and staff failed to act appropriately. 4 1 P a g e Following is our response to the community meeting held on May 25, 2021 referenced by the city in the staff analysis for the June 3, 2021 planning & Zoning meeting: At the Planning and Zoning meeting on May 6, 2021 the P&Z Chairman tasked Ven Sequenzia, a member of the community opposition, to arrange a meeting with the Applicant. Mr. Sequenzia scheduled a meeting for May 25, 2021 and contacted Mr. Coover, the attorney for the developer. The developer, engineer and attorney were in attendance and fielded questions and concerns from the residents for about 45 minutes. The city response in the revised June 3, 2021 report is unfortunate in that a task was asked of Mr. Sequenzia and he complied. Mr. Sequenzia does not work for the city, nor dogs he have an obligation to any commissions, boards or city staff to conduct the referenced meeting in a "CA:PP like" manner. It ii the city's job to conduct official meetings and in turn the city staff's job to ensure that all appropriate measures are; taken to fulfill these obligations. In that they have failed. The CAPP is an effort to be completed by the applicant/developer and coordinated with interested parties or concerned citizens; the CAPP is not intended to be a city meeting. An overview of the CAPP process that was reported to the city is included in the staff report. Further comment on the CAPP completed as part of Vistas at Lake Monroe PD Rezone request is moot at this point in the process. 3 Project Analysis: Multiple fainily housing design guidelines (as addressed by Applicant) SECTION 16.0 MULTIPLE FAMILY HOUSING DESIGN GUIDELINES. Explanation of deviation from standards. The City of Sanford requires the applicant to explain why the proposal deviates from Schedule "E", Section 16.0 multiple family housing design guidelines of the City's L DRs. The Multiple Family Housing Design Guidelines do not apply to developments within the WDBD land use designation pursuant Schedule E, Section 16.O.B. _S1Page Schedule U, Section 3.0, part F.5 for the Midtown Overlay, Transitional Residential Development 5. Transitional Residential Development. (Figures I and J)Transitional Development Blocks shall be applied to any development over two (2) stories in height that is adjacent to single-family residential zoning. The block facing a single-family residential zoning shall be single-family detached housing that is compatible with existing residential. The mid -block portion of the block may transition up to four (4) stories not to exceed fifty-six (56) feet with the following provisions: a. Setbacks. The setback shall be determined by the existing residential uses that are facing the proposed residential uses. The setback may be varied up to five (5) feet from the average of the existing residential units. The structures that are more intense than single-family housing shall follow the appropriate development block as detailed in these design standards. Applicant's Explanation of Deviation: The proposed building setback from the eastern property line is 100' in order to buffer from the existing residentially zoned properties east of Mellonville. We are also providing a 25' landscape butTer. Citizens' Concerns: The 100' setback is due to the storm water retention the Applicant must install, will this just consist of a large depression only filled during the rainy season. The design of any proposed stormwater systems will be reviewed during the development plan review process for compliance with Schedule 0, Drainage, Easements and Site Development Regulations. b. Landscape buffer. A landscape buffer of t%venty (20) feet may be required as determined by the Administrative Official or his designee. Applicant's Explanation of Deviation: We are providing a 25' landscape butler adjacent to Mellonville. Citizens' Concerns: The site map states a 20' foot buffer. The Vistas at Lake Monroe PD Master Plan attached shows a 25' landscape buffer adjacent to Mellonville Avenue (East) on the site layout as well as the site data table, plan sheet C100. 6 1 P a g c c. Lighting. The proposed development shall also control the effects of lights from automobiles or other sources. Where the site plan indicates potential adverse effects from parking or from other sources on the lot on which the non-residential use is to be located, such effects shall be illuminated, or at a minimum, prevented so that lights do not illuminate adjacent residential property below a height of five (5) feet at the residential property line, or from shining into any residential window if there is to be non-residential parking on the premises after dark. Applicant's Explanation of Deviation: Based on the layout of the site no headlights will affect the single-family residences along Mellonville. Citizens' Concerns: We do not have access to these plans for the project. So, we are blocked from addressing the design. The Applicant only addresses headlights with no mention of the numerous amounts of lighting required for the parking lot. The design of proposed site lighting including a photometric plan will be reviewed during the development plan review process for compliance with Schedule G, Architectural Design Guidelines, Section 4.0, Lighting. d. Rear Yard Setback. When a non-residential use or multi -family (apartment) use is abutting any single-family residential property, there shall be an additional setback required for any yard of that use which is contiguous to the residential property, as follows: 0 When the rear side of a single -story structure equal to or less than twenty-five (25) feet in height abuts single-family residential zoned property, that portion of the structure(s) shall be set back at a minimum twenty (20) feet from the rear property line. 7 1 P a g e * When a single -story structure equal to or less than twenty-five (25) feet in height abuts the side of a single-family residential Toned property, the structures shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet apart. * Trash receptacles and loading facilities may not be permitted in the rear of the property. Service areas shall be located on the side. Exceptions to the location shall be determined by the location of the adjacent single-family residential use. * When any side of structure greater than one (1) story or twenty-five (25) feet in height abuts residential property, that portion of the structure shall be set back at a minimum of thirty (30) feet from the property boundary. Building Design. The side of the building that is facing or backing up to any residential development must be treated with the saute architectural design standards as the front of the) building. Applicant's Explanation of Deviation: The site adheres to this section. Please nate that site has frontage on first street and Seminole Ave. The 100' building setback from Meilonville is above and beyond this requirement. Citizens' Concerns: Again, the 100' setback is due to the necessity of the storm water retention. Staff has no comment on the rear yard setback. The development standards proposed are included in Table 2 of the staff report for review and consideration by the commission. 4A Project Analysis: General citizens' concerns Does the application contain all of the information required, in sufficient detail, to explain the scope of the proposal and disclose its social, economic, and environmental effects on the community? The Vistas at Lake Monroe Apartments application contains very few facts. It does not mention social, economic, and environmental effects. Staff has no comment on the social and economic effects. General information related to soils, vegetation, wellfleld protection zones, wetlands, etc. are noted on the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD Master Plan as required per Article IV, Zoning Amendments and Planned Development Projects. __ 81Page Afull review of the environmental impacts as it relates to the City's requirements will be completed during the development plan review process. Is there evidence that the proposal is both viable and desirable? A long tittle ago, the city should have researched the communifyv needs and developed a list of significant items it requires ftom the applicant to assist the applicant in developing a sensitive proposal that benefits the community and fills a market need. Where is that list? The city does not seem to have a list of significant items it requires from the applicant to assist. the applicant in developing a sensitive proposal that benefits the community and fills a inarket need. Our citizens' group has not seen such a list. Staff has no comment on the viability, desirability and market need of the project. The process and requirements for zoning amendments are included in Article IV, Zoning Amendments and Planned Development Projects, City of Sanford Land Development Regulations. Timeline and Schedule? The public should have access to the timeline and schedule showing all major events in the C� construction of the project. If the proposal is to be constructed in phases, there should be a schedule for each phase. Our citizens' group has not seen a schedule in the application or the city's staff report. Staff has no comment on the timeline and schedule for construction of the project. The only application submitted and being considered at this time is a PD Rezone request. 9 1 P a g e Public Need far the Proposal? Our citizens' group would like to know how the proposal will fill a public need and contribute to the general welfare of the community. Our citizens' group considers the 33 apartments per acre proposed for the Vistas at Lake Monroe Apartments is way to high, considering that the Vistas at Lake Monroe Apartments will be located across N. Mellonvillc Avenue, from a very quiet neighborhood of large lot single-family residences. Development closer to 10 apartments to an acre would be more appropriate. Our citizens' group also asks: is there a need for low-end, low -amenity (70) one bedroom and (30) two bedroom apartments with open air parking in a parking lot far removed from the dwellings, at this location" A market study was not included in the application. According to the Kelley Blue Book, the average price of a new car is $38,723, Member,-, of our citizens' group say they would not want to park such an expensive vehicle in an unattended parking lot out in the weather. In this day and age, fully enclosed garages have come to be expected, except in very low rent neighborhoods. Members of our citizens' group also asks why the application for the Vistas at Lake Monroe C� Apartments specifies 127 open parking spaces, when General Block Standards, Schedule U page 16 1 states that "Building in the Midtown Overlay District shall [require 2 parking] spaces per unit. That standard would require the applicant to provide 200 parking spaces. There is a big cost saving between 127 and 200 parking spaces. Staffs assessment of the WDBD land use and requested density is included in the staff report. Applications are reviewed and an assessment is provided by staff based on the Land Development Regulations and Comprehensive Plan; market feasibility and financial hardship is not considered. The Vistas at Lake Monroe PD Master Plan submitted and attached to the staff report proposes a parking ratio of 1.5 spaces per unit which yields 150 spaces, not 127 as identified above. 10 1 P a g e Demographic Profile? Who are the targeted end-user population, broken doNvn by age, race, sex, and household income. Will any of the apartments be reserved for very low, low, and moderate income? Note the site map states "Senior Living 'orApartments. The Applicant has consistently told our citizens' group and the Planning and Zoning commission these will be "high end/luxury" apartments. Which is it? Not applicable to City Staff due to the Fair Housing Act and therefore no comment. Description of Outdoor Lighting? Our citizens' group asks for a description of outdoor lighting, explaining the effectiveness of glare protection for the surrounding neighborhood where many of us live. Though not legally binding, outdoor lighting should comply with International Dark -Sky Association standards (v,-,A,w.darksky.org/outdoorlighting/L,-uidance). The design of proposed site lighting including a photometric plan will be reviewed during the development plan review process for compliance with Schedule G, Architectural Design Guidelines, Section 4.0, Lighting which includes the outdoor lighting recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (JESNA). Market Study? Pro Forma Financial Statement? Not applicable to City Staff and therefore no comment. Ifill the proposal be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare? The application does not contain enough information for us to conclude. We don't even know what the buildings would look like because the application only shows the building footprints. Neither the city nor the citizens have been given the architectural details required for a (PUD) application. Architectural details are not required as part of an application for a zoning amendment. The proposed development is subject to the architectural requirements outlined in Schedule U which is also recommended condition 10. a included in the staff report. 11 (Page Will the proposal produce an economic environment of stable and desirable character? Is the proposal premature; for example, it will open undeveloped land to development before the city can supply adequate services? (Some jurisdictions allow land to be subdivided, and houses to be built long before a full range of utilities arc installed and struts ars: paved. Sometimes, the project fails to be completed. Staff has no comment on the economic stability or desirability of the project. The application submitted and being considered at this time is a PD Rezone request. Prior to any development on site, a potential applicant/developer will need to submit for development plan review followed by a site development permit application. Is lite scale and density of the proposal compatible with the natural environment? The extent of paving, the huge outdoor parking lot, and the enormous stormwater retention pond will pretty much eliminate the natural environment. Any (re)development on the subject property will require associated infrastructure including parking and a stormwater drainage system. Is there a feasible better alternative than the proposal as submitted? The city has not even looked for a fetter alternative. And when the CAPP process was not appropriately administered, the Applicant and City cut citizens out of the planning process. Brainstorming could have been used to look for a better alternative, but it was never tried. Brainstorming can be oral, written, or electronic. Brainstorming has two phases, first a pure idea - generation phase, where no judgements are made about any ideas, and second, an evaluation and ranking phase, to Delp an-ive at concrete solutions. The subject property is privately owned. Staff has reviewed the application that has been submitted and provided comments/feedback on the proposal applicable to the code. The CAPP process is an effort completed by the applicant based on the city's guidelines. Staff is available as a resource in this effort to both the applicant/developer and any interested parties, however the city does not schedule, notify or distribute notices for the CAPP; the burden is on the applicant. 121'age Have all feasible alternatives been explored and rejected based on the proposal's superior attributes and benefit to end-users and the community*? No, though due to the cities decision to disband the DRT along with recordings from such meeting and overall lack of disclosure on the behalf of the city we have no information to be sure. See attached email to Ms. Amy Berrios dated June 16, 2021 with information related to the removal of the Development Review Team as a formal committee. Does the proposal violate design standards applicable to the site? The Vistas at Lake Monroe apartments application did not include the Following design review items: • Site plan. A plan to scale showing proposed uses and structures. Supporting plans. Detailed plans supporting the action. Supporting text. Written evidence supporting the action. • Architectural renderings. The material required for a. site design review. Construction drawings. Construction drawings for the proposal. 0 Development schedule. A timeline schedule showing all major construction steps. So, neither the public nor the city knows what the applicant intends to build. The only application submitted and being considered at this time is a PD Rezone request. Prior to any development on site, a potential applicantldeveloper will need to submitfor developmentplan review followed by a site development permit application and building permit application. Is the proposal complementary to the surrounding area? No. The scale and density of the proposed Vistas at Lake :Monroe apartments will overwhelm the surrounding low-density single-family neighborhood. Staffs assessment of the density and intensity of the project is included in the staff report. 13Page lVill the application deprive nearby property owners of the enjoyment of their property? This is hard to answer because only the applicant knows what he intends to build on the land. According to the city these specifics were not supplied when the application was submitted. Will neighbors lose their viewwape? Average height of a 4 -story building is around 40.5 ft high from road level. The neighbors across N. Mellonville Avenue will lose their viewscape and their privacy. Is the sizx and shape of the site adequate to accommodate the proposal? No. The Vistas at Lake Monroe apartments parcels of land are not well suited for high-density living. (Bad development is often a case of trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.) The Vistns at Lake Monroe apartments proposal has made many compromises to squeeze the maximum number of dwellings onto the site. We already know the development calls for distant and unsafe outdoor parking, what else will the city find out when building designs are received. What size are the apartments, do they meet minimums? What types of facilities are offered? We already know there is essentially no recreation area other than 100 s.f., what don't we know? Is the proposal properly designed for the site, regarding improvements, vehicle access, and internal traffic circulation, pedestrian access, setbacks, height and bulk of buildings, walls and fences, landscaping, screening, exterior lighting, and signs? Once again, this is hard to answer because only the applicant knows what he intends to build on the land. The city didn't bother to ask for specifics when the application was submitted (This generally applies to subdivisions where nothing quite fits together.) Again, the process and requirements for zoning amendments are included in Article IV, Zoning Amendments and Planned Development Projects, City of Sanford Land Development Regulations. The only application submitted and being considered at this time is a PD Rezone request. A potential applicant/developer will need to submit for development plan review which includes full engineering plans showing grading, drainage, landscaping/irrigation, lighting, building elevations, utilities, pre-treatment, life safety, construction details, specifications, etc. 14 1 P a Z�'o, e Will the proposal subject nee qhbors to tweessive glareoin lights? "Cities don't need street lights: vars have headlight,,,, What cities need are sidewalk lights, Also, private outdoor lights need to be baffled to prevent emitting blinding glare from crossing property lines." Source: International Dark -Sky Association. 1-lowever, the remote parking lot will need to be brightly lit to prevent muggings and car theft. MY the proposal subject neighbors to excessive noLvefrom mechanical devices? Air conditioners- need to be baffled to cut noise. Also, there is a difference between "loud sound" and "noise". Noise is irritating sound even when it complies, with noise standards. Vegetation sci-eening does not cut noise levels. Only solid wall sound proofing will do that. Will the proposal subject neighbors to excessive arise from human activitie.' Noise carries a long way. Vegetation is not an effective sound blocker. This amount of cars cot"1110 and going at all hours- will be very noisy. Were all responsible agencies (Wili�s, providers, cemetery district, etc.) notified? Our citizens' group cannot gain access to that level of information. Were all facts and legal paints, available at the time, contained in the staff report presented to the hearing bo4j,? Our citizens' group cannot gain access to that level of information. However, "Failure to include available facts and legal points is a violation of the law." Also, the applicant is legally required to tell the whole truth regarding any material Issue in the planning permit application (A "developer's misrepresentation, unfulfilled promises and negligent predictions of future actions made to induce political support may be actionable." (Lareber v. Superior Court., 230 Cal. App.3d 1038, 1046747 (1991)). 15 1 P a g e IVere important purges deliberately removed from the administrative record? Our citizens* group cannot gain access to that level of information. However, "Failure to include available facts and legal points is a violation of the law." Were minutes or recordings of consultations between staff and the applicant missing? Our citizens' group cannot gain access to that level of information- However. -Failure to include available facts and legal points is a violation of the law." Was aky correspondence between cite stuff and the applicant missing? Our citizens' group cannot gain access to that level of information. However, "Failure to include available facts and legal points is a violation of the law." Will the proposal damage Me general welfare of your cio,? This is hard to answer because only the applicant knows what he intends to build on the land. The city didn't bother to ask for specifics when the application was submitted. Will the proposal impair the value of land and buildings in your neighborhood? The building of high-density low-end apartments in the ncip ,hborhood will almost certainly lower the value of nearby large lot single-family residences nearby. Ifill lite proposal lack variety in its design of structures and groundv.,' This is hard to answer because only the applicant knows what he intends to build on the land. The city didn't bother to ask for specifics when the application was submitted. FEW lite proposal be (rediously u n var ying) monotonous in its external appearance? This is hard to answer because only the applicant knows what he intends to build on the land. The city didn't bother to ask for specifics when the application was submitted. Staff has no additional comment on the elements of the design of the project and defers to the City Attorney on the legal references and case law. 16 1 P a g e 5. Decision Options The planning, commission has the authority to take one of three actions on the application: Option I. Recommend approval. If the application, as submitted, meets all state, county, city, and responsible agency (agencies responsible for providing essential service: fire, police, water, sewer, etc.) regulations, the planning commission may recommend that the city commissioners approve it unconditionally, Option 2. Recommend approval with conditions. The planning commission may recommend that the city commissioners approve the application if it can be reasonably amended to meet all state, county, city, and responsible agency regulations. Option 3. Recommend denial. I r the application fails to comply with any state, county, city, or responsible agency regulation or fails to serve the public interest, the planning commission may recommend that the city commissioners deny approval. 6. City Staff Recommendations "Stall" recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend the City Commission adopt an ordinance to rezone approximately 3.06 acres from RM OL Multi -Family Residential Office Institutional to PD, Planned Development to establish the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD, a proposed l00 -unit multiple -family residential development with a project address of I 100 E. I Street based on consistency with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan." 17 1 P a a e Z�l 5. Decision Options The planning commission has the authority to take one of three actions on the application: Option 1. Recommend approval. If the application, as submitted. meets all state, county, city, and responsible agency (agencies responsible for providing essential service: fire, police, water, sewer, etc.) regulations, the planning commission may recommend that the city commissioners approve it unconditionaltv. Option 2. Recommend approval with conditions. The planning commission may recommend that the city commissioner,., approve the application if it can be reasonably amended to meet all state, county. city, and responsible agency regulations. Option 3. Recommend denial. If the application fails to comply with any state, county, city, or responsible agency regulation or fails to serve the public interest, the planning commission may recommend that the city commissioners deny approval. 6. City Staff Reeommendations "Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend the City Commission adopt an ordinance to rezone approximately 3. 06 acre-, from RMOI, Multi -Family Residential Office Institutional to PD, Planned Development to establish the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD, a proposed I0 -unit multiple -family residential development with a project address of 1100 E. I Street based on consistency with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan." 17 1 P a g e Citizens' Concerns. A master plan is defined as a plan giving overall guidance. The term was first used in 1914. According to the American Planning Association, "A gaster Plan is a document and policy guide designed to help communities create a vision of what they want to look like in the future. Master Plans help guide communities in their decisions on land use development and preservation." Monroe apartments to (PD) Manned development, based on consistency with the comprehensive the comprehensive plan. "The following conditions should be considered to accompany any approval in an associated Llevelopment Order as well as statt's recommendations in the table: above: The Vistas at Lake Monroe PD Master Plan was reviewed by the city's development review staff and found to be consistent with Article IV.- Zoning Amendments and Planned Development Projects of the City of Sanford Land Development Regulations. Citizen concerns related to each condition recommended in the staff report are included in the attached Citizens' Analysis Report. The conditions are recommendations by staff based on findings from the plan review and shall be considered by the commission during the public hearing process. Additional response by staff on the recommended conditions is not necessary unless the commission has questions or needs clarification. 181Page Table provided by city staff to show consistency with other developments we have added Vistas at Lake Monroe for easier comparison. Approved HeritagePark Gateway at San Lem Home for Good proposed V tas Development (Catalyst Site) Rivervualk 201 Sanford 1009 East 2" at take Monroe Standard ,Avenue Street 1100 E. 1" Street 225 West Seminole Boulevard Zonin f(tv . y SC -IRF Sc -IDT SC-31MT RtatfilINT RIV t)INT f3srksn 1.5 specestunh 2 spweslunit 1 spaccund 1.7 spaceslunit 1.27 sparest it (on-site for MF) Density 41.81ac 331acre 43AI71acre 17.541acm 32.36facre Fro,�.njt,� Setback 11' 2o" fl" 30' 2ft" go i til Buffer North 0' 10' 0 5. Note 1. Only San Leon, Horne for Good and Vistas at Labe Monroe are in Midtown Transitional. So we will use these for comparison. Note : San Leon is zoned SC -3 which is zoned for high density, and schedule H parking does not apply. Also, thiss site would be considered urban infill that allows for other deviations and does not abut nor is it adjacent to a SFR neighborhood.. Note 3: Horne for Good and Vistas at Lake Monroe are most similar in that they are both zoned RMOI and fall within Midtown Transitional. Their differences are: A. Horne for Good is also urban infill. B. Home for Good was a blighted property in need of redevelopment. Conceding things such as no officelflex space is most likely appropriate plus as stated above it is urban infill. C. Dome for Good density even after redevelopment is at 17.54 unitslacre. D. Home for Good offers 1.7 spaceslunit. E. Home for Good does not abut nor is it adjacent to a SFR neighborhood. Conclusion from this table is that the proposal for Vistas at Lake Monroe is not consistent with previous developments and the request for the PD rezone is only to circumvent these obstacles. The comparison table in the staff report has been updated to include the proposed Vistas at Lake Monroe Planned Development. The two projects noted for comparison above, San Leon and Home for Good, both in the MT overlay district, were granted approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission for a reduction in parking from the required 2 spaces/unit per Schedule H to what is noted in the comparison table in the staff report. 191Page 1. Concurrent processing assures that the entire proposal will meet the city's needs. complies with the comprehensive plan and the land development regulations. This can't possibly happen due to the lack of information provided by the Applicant, 2, The Administrative Official failed to establish a meaningful CAPP process. A 50 ft buffer is the required minimum, the Administrative Official should have set the threshold for the CAPP higher due to the developments implications and the fact we were in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. 3. Appropriate signage was not posted on the Applicant property for public hearing notice. 4. On page 3 of the Staff Analysis it states `Although the applicant provided written explanation addressing deviations to the design guidelines for multi -family developments, pursuant Schedule "E", Section 16.0, of the City's LORs which sets forth the -Multiple Family Housing Design Guidelines". The design guidelines do not apply to multiple family residential developments within the WDBD when; a higher density and more urban character is advocated." This statement is incorrect, the WDSD does not prevent the Applicant from the need to follow Schedule E, the rezone to "PD" will however take away that obligation, 5, Planning and Zoning report has gone out twice with incorrect parking ratios, The ratio is 1,27 spaceslunit. Please also see map on the last page with (approximate) measurements from the furthest parking spot to the building entrance. This is dangerous and unsafe, females and seniors will not want to live in this development, 6. In the LDRs Section 3.10 in particle, the Applicant has not supplied a number of required items, This includes information not provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the potable water problems, sewer issues and any drainage concerns, as this is an area prone to flooding. 7. This development is not consistent with what the city has done previously as noted in the table above. The city used those developments to show consistency however none of those developments fit the specifics of Vistas at Lake Monroe and fails to show consistency. 8. The table mentioned in fact shows how the Vistas at Lake Monroe could be considered a 'Spot Zone". With the limited information we are provided it shows that this development does not fit the parcel and is not appropriate as per the city's guidelines and plans. 9, Furthermore the approval of this "PD" as proposed may create a wealth transfer to the Applicant. The parcel is up for sale and under contract to be sold, is this rezone a condition of the agreement, Please see the article following this page, 10. The Planning and Zoning Commission has not received all the information necessary to forrn a sound decision, in some cases the information provided has been incorrect. Please reference DIRT meeting dated 5114119 at approximately the 20 minute mark. 20 1 P a or e 1� This is the pre -application meeting for Home for Good that the city has used as comparison. a. City states parcels in Midtown Transitional must follow Schedule E. Allowances being made for Urban Infill, b. Midtown Transitional must follow Schedule H for parking. c. Please also listen to potable water issues in that specific area, utilities states it is a major problem and has been. Also, the city has no intentions of fixing the main line on 1-' Street which has caused water pressure- Issues to Mayfair Inn formerly NTM. d. These are important and valid facts that have not been disclosed to the Planning and Zoning Commission, a deciding board. We have also asked for this information and have been told the city does not have it, all the information they have is contained in the Staff Analysis Report submitted 61312021. 1. Planned Development a, As defined in Article 11: Land Use and Zoning Section 2.1 Zoning Districts "PD Planned Development. Properties assigned the Planned Development zoning district are intended for residential and nonresidential uses that utilize ftexible and creative site design to achieve a more desirable environment and more efficient land use. If projects are not located in one of the major activity centers noted below, the project shall be a combination of two or more land uses from the following categories: commercial/office, industrial, single-family residential, multiple -family residential, publictsernipublic and transient lodginglentertainiment in order to be considered for the Planned Development zoning classification. The mix of uses shall contain at least twenty percent (20%) of the least prevalent use. The planned development land management strategy Is a technique for negotiating innovative development options and a design to achieve public objectives such as natural resource protection, which might not otherwise be achieved. In addition, planned development district regulations shall be used to manage development of industry and commerce in the following major activity centers: (1) the 1-4 High Intensity area; (2) the Westside Industry and Commerce area; and (3) the Airport Industry and Commerce Center, all of which are delineated on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. The underlying Comprehensive Plan land use designation shall control the maximum density/intensity for planned unit development. b. This Planned Development meets none of the objectives listed; it is the continuation of the same bad development policy that used to be strip malls and now is being replaced with multifamily. In reviewing the decision to rezone to planned development and the development as proposed the city would be supporting a plan that in no way is consistent with all the developments mentioned in 21 JPage Table on p.38. There are deviations and then there are deviations. The city has appeared to make efforts to stay close to the plans and guidelines in these other developments however when we get to Vistas at Lake Monroe all the rules were thrown out the window. This proposal reeks of backroom deals, preferential treatment to the Applicant and complete disregard for an entire mature, established neighborhood. This is in complete contradiction to the city guidelines. All developments must be cohesive and complementary to the adjacent neighborhood. Does the city feel they can break the rules because this area is not designated "Historic". With the small amount of information and cooperation we have received from the city we are still able to establish what any reasonable person would see as a deficiency in this proposal. All applications submitted, regardless of applicant, are reviewed and analyzed equally based on the city's land development regulations, comprehensive plan and generally accepted land use planning and development practices and principles. Staff has no additional comments on the above statements. 22 Page Citizens' Analysis Report Planning Permit: Zoning Amendment Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 2021 Vistas at Lake Monroe Apartments 1. Proposal Information Applicant: Paul V. Mellini, Successor Trustee Authorized Agent: Richard Shassian, Vistas at Lake Monroe, LLC; Chad Moorhead, P.E. Madden, Moorhead and Stokes Site Location: 1100 E. 1st Street Parcel Size: 3.09 acres Site Zoning: (RMOI) Multi -Family Residential -Office -Institutional General Plan Designation: (WDBD) Waterfront Downtown Business District. The property is also within the (MT) Midtown Overlay District Permit Application: PH -1 2. Project Locality and Setting The 3.09 -acre site is located south of E. Seminole Boulevard, north of E. 1' Street, and west of N. Mellonville Avenue in the city of Sanford, Florida. 3. Project Description "The subject property is currently zoned Multiple -Family Residential -Office -Institutional (RM01) with a future land use designation of Waterfront Downtown Business District (WDBD) and could be entitled for up to 151 units." Source: Applicant "Our development application will request a rezoning to Planned Development and propose up to 100 multifamily units. The proposed site improvements will consist of one 4 story building, a retention pond, and landscape buffer on the eastern Portion. of the property adjacent to Mellonville Ave." Source: Applicant 4. Project Analysis The project analysis is the heart of a staff report—it provides the information needed to make a decision on the proposal. 4.1 Project Analysis: Planned development process The Sanford staff report fails to explain to the public the sequence of events that take place in processing the (PD) planned development process. Our citizens' group contacted a city planner who explained to us that a two-step process is almost always used in processing a (PD) planned development. The planner also told our citizens' group that the two-step process proceeds concurrently—the two processes are reviewed by staff during the same time frame and are presented for public hearing at the same planning commission meeting. Concurrent processing assures that the entire proposal will meet the city's needs, complies with the comprehensive plan and the land development regulations. Step 1: Legislative action—planned development zoning. The zoning map must be amended to show the territory as a planned development. The process is carried out exactly as any other zoning map amendment (ZMA); a legislative action requiring both a planning commission hearing and city commissioners hearing. The outcome is a planned development identified on the zoning map. The first planned development bears the identification number "PH -1" and each following planned development bears a consecutive number. 2 Step 2: Adjudicative action planned unit development proposal. The proposal may be processed as a site design review (SDR); a quasi-judicial action requiring only a planning commission hearing. If the plan ever needs to be revised, it need only go through the short site design review process. The application consists of the following items: • Site plan. A plan to scale showing proposed uses and structures. • Supporting plans. Detailed plans supporting the action. • Supporting text. Written evidence supporting the action. • Architectural renderings. The material required for a site design review. • Construction drawings. Construction drawings for the proposal. • Development schedule. A timeline schedule showing all major construction steps. Our citizens' group would assume that the Vistas at Lake Monroe Apartments, is an application for a Legislative action planned development zoning, due to the lack of information provided. However the city is combining the zoning map amendment (ZMA) process with the site design review (SDR) process. If the city is combining the process, the Vistas at Lake Monroe Apartments application needs to contain much more information. Our citizens' group asks, which process is the city using: a two-step process or a one-step process. 4.2 Project Analysis: CAPP Citizen Awareness and Participation Plan (CAPP). An applicant is required to create and implement a citizen participation plan before gaining various approvals. The purpose of the CAPP program is to ensure both the applicant and citizens have an adequate opportunity early in the N planning process to discuss, understand, and try to resolve neighborhood issues related to the perceived impact of a proposal. Our citizens' group has not found any evidence that a meaningful CAPP plan was developed and used to "resolve neighborhood issues." All our citizens' group found was the following letter sent out to neighbors by Moorhead and Stokes LLC, Civil Engineers. "Dear Neighbor This letter is to inform you of the future development of +/- 3.03 Acres located at 1100 E. 1st Street and 1105 E. Seminole Blvd. within the City of Sanford, identified as Parcels 30-19-30-506-0100-0040, 30-19-30-506-01000020 and 30-19-30-506- 0100-0010 per Seminole County Public Records. The subject property is currently zoned Multiple -Family Residential -Office - institutional (RMOI) with a future land use designation of Waterfront Downtown Business District (WDBD) and could be entitled for up to 151 units. Our development application will request a rezoning to Planned Development and propose up to 100 multifamily units. The proposed site improvements will consist of one 4 story building, a retention pond, and landscape buffer on the eastern portion of the property adjacent to Mellonville Ave. Attached is our proposed site plan. Normally we would have an in-person meeting to discuss specifics, but due to COVID 19 we ask that you contact our office with any questions by 12/30/2020." Moorhead and Stokes LLC, Civil Engineers, received only one response to the flyer. "We sent out the attached notice on December 14, 2020 and received one email from Ms. Sara Jacobsen on December 28, 2020. Ms. Jacobsen did not specify if 4 she was for or against the development and stated via email that she would coordinate a meeting with our office. After emailing Ms. Jacobsen on January 5th, January 20th, January 27th, and February 24th, 2021 with our office's availability to meet, a meeting was not set up; therefore, we moved forward with the project." Moorhead and Stokes LLC, Civil Engineers, provides no evidence that they made any further attempt to communicate with the citizens of Sanford. Once the applicant failed in their attempt to communicate with the citizens of Sanford, our citizens' group would think the city itself would have tried to provide an "adequate opportunity early in the planning process to discuss, understand, and try to resolve neighborhood issues." Please reference the Appendix of the Citizen Awareness and Participation Plan Guideline and Resource Handbook where it states the "level of citizen interest and involvement will vary depending on the application and the target area will be determined by the Administrative Official" with a minimum requirement of notifying property owners within 500 feet of the proposed property. Understanding the implications of this development and the fact we were in the midst of COVID-19 the Administrative Official should have set more rigorous guidelines for the CAPP procedure. The city also failed to supply the list of addresses used in sending out CAPP notifications, a community member managed to finally get a list from city staff, out of 34 addresses listed less than half were actual residents with the city having received the majority of notices. A 500 foot buffer is the stated minimum, "each development should be addressed according to the implications it imposes on the community", and staff failed to act appropriately. 5 Following is our response to the community meeting held on May 25, 2021 referenced by the city in the staff analysis for the June 3, 2021 Planning & Zoning meeting: At the Planning and Zoning meeting on May 6, 2021the P&Z Chairman tasked Ven Sequenzia, a member of the community opposition, to arrange a meeting with the Applicant. Mr. Sequenzia scheduled a meeting for May 25, 2021 and contacted Mr. Coover, the attorney for the developer. The developer, engineer and attorney were in attendance and fielded questions and concerns from the residents for about 45 minutes. The city response in the revised June 3, 2021 report is unfortunate in that a task was asked of Mr. Sequenzia and he complied. Mr. Sequenzia does not work for the city, nor does he have an obligation to any commissions, boards or city staff to conduct the referenced meeting in a "CAPP like" manner. It is the city's job to conduct official meetings and in turn the city staff's job to ensure that all appropriate measures are taken to fulfill these obligations. In that they have failed. 4.3 Project Analysis: Multiple family housing design guidelines (as addressed by Applicant) SECTION 16.0 MULTIPLE FAMILY HOUSING DESIGN GUIDELINES. Explanation of deviation from standards: The City of Sanford requires the applicant to explain why the proposal deviates from Schedule "E", Section 16.0 multiple family housing design guidelines of the City's LDRs. Sanford Land Development Regulations: 1. Project Entries. The project entry provides the resident and visitor with an overview of the project. Special attention should be given to hardscape and landscape treatments to enhance the overall project image. A project directory shall be provided near the entry to direct residents and visitors to recreational facilities, manager's offices, clubhouses and residential buildings. The entry shall be gated. The development shall comply with Sections 3.3 Con and 3.4 of Schedule J, Landscape, Buffer, and Tree Requirements of the Sanford Land Development standards. In addition, a minimum four (4) foot masonry wall shall be constructed Along all property lines that are not required to have a visual screen pursuant to Sections 3.3 and 3.4 of Schedule J, Landscape, Buffer and Tree Requirements of the Sanford Land Development Regulations. Applicant's Explanation of Deviation: The proposed project will comply with this provision except as noted. Due to site geometry constraints the project will not be gated. A four -foot masonry wall will not be provided since the site has frontage on both Seminole Blvd. and First Street. We feel that this provides for a more walkable community. Citizens' Concerns: The inability to comply with the project entry requirements is of the applicant's own making. The applicant needs to reduce the size of the development to fit the site. Sanford Land Development Regulations: 2. Entry Drives. The principal vehicular access into and through a multifamily housing project shall be by means of an entry drive rather than a parking drive. The entry drive shall be similar to a roadway in a single-family subdivision. The entry drive shall provide access to driveways and parking courts. A colored and/or textured paving treatment at the entry to the development is encouraged. Applicant's Explanation of Deviation: The proposed project will comply with this provision except as noted. Due to site geometry constraints parking will be provided on the entry and exit drive. The access off of First Street will have a one way in with angled parking and a one way out with angled parking. N Citizens' Concerns: This deviation means some parking spaces will be over 300 feet away from the proposed building and not within casual observance of building. The second issue is vehicles entering from 1 sl Street will immediately be met by angled parking spaces of which vehicles will be backing out of holding up traffic entering from 1 sl Street. Sanford Land Development Regulations: 3. Building Siting. Residential buildings shall be sited to relate to the entry drives, so that their'best' side is facing the entry drive. All facades that face a curb or roadway shall be a single-family elevation. Clustering of Units. Clustering of multifamily units shall be a consistent site planning element. Applicant's Explanation of Deviation: The proposed project will comply with this provision. All building facades will look similar on all four sides. Structures composed of a series of simple yet varied planes assure compatibility and variety in overall building form. Units are arranged to allow for varied planes on the exterior of the buildings. Citizens' Concerns: The proposed project does not provide single-family elevations facing the curb or roadway and there will be no clustering of multifamily units, as this is one large 4 -story building. Sanford Land Development Regulations: 4. Parking. Parking for residential buildings shall be either in garages, driveways or parking courts that are accessed from the main entry drives. Multiple, small parking courts shall be constructed in lieu of large lots. Parking areas shall be adjacent to, and visible from, the residential buildings that use them to allow for casual surveillance. Parking courts should be separated from each other by dwelling units or by a landscaped buffer not less than thirty feet wide. There should be no more than an average of ten spaces of uninterrupted parking, whether in driveways or open parking areas. Applicant's Explanation of Deviation: The proposed project will comply with this provision except as noted. Due to site geometry constraints the project will not comply with this provision. In order to maintain the larger setback and buffer on the east side of the site parking courts cannot be provided. Citizens' Concerns: The parking lot is too far away from the apartments. The uncovered parking lots are no longer allowed by progressive cities. The monolithic row of high-density apartments without in -building enclosed garages lowers livability, and puts residents at risk of rape, robbery, and car theft. The unwatched parking lot, which is also the entryway to the apartments, is a safety hazard. A preferred solution would be a multi -story automated parking garage attached to the residential buildings. The site is too small for 100 apartments and 200 parking spaces. Note: The applicant intends to reduce parking to 127 parking spaces, even though the city requires 200 parking spaces. Sanford Land Development Regulations: Open Space. There shall be a minimum of fifty percent (50%) open space in each multifamily development. Locate public open spaces so that they can be viewed from individual units. Applicant's Explanation of Deviation: The proposed project will not comply with this provision. Due to the location of this site, we will have approximately 20% open space. We have attempted to provide as much open space as possible by utilizing a 4 -story building. We will have the 100 s.f. of recreation area. This deviation is requested due the fact the site is very close to Fort Mellon Park. Citizens' Concerns: The site is 3.09 acres. The proposed development is too big for the site. The inability to comply with the open space requirements is of the applicant's own making. The applicant needs to reduce the size of the development to fit the site. Also, we do not see the 100 s.f. recreation area on the site plan that is equivalent to the size of a very small bedroom. we Sanford Land Development Regulations: 5. Mechanical Equipment. All mechanical equipment, whether mounted on the roof or ground shall be screened from view. All screening devices shall be compatible with the architecture and color of the dwelling structures. Applicant's Explanation of Deviation: All ground floor equipment will be screened with landscape material. Citizens' Concerns: Landscaping material does not provide adequate buffering. Sanford Land Development Regulations: 6. Common Facilities. Common facilities, such as club houses, laundries and management offices, shall be located centrally in the interior of the development and shall be linked to the residential buildings by lighted pedestrian pathways and common open space areas. Street signs and street lights shall be of a uniform and decorative design. All dwelling units shall have individual street addresses. All multifamily developments shall provide a covered shelter at the entrance to the development where children can wait for the school bus. The design and material of the shelter shall be consistent with that of the dwelling unit buildings and/or of the surrounding decorative wall. Mail delivery areas shall be covered and conveniently located to the residential buildings. Trash and recycling areas shall be landscaped on three (3) sides and shall be located at convenient walking distances to each dwelling unit. All multifamily developments shall contain recreational facilities for the enjoyment of the residents and their guests at a rate of two hundred (200) square feet per dwelling unit. Playgrounds shall be centrally located to allow for adult supervision from dwelling units or from a central facility such as a laundry. All multifamily developments with more than 20 residential units shall contain an area designated and designed as a car wash facility. Applicant's Explanation of Deviation: The proposed project will comply with this provision except as noted. All dwelling units in the building will have an individual unit number associated 10 with the building address. The internal clubhouse will serve as the bus shelter required. A carwash will not be provided in this development. We will have the 100 s.f. of recreation area. This deviation is requested due the fact the site is very close to Fort Mellon Park. Citizens' Concerns: Once again, the inability to comply with these requirements is of the applicant's own making. The applicant needs to reduce the size of the development to fit the site. 100 s.f. of recreation area is the equivalent of .5% of the required recreation area of 20,000 s.f. Sanford Land Development Regulations: D. Building Design. There is no particular architectural style proposed by these regulations for multifamily residential structures. The primary focus should be on constructing a high-quality residential environment. The design of multifamily developments shall consider compatibility with the single-family character and scale of the City's residential areas. D1. Units per Building. There shall be no more than eight (8) dwelling units per building. Applicant's Explanation of Deviation: The Building will have 100 units. In trying to reduce the footprint of the development we are proposing a taller building with a smaller footprint. Citizens' Concerns: Again, the inability to comply with these requirements is of the applicant's own making. The applicant needs to reduce the size of the development to fit the site. Proposing a taller building as submitted creates an impermeable footprint on essentially the entire site excepting the storm water drainage area that must be supplied because of the impermeable footprint and the infill required. D2. Building Articulation. Long, unbroken facades and box -like forms shall be avoided. Building facades shall be broken up to give the appearance of a collection of smaller structures and each of the units shall be individually recognizable. This can be accomplished with the use of balconies and varied setbacks and projections which help articulate individual dwelling units or collections of 11 units and by the pattern and rhythm of windows and doors. The use of rows of balconies that give the building a `motel' look shall be avoided. Applicant's Explanation of Deviation: The facades are articulated with balcony and unit projections to create interest in the elevations. Additionally, the elevations are accentuated with varied roof forms—flat and sloped as well as varied materials—stucco, siding, and stone. Citizens' Concerns: We do not have access to these plans for the project. So, we are blocked from addressing building design. D3. Dwelling unit Access. Breezeways shall be prohibited. Each dwelling unit shall be accessed by a private exterior entry. Entries shall be prominent and visible. This shall be accomplished through the use of distinctive architectural elements. Clusters of entrances shall be avoided. Ground -level entries are preferred for all units. Where exterior stairs are used to access upper -story units, they should be simple and clean and complement the architectural massing and form of the structure. Stairs should be made of smooth stucco, plaster, or wood with accent trim of complementary colors. Thin -looking, open metal, and prefabricated stairs are prohibited. Applicant's Explanation of Deviation: Each of the units has individual entries accessed through internal hallways. All stairs are enclosed within the building and articulated as the rest of the building. Citizens' Concerns: We do not have access to these plans for the project. So, we are blocked from addressing building design. D4. Building Height. The overall height of the buildings should be similar to that of other buildings in the neighborhood. Buildings shall be no more than two stories on properties adjacent to single- family dwelling units or single-family zoning districts. On other properties, the building's interior to the development and separated from adjacent properties by two hundred (200) linear feet and a two 12 (2) -story building may be three (3) stories. Building rooflines may exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height provided that the height above thirty-five (35) feet is for decorative purposes only and does not include habitable space. Rooflines should be varied in height and plane and contain dormers, pediments, chimneys. secondary hipped or gabled roof lines or other decorative embellishments to create visual variety and interest. The height of the roof shall be proportionate to the height and mass of the building. Applicant's Explanation of Deviation: The building is 4 -stories in height and the top of the ridge is approximately 56' above grade. Rooflines are varied with a mix of sloped and flat roofs to create visual interest. Citizens' Concerns: We do not have access to these plans for the project. So, we are blocked from addressing building design. However the inability to comply with parts of the guideline referencing building height is of the applicant's own making. D5. Balcony/porch Requirement. All dwelling units shall have a useful private open space such as a balcony, porch, deck, or patio. Applicant's Explanation of Deviation: All dwelling units have private porches and balconies. Citizens' Concerns: We do not have access to these plans for the project. So, we are blocked from addressing building design. D6. Garages and Storage. At least 50% of the dwelling units in each building shall have garages accessed directly from the dwelling unit. Garages shall be counted toward the parking requirement. Detached garages and storage units shall be designed in the same style and with the same materials as the dwelling unit buildings. Detached garages or storage units shall be provided in an amount not less than twenty (20) percent of the total number of dwelling units. All garages shall have sectional roll -up doors with automatic openers. 13 Applicant's Explanation of Deviation: N/A Citizens' Concerns: The inability to comply with the garage and storage requirements is of the applicant's own making. The applicant needs to reduce the size of the development to fit the site. Schedule U, Section 3.0, part F.5 for the Midtown Overlay, Transitional Residential Development 5. Transitional Residential Development. (Figures I and J) Transitional Development Blocks shall be applied to any development over two (2) stories in height that is adjacent to single-family residential zoning. The block facing a single-family residential zoning shall be single-family detached housing that is compatible with existing residential. The mid -block portion of the block may transition up to four (4) stories not to exceed fifty-six (56) feet with the following provisions: a. Setbacks. The setback shall be determined by the existing residential uses that are facing the proposed residential uses. The setback may be varied up to five (5) feet from the average of the existing residential units. The structures that are more intense than single-family housing shall follow the appropriate development block as detailed in these design standards. Applicant's Explanation of Deviation: The proposed building setback from the eastern property line is 100' in order to buffer from the existing residentially zoned properties east of Mellonville. We are also providing a 25' landscape buffer. Citizens' Concerns: The 100' setback is due to the storm water retention the Applicant must install, will this just consist of a large depression only filled during the rainy season. b. Landscape buffer. A landscape buffer of twenty (20) feet may be required as determined by the Administrative Official or his designee. 14 Applicant's Explanation of Deviation: We are providing a 25' landscape buffer adjacent to Mellonville. Citizens' Concerns: The site map states a 20' foot buffer. c. Lighting. The proposed development shall also control the effects of lights from automobiles or other sources. Where the site plan indicates potential adverse effects from parking or from other sources on the lot on which the non-residential use is to be located, such effects shall be illuminated, or at a minimum, prevented so that lights do not illuminate adjacent residential property below a height of five (5) feet at the residential property line, or from shining into any residential window if there is to be non-residential parking on the premises after dark. Applicant's Explanation of Deviation: Based on the layout of the site no headlights will affect the single-family residences along Mellonville. Citizens' Concerns: We do not have access to these plans for the project. So, we are blocked from addressing the design. The Applicant only addresses headlights with no mention of the numerous amounts of lighting required for the parking lot. d. Rear Yard Setback. When a non-residential use or multi -family (apartment) use is abutting any single-family residential property, there shall be an additional setback required for any yard of that use which is contiguous to the residential property, as follows: • When the rear side of a single -story structure equal to or less than twenty-five (25) feet in height abuts single-family residential zoned property, that portion of the structure(s) shall be set back at a minimum twenty (20) feet from the rear property line. 15 • When a single -story structure equal to or less than twenty-five (25) feet in height abuts the side of a single-family residential zoned property, the structures shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet apart. • Trash receptacles and loading facilities may not be permitted in the rear of the property. Service areas shall be located on the side. Exceptions to the location shall be determined by the location of the adjacent single-family residential use. • When any side of a structure greater than one (1) story or twenty-five (25) feet in height abuts residential property, that portion of the structure shall be set back at a minimum of thirty (30) feet from the property boundary. • Building Design. The side of the building that is facing or backing up to any residential development must be treated with the same architectural design standards as the front of the building. Applicant's Explanation of Deviation: The site adheres to this section. Please note that site has frontage on first street and Seminole Ave. The 100' building setback from Mellonville is above and beyond this requirement. Citizens' Concerns: Again, the 100' setback is due to the necessity of the storm water retention. 4.4 Project Analysis: General citizens' concerns Does the application contain all of the information required, in sufficient detail, to explain the scope of the proposal and disclose its social, economic, and environmental effects on the community? The Vistas at Lake Monroe Apartments application contains very few facts. It does not mention social, economic, and environmental effects. 16 Is there evidence that the proposal is both viable and desirable? A long time ago, the city should have researched the community's needs and developed a list of significant items it requires from the applicant to assist the applicant in developing a sensitive proposal that benefits the community and fills a market need Where is that list? The city does not seem to have a list of significant items it requires from the applicant to assist the applicant in developing a sensitive proposal that benefits the community and fills a market need. Our citizens' group has not seen such a list. Timeline and Schedule? The public should have access to the timeline and schedule showing all major events in the construction of the project. If the proposal is to be constructed in phases, there should be a schedule for each phase. Our citizens' group has not seen a schedule in the application or the city's staff report. Public Need for the Proposal? Our citizens' group would like to know how the proposal will fill a public need and contribute to the general welfare of the community. Our citizens' group considers the 33 apartments per acre proposed for the Vistas at Lake Monroe Apartments is way to high, considering that the Vistas at Lake Monroe Apartments will be located across N. Mellonville Avenue, from a very quiet neighborhood of large lot single-family residences. Development closer to 10 apartments to an acre would be more appropriate. Our citizens' group also asks: is there a need for low-end, low -amenity (70) one bedroom and (30) two bedroom apartments with open air parking in a parking lot far removed from the dwellings, at this location? A market study was not included in the application. 17 According to the Kelley Blue Book, the average price of a new car is $38,723. Members of our citizens' group say they would not want to park such an expensive vehicle in an unattended parking lot out in the weather. In this day and age, fully enclosed garages have come to be expected, except in very low rent neighborhoods. Members of our citizens' group also asks why the application for the Vistas at Lake Monroe Apartments specifies 127 open parking spaces, when General Block Standards, Schedule U page 16 states that `Building in the Midtown Overlay District shall [require 2 parking] spaces per unit. That standard would require the applicant to provide 200 parking spaces. There is a big cost saving between 127 and 200 parking spaces. Demographic Profile? Who are the targeted end-user population, broken down by age, race, sex, and household income. Will any of the apartments be reserved for very low, low, and moderate income? Note the site map states "Senior Living" or Apartments. The Applicant has consistently told our citizens' group and the Planning and Zoning commission these will be "high end/luxury" apartments. Which is it? Description of Outdoor Lighting? Our citizens' group asks for a description of outdoor lighting, explaining the effectiveness of glare protection for the surrounding neighborhood where many of us live. Though not legally binding, outdoor lighting should comply with International Dark -Sky Association standards (www.darksky.org/outdoorlighting/guidance). Market Study? Our citizens' group would like to see the market study prepared to show the viability of the proposal. The market study should address a wide range of characteristics: • Characterization of the market (size of the market, competing proposals) • Local demographic trends (market area employment and migration) • Supply analysis (local building activity and supply by price, size, and type) • Demand analysis (demographic information, vacancies, and unleased inventory) • Buyers' characteristics (demographic information and type of units in demand) • Absorption analysis (recent, current, and projected rates) • Proposal feasibility (potential competition for leases, monthly absorption rates, and break- even point analysis) • Description of provisions to protect the public, and tenants in the event of bankruptcy. Pro Forma Financial Statement? Is there a pro forma financial statement? In the real estate development business, a pro forma financial statement is prepared in advance of seeking a loan to finance a development proposal. Before committing to a loan, the lender asks the borrower to submit a business plan containing a pro forma financial statement that shows the expected impact of the loan on the borrower's financial viability. The pro forma also contains a financial history of the borrower's previous development proposals and their outcomes. Was a proforma financial statement part of the application? Will the proposal be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare? The application does not contain enough information for us to conclude. We don't even know what the buildings would look like because the application only shows the building footprints. Neither the city nor the citizens have been given the architectural details required for a (PUD) application. 19 Will the proposal produce a social environment of stable and desirable character? We do not have access to the site plan for the project. So, we are blocked from addressing building design. However, the quality of the design will determine the type of tenants that will be attracted to the apartments. The remote unprotected parking spaces will assuredly reduce the number of seniors and women who would otherwise rent an apartment. Will the proposal produce an economic environment of stable and desirable character? Is the proposal premature; for example, it will open undeveloped land to development before the city can supply adequate services? (Some jurisdictions allow land to be subdivided, and houses to be built long before a full range of utilities are installed and streets are paved. Sometimes, the project fails to be completed. Is the scale and density of the proposal compatible with the natural environment? The extent of paving, the huge outdoor parking lot, and the enormous stormwater retention pond will pretty much eliminate the natural environment. Is the scale and density of the proposal compatible with the surrounding community? Will the proposal lower the livability rating (suitability for a human living) of the community, based on available facts? The proposed building will overshadow the adjacent single-family residences. Is there a feasible better alternative than the proposal as submitted? The city has not even looked for a better alternative. And when the CAPP process was not appropriately administered, the Applicant and City cut citizens out of the planning process. Brainstorming could have been used to look for a better alternative, but it was never tried. Brainstorming can be oral, written, or electronic. Brainstorming has two phases, first a pure idea - 9C generation phase, where no judgements are made about any ideas; and second, an evaluation and ranking phase, to help arrive at concrete solutions. Have all feasible alternatives been explored and rejected based on the proposal's superior attributes and benefit to end-users and the community? No, though due to the cities decision to disband the DRT along with recordings from such meeting and overall lack of disclosure on the behalf of the city we have no information to be sure. Does the proposal violate design standards applicable to the site? The Vistas at Lake Monroe apartments application did not include the following design review items: • Site plan. A plan to scale showing proposed uses and structures. • Supporting plans. Detailed plans supporting the action. • Supporting text. Written evidence supporting the action. • Architectural renderings. The material required for a site design review. • Construction drawings. Construction drawings for the proposal. • Development schedule. A timeline schedule showing all major construction steps. So, neither the public nor the city knows what the applicant intends to build. Is the proposal complementary to the surrounding area? No. The scale and density of the proposed Vistas at Lake Monroe apartments will overwhelm the surrounding low-density single-family neighborhood. 21 Will the application deprive nearby property owners of the enjoyment of their property? This is hard to answer because only the applicant knows what he intends to build on the land. According to the city these specifics were not supplied when the application was submitted. Will neighbors lose their viewscape? Average height of a 4 -story building is around 40.5 ft high from road level. The neighbors across N. Mellonville Avenue will lose their viewscape and their privacy. Is the size and shape of the site adequate to accommodate the proposal? No. The Vistas at Lake Monroe apartments parcels of land are not well suited for high-density living. (Bad development is often a case of trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.) The Vistas at Lake Monroe apartments proposal has made many compromises to squeeze the maximum number of dwellings onto the site. We already know the development calls for distant and unsafe outdoor parking, what else will the city find out when building designs are received. What size are the apartments, do they meet minimums? What types of facilities are offered? We already know there is essentially no recreation area other than 100 s.f., what don't we know? Is the proposal properly designed for the site, regarding improvements, vehicle access, and internal traffic circulation, pedestrian access, setbacks, height and bulk of buildings, walls and fences, landscaping, screening, exterior lighting, and signs? Once again, this is hard to answer because only the applicant knows what he intends to build on the land. The city didn't bother to ask for specifics when the application was submitted (This generally applies to subdivisions where nothing quite fits together.) 22 Will the proposal subject neighbors to excessive glare from lights? "Cities don't need street lights: cars have headlights. What cities need are sidewalk lights. Also, private outdoor lights need to be baffled to prevent emitting blinding glare from crossing property lines." Source: International Dark -Sky Association. However, the remote parking lot will need to be brightly lit to prevent muggings and car theft. Will the proposal subject neighbors to excessive noise from mechanical devices? Air conditioners need to be baffled to cut noise. Also, there is a difference between "loud sound" and "noise": Noise is irritating sound even when it complies with noise standards. Vegetation screening does not cut noise levels. Only solid wall sound proofing will do that. Will the proposal subject neighbors to excessive noise from human activities? Noise carries a long way. Vegetation is not an effective sound blocker. This amount of cars coming and going at all hours will be very noisy. Were all responsible agencies (utility providers, cemetery district, etc.) notified? Our citizens' group cannot gain access to that level of information. Were all facts and legal points, available at the time, contained in the staff report presented to the hearing body? Our citizens' group cannot gain access to that level of information. However, "Failure to include available facts and legal points is a violation of the law." Also, the applicant is legally required to tell the whole truth regarding any material issue in the planning permit application (A "developer's misrepresentation, unfulfilled promises and negligent 23 predictions of future actions made to induce political support may be actionable." (Larcher v. Superior Court, 230 Cal. App. 3d 1038, 1046747 (1991)). Were important pages deliberately removed from the administrative record? Our citizens' group cannot gain access to that level of information. However, "Failure to include available facts and legal points is a violation of the law." Were minutes or recordings of consultations between staff and the applicant missing? Our citizens' group cannot gain access to that level of information. However, "Failure to include available facts and legal points is a violation of the law." Was any correspondence between city staff and the applicant missing? Our citizens' group cannot gain access to that level of information. However, "Failure to include available facts and legal points is a violation of the law." Will the proposal damage the general welfare of your city? This is hard to answer because only the applicant knows what he intends to build on the land. The city didn't bother to ask for specifics when the application was submitted. Will the proposal impair the value of land and buildings in your neighborhood? The building of high-density low-end apartments in the neighborhood will almost certainly lower the value of nearby large lot single-family residences nearby. Will the proposal lack variety in its design of structures and grounds? This is hard to answer because only the applicant knows what he intends to build on the land. The city didn't bother to ask for specifics when the application was submitted. 24 Will the proposal be (tediously unvarying) monotonous in its external appearance? This is hard to answer because only the applicant knows what he intends to build on the land. The city didn't bother to ask for specifics when the application was submitted. 5. Decision Options The planning commission has the authority to take one of three actions on the application: Option 1. Recommend approval. If the application, as submitted, meets all state, county, city, and responsible agency (agencies responsible for providing essential service: fire, police, water, sewer, etc.) regulations, the planning commission may recommend that the city commissioners approve it unconditionally. Option 2. Recommend approval with conditions. The planning commission may recommend that the city commissioners approve the application if it can be reasonably amended to meet all state, county, city, and responsible agency regulations. Option 3. Recommend denial. If the application fails to comply with any state, county, city, or responsible agency regulation or fails to serve the public interest, the planning commission may recommend that the city commissioners deny approval. 6. City Staff Recommendations "Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend the City Commission adopt an ordinance to rezone approximately 3.06 acres from RMOI, Multi -Family Residential Office Institutional to PD, Planned Development to establish the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD, a proposed 100 -unit multiple -family residential development with a project address of 1100 E. I Street based on consistency with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan." 25 Citizens' Concerns. A master plan is defined as a plan giving overall guidance. The term was first used in 1914. According to the American Planning Association, "A Master Plan is a document and policy guide designed to help communities create a vision of what they want to look like in the future. Master Plans help guide communities in their decisions on land use development and preservation." In effect, city staff recommends the adoption of an ordinance to rezone the Vistas at Lake Monroe apartments to (PD) planned development, based on consistency with the comprehensive plan. But the staff does not present evidence that the (PD) planned development is consistent with the comprehensive plan. "The following conditions should be considered to accompany any approval in an associated Development Order as well as staff s recommendations in the table above: 1. Under Section 4.3.G of the Land Development Regulations (LDR) of the City of Sanford, this rezoning shall expire 3 years from the effective date of this Ordinance if all improvements have not been completed or an extension granted." Citizens' Concerns. In law, a covenant is a promise written into a deed conveying real property: "A covenant running with the land (real covenant) is a promise that can be enforced by the successors to the original covenantee and against the successors to the original covenantor. Its benefits or burdens run automatically without the need for an assignment of rights or delegation of duties." Source: Roger Bernhardt and Ann M. Burkhart, Property, 6th ed. (St. Paul, MN: West, 2012). Accessed July 11, 2019, https://Iscontent.westlaw.com/images/ content/Property6th.pdf. A planning permit runs with the land and cannot be separated from the land, nor can the land be transferred without transferring the planning permit. Once the applicant obtains the (PD) planned development permit, the land may be sold to someone else. Rt Because the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD Master Plan consists of nothing more than a drawing of building footprints and uncovered parking spaces, the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD Master Plan will be completed as soon as the (PD) planned development permit is issued. The Vistas at Lake Monroe PD Master Plan does not include The following items: • Site plan. A plan to scale showing proposed uses and structures. • Supporting plans. Detailed plans supporting the action. • Supporting text. Written evidence supporting the action. • Architectural renderings. The material required for a site design review. • Construction drawings. Construction drawings for the proposal. • Development schedule. A timeline schedule showing all major construction steps. The Vistas at Lake Monroe PD Master Plan in its entirety consists of nothing more than a drawing. 2. All development shall be consistent with the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD Master Plan, dated January 20, 2021, unless otherwise specifically outlined in any associated development order; provided, however, that all subsequent development orders shall be consistent with the provisions of this Ordinance." Citizens' Concerns. In Florida, "Development order" means any order granting, denying, or granting with conditions an application for a development permit. The Vistas at Lake Monroe PD Master Plan in its entirety consists of nothing more than a drawing. There won't be any subsequent development orders. 3. Unless specifically requested and approved on the referenced PD Master Plan, any required elements missing from or not shown on the PD Master Plan shall comply with the City's LDR." 27 Citizens' Concerns. The Vistas at Lake Monroe PD Master Plan in its entirety consists of nothing more than a drawing. The city didn't ask for and didn't get any required elements missing from or not shown on the PD Master Plan. There is nothing that needs to comply with the City's land development regulations. 4. New development on the subject real property shall be served by adequate parking resources which shall include off-street parking sufficient to serve each proposed new development either on- site or through the provision of a shared parking agreement as approved by the City Attorney concerning a site approved by the Administrative Official based upon reasonable proximity and sound and generally accepted planning and land development principals relating to pedestrian traffic. If off-street parking cannot be reasonably accommodated on-site as determined by the Administrative Official based upon reasonable proximity and sound and generally accepted planning and land development principles, the property owner shall contribute a sum equivalent to the development costs of each parking space not provided, as determined by the Administrative Official, which funds shall be deposited into to a special parking trust fund of the City which trust fund shall be used only for purposes of purchasing land and contributing to strategically located parking facilities which benefit the subject property." Citizens' Concerns: Adequate off-street parking has not been supplied, and no alternatives have been shown to the public. 5. All outdoor improvements and uses including, but not limited to, tables, chairs, and decor shall be compatible with the sidewalk cafe standards provided in Section 20 of Schedule "E" of the City's Land Development Regulations." Citizens' Concerns. We do not have access to these plans for the project. So, we are blocked from addressing the outdoor improvements. 6. The final design and location of all driveways and access points including, but not limited to, cross access locations, shall be proposed within and shall be subject to City approval during, the development plan review and approval process." Citizens' Concerns. As of 6/16/2021 we finally received word from the city that they do still hold development plan review though they do not have an agenda, take minutes nor provide a recording. These meetings provide valuable information and now the public has been excluded from these as well. How does the city review a development without the appropriate plans, the city has told our citizens' group they do not have any information other than that provided in the staff report for the Planning and Zoning meeting. 7. A decorative and functional fountain shall be installed in all wet retention ponds as part of development approval which approval shall provide for ongoing maintenance requirements and responsibilities upon the appropriate party, but not the City." Citizens' Concerns. We don't see "fountains" in the (PD) planned development. Also, we only see one retention pond on the drawing. Will this have a fountain? Will this actually be a pond year round or if it has a fountain will it be dry half the year and left with a burnt out fountain pump sitting in muck? 8. A dog walk area with waste collection receptacles shall be provided as determined by the City. Citizens' Concerns. When will the City of Sanford determine where the "dog walk area with waste collection receptacles be placed. Why are you going to do the planning after the (PD) planned development has been approved? Isn't planning supposed to be done before the decision is made on the application? What if the city and the permit holder can't agree? What if the land and the attached permit are sold before an agreement is reached? 29 9. A comprehensive signage program meeting the standards of the Land Development Regulations shall be required for the entire development including, but not limited to, the commercial and multiple -family residential uses. Citizens' Concerns. We do not have access to this information, it has not been supplied to the city by the Applicant. 10. Unless specifically requested and approved on the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD Master Plan or the associated PD Development Order, all development shall comply with: a. The site design and architecture and finishes of the proposed structures shall meet the requirements of Schedule U, Section G. General Block Standards, including figures I and J. b. Lighting and pedestrian amenities shall be included to improve the overall image of the pedestrian network. C. A comprehensive landscape design, including landscape and hardscape elements shall be provided to complement the existing streetscape improvements and the urban form of the Midtown Overlay District. The comprehensive landscape design shall incorporate landscape/hardscape elements to screen the parking area and any mechanical equipment/appurtenances from the public right of way. Citizens' Concerns. How is the city reviewing these designs if there is no information available? 11. If City staff and the Property Owner are unable to agree to the details of this Development Order in any way, the matter will be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Board, whichever is appropriate, for resolution at a public hearing, and the matter will be adjudicated using a development order or denial development order relating thereto. im Citizens' Concerns. The Vistas at Lake Monroe (PD) planned development Master Plan consists of nothing more than a drawing of building footprints and surface parking spaces. All necessary information is not available to issue a development order. 31 Please note the following illustrations as to best practices for urban design sourced from Opticos Design Berkley, CA and MissingMiddleHousing.com. Illustration 1: Gradient density plan for urban area 1i C11E1 DS➢ N. DDD ,,��,— 1, se� 9l'F11i � D," �` �N PAulh Icx bolt '' ,�� "" \ \Cotta a Fourp'ca . , S od _ — _ _ _ — —► Duplex a Housing ,.- \ \ court _ Missing Middle arncos, Illustration 2: Appropriate building types in walkable environments Neighborhood or Corridor Center Low Intensity Medium Downtown - Intensity adjacent Detached Detached and Detached and buildings Attached Attached buildings buildings V I V .J High Intensity Attached buildings no Small Town Downtown Detached and Attached buildings Hi -rise Downtown Attached buildings no 32 Illustration 3: Max. building envelope as opposed to density numbers .......... z < 1 Unit 2 Units 7.0 du/acre 13.9 du/acre 125' 8 Units 55.8 du/acre 33 Illustration 4&5: Medium Multiplex — appropriate for transitional development -QS i 34 Illustration 6&7: Cottage Building & Cottage Courtyard 35 M 37 Table provided by city staff to show consistency with other developments, we have added Vistas at Lake Monroe for easier comparison. Approved Heritage Park Gateway at San Leon Home for Good Proposed Vistas Development (Catalyst Site) Riverwalk 201 Sanford 1009 East 21 at Lake Monroe Standard Avenue Street 1100 E. V Street 225 West Seminole Boulevard Zoning/Overlay SC-3/RF SC-3/DT SC-3/MT RMOI/MT RMOUMT Parking 1.5 spaces/unit 2 spaces/unit 1 space/unit 1.7 spaces/unit 1.27 spaces/unit (on-site for MF) Density 41.8/acre 33/acre 43.47 /acre 17.54/acre 32.36/acre Front Setback 11' 20' 0' 30' 20' North Buffer North 0' 10' 0' 5' 20' Note 1: Only San Leon, Home for Good and Vistas at Lake Monroe are in Midtown Transitional. So we will use these for comparison. Note 2: San Leon is zoned SC -3 which is zoned for high density, and Schedule H parking does not apply. Also, this site would be considered urban infill that allows for other deviations and does not abut nor is it adjacent to a SFR neighborhood. Note 3: Home for Good and Vistas at Lake Monroe are most similar in that they are both zoned RMOI and fall within Midtown Transitional. Their differences are: A. Home for Good is also urban infill. B. Home for Good was a blighted property in need of redevelopment. Conceding things such as no office/flex space is most likely appropriate plus as stated above it is urban infill. C. Home for Good density even after redevelopment is at 17.54 units/acre. D. Home for Good offers 1.7 spaces/unit. E. Home for Good does not abut nor is it adjacent to a SFR neighborhood. Conclusion from this table is that the proposal for Vistas at Lake Monroe is not consistent with previous developments and the request for the PD rezone is only to circumvent these obstacles. Key Takeaways 1. Concurrent processing assures that the entire proposal will meet the city's needs, complies with the comprehensive plan and the land development regulations. This can't possibly happen due to the lack of information provided by the Applicant. 2. The Administrative Official failed to establish a meaningful CAPP process. A 500ft buffer is the required minimum; the Administrative Official should have set the threshold for the CAPP higher due to the developments implications and the fact we were in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. 3. Appropriate signage was not posted on the Applicant property for public hearing notice. 4. On page 3 of the Staff Analysis it states "Although the applicant provided written explanation addressing deviations to the design guidelines for multi -family developments, pursuant Schedule "E", Section 16.0, of the City's LDRs which sets forth the "Multiple Family Housing Design Guidelines". The design guidelines do not apply to multiple family residential developments within the WDBD where a higher density and more urban character is advocated." This statement is incorrect, the WDBD does not prevent the Applicant from the need to follow Schedule E, the rezone to "PD" will however take away that obligation. 5. Planning and Zoning report has gone out twice with incorrect parking ratios. The ratio is 1.27 spaces/unit. Please also see map on the last page with (approximate) measurements from the furthest parking spot to the building entrance. This is dangerous and unsafe, females and seniors will not want to live in this development. 6. In the LDRs Section 3.10 in particle, the Applicant has not supplied a number of required items. This includes information not provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the potable water problems, sewer issues and any drainage concerns, as this is an area prone to flooding. 7. This development is not consistent with what the city has done previously as noted in the table above. The city used those developments to show consistency however none of those developments fit the specifics of Vistas at Lake Monroe and fails to show consistency. 8. The table mentioned in fact shows how the Vistas at Lake Monroe could be considered a "Spot Zone". With the limited information we are provided it shows that this development does not fit the parcel and is not appropriate as per the city's guidelines and plans. 9. Furthermore the approval of this "PD" as proposed may create a wealth transfer to the Applicant. The parcel is up for sale and under contract to be sold, is this rezone a condition of the agreement. Please see the article following this page. 10. The Planning and Zoning Commission has not received all the information necessary to form a sound decision, in some cases the information provided has been incorrect. Please reference DIRT meeting dated 5/14/19 at approximately the 20 minute mark. 39 Key Takeaways 1. Concurrent processing assures that the entire proposal will meet the city's needs, complies with the comprehensive plan and the land development regulations. This can't possibly happen due to the lack of information provided by the Applicant. 2. The Administrative Official failed to establish a meaningful CAPP process. A 500ft buffer is the required minimum; the Administrative Official should have set the threshold for the CAPP higher due to the developments implications and the fact we were in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. 3. Appropriate signage was not posted on the Applicant property for public hearing notice. 4. On page 3 of the Staff Analysis it states "Although the applicant provided written explanation addressing deviations to the design guidelines for multi -family developments, pursuant Schedule "E", Section 16.0, of the City's LDRs which sets forth the "Multiple Family Housing Design Guidelines". The design guidelines do not apply to multiple family residential developments within the WDBD where a higher density and more urban character is advocated." This statement is incorrect, the WDBD does not prevent the Applicant from the need to follow Schedule E, the rezone to "PD" will however take away that obligation. 5. Planning and Zoning report has gone out twice with incorrect parking ratios. The ratio is 1.27 spaces/unit. Please also see map on the last page with (approximate) measurements from the furthest parking spot to the building entrance. This is dangerous and unsafe, females and seniors will not want to live in this development. 6. In the LDRs Section 3.10 in particle, the Applicant has not supplied a number of required items. This includes information not provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the potable water problems, sewer issues and any drainage concerns, as this is an area prone to flooding. 7. This development is not consistent with what the city has done previously as noted in the table above. The city used those developments to show consistency however none of those developments fit the specifics of Vistas at Lake Monroe and fails to show consistency. 8. The table mentioned in fact shows how the Vistas at Lake Monroe could be considered a "Spot Zone". With the limited information we are provided it shows that this development does not fit the parcel and is not appropriate as per the city's guidelines and plans. 9. Furthermore the approval of this "PD" as proposed may create a wealth transfer to the Applicant. The parcel is up for sale and under contract to be sold, is this rezone a condition of the agreement. Please see the article following this page. 10. The Planning and Zoning Commission has not received all the information necessary to form a sound decision, in some cases the information provided has been incorrect. Please reference DIRT meeting dated 5/14/19 at approximately the 20 minute mark. 39 This is the pre -application meeting for Home for Good that the city has used as comparison. a. City states parcels in Midtown Transitional must follow Schedule E. Allowances being made for Urban Infill. b. Midtown Transitional must follow Schedule H for parking. c. Please also listen to potable water issues in that specific area, utilities states it is a major problem and has been. Also, the city has no intentions of fixing the main line on 1 st Street which has caused water pressure issues to Mayfair Inn formerly NTM. d. These are important and valid facts that have not been disclosed to the Planning and Zoning Commission, a deciding board. We have also asked for this information and have been told the city does not have it, all the information they have is contained in the Staff Analysis Report submitted 6/3/2021. 11. Planned Development a. As defined in Article Il: Land Use and Zoning Section 2.1 Zoning Districts "PD Planned Development. Properties assigned the Planned Development zoning district are intended for residential and nonresidential uses that utilize flexible and creative site design to achieve a more desirable environment and more efficient land use. If projects are not located in one of the major activity centers noted below, the project shall be a combination of two or more land uses from the following categories: commercial/office, industrial, single-family residential, multiple -family residential, public/semipublic and transient lodging/entertainment in order to be considered for the Planned Development zoning classification. The mix of uses shall contain at least twenty percent (20%) of the least prevalent use. The planned development land management strategy is a technique for negotiating innovative development options and a design to achieve public objectives such as natural resource protection, which might not otherwise be achieved. In addition, planned development district regulations shall be used to manage development of industry and commerce in the following major activity centers: (1) the 1-4 High Intensity area; (2) the Westside Industry and Commerce area; and (3) the Airport Industry and Commerce Center, all of which are delineated on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. The underlying Comprehensive Plan land use designation shall control the maximum density/intensity for planned unit development. b. This Planned Development meets none of the objectives listed; it is the continuation of the same bad development policy that used to be strip malls and now is being replaced with multifamily. In reviewing the decision to rezone to planned development and the development as proposed the city would be supporting a plan that in no way is consistent with all the developments mentioned in -e Table on p.38. There are deviations and then there are deviations. The city has appeared to make efforts to stay close to the plans and guidelines in these other developments however when we get to Vistas at Lake Monroe all the rules were thrown out the window. This proposal reeks of backroom deals, preferential treatment to the Applicant and complete disregard for an entire mature, established neighborhood. This is in complete contradiction to the city guidelines. All developments must be cohesive and complementary to the adjacent neighborhood. Does the city feel they can break the rules because this area is not designated "Historic". With the small amount of information and cooperation we have received from the city we are still able to establish what any reasonable person would see as a deficiency in this proposal. 41 Altamonte Springs -based developer plans apartment complex on Lake Monroe in Sanford The pl.m L=blkh Pl,,,.,d fk,rbpmenl utId the V- It 1,6 31b- Th, M,jnA u wl W S. bf,,- Sdw&a PL=iM -d 9u,hn —�. ..., fi., . pubis hearing U- thi. —L Ch.d M -6A -il, 1: - : I , I t. - - I �, - I -111, -1 u, Ite lilil mli—. .11-111A f4- -A b.11di.g u 1.11.1..hLbmWunite Within a.,kawlnry h..Mi, .11— K a StIm. Thr, Plual UW- 1p M- blihh.t f.1— I mil d nor -and I brdrmmarydrmn4 . -11 . ., I.I.b. -d -I. OP —Ilibm Wr ,,mth aW , UW ,A mut, -Le Wpd -I, it, &A he addL Thr —ptrty F.W M.L — . . I., lhL P..1-6 1—ily —L J— P..]— W . frown -1 -d fi—i— —Pil, i. flndl .0 sit.—, N..W. W. fm -ms J,W, Pm,II R.16. , hick he mid I. Pdt"in vµ85 fa S,x; millbn PJbbury I— nb.,.W the .1% ssTdi., In 1093. II was d. Fa gran the futmevflhc Prvioai fi.ih, .— m -d ul L.A.. the Emil' dLq.M Lt. inMril,medilx family boom b mon aXrr J�m+and ta»t Paulmet ryutd away b x011. —9. pmPenin I. S fad -d by IhH1) 111.11 n. aMrlaml-ha+eJ muXHaaJy dk1m, and p.p—. wI, it un&rmnlroct With SIAW b, P.M— T 4 Al Upmu Rod in .Entad With PW. W. . build b. —Aj, .,th N.,th I'M6 kg Imtmatiaul Pt'Ly. bkhC_l C ilk, haryt 1. 1—— the mR b, lm�hd V, M, .1 A. NINFIA—Im III— Iilim 411 If- &d-l 61- AWas re. p f., m,ty 5 1 mlibm, by ib, to t G", " L," MA . ............audmdNant Rki-d Sluuun. I—id W E h.,I, n1 11111.d. -I -1 Plid S3� fimtim hi w P—h" . th,, mr.") Sh. i- mid Fim. (.,Acd ill r- d,, ,6p—t, i. Hrid. m,Zmg a 3:4 ll W-1 ,itt ta11,,d Tilt, RAd I, FonM,,,m. -d , a a8 %it =WfiUmily d,,k,,t i. Qpe 6x.1,Aad S=f1k.%1 It— . Ii, Flrid. dkp .? C -- lurtelt U,e ari.rmbnd --d -I- L —dd. kL '%Vert ..—S of Sanlw,l.' OP —Ilibm Wr ,,mth aW , UW ,A mut, -Le Wpd -I, it, &A he addL Thr —ptrty F.W M.L — . . I., lhL P..1-6 1—ily —L J— P..]— W . frown -1 -d fi—i— —Pil, i. flndl .0 sit.—, N..W. W. fm -ms J,W, Pm,II R.16. , hick he mid I. Pdt"in vµ85 fa S,x; millbn PJbbury I— nb.,.W the .1% ssTdi., In 1093. II was d. Fa gran the futmevflhc Prvioai fi.ih, .— m -d ul L.A.. the Emil' dLq.M Lt. inMril,medilx family boom b mon aXrr J�m+and ta»t Paulmet ryutd away b x011. —9. pmPenin I. S fad -d by IhH1) 111.11 n. aMrlaml-ha+eJ muXHaaJy dk1m, and p.p—. wI, it un&rmnlroct With SIAW b, P.M— T 4 Al Upmu Rod in .Entad With PW. W. . build b. —Aj, .,th N.,th I'M6 kg Imtmatiaul Pt'Ly. bkhC_l C ilk, haryt 1. 1—— the mR b, lm�hd V, M, .1 A. NINFIA—Im III— Iilim 411 If- &d-l 61- AWas re. p f., m,ty 5 1 mlibm, by ib, to t G", " L," MA . ............audmdNant h.,I, n1 11111.d. -I -1 Plid S3� fimtim hi w Sh. i- mid Fim. (.,Acd ill r- d,, ,6p—t, i. Hrid. m,Zmg a 3:4 ll W-1 ,itt ta11,,d Tilt, RAd I, FonM,,,m. -d , a a8 %it =WfiUmily d,,k,,t i. Qpe 6x.1,Aad S=f1k.%1 It— . Ii, Flrid. dkp .? C -- ",,I, R, 42 rf, nson, CFA mi P��R 00.00av09 6.616 0.02 SEMif�lOLE COIA�fTY FLOR(QA Thla map le for idomiagonal purposes only and Is notprepared for orauitahb un foriegal, engineadng orseying purposes. Data: 6/15/2021 No warranties; expressed orynpl+ed, are provtled for the data herein, Is use orintarprrtadon. 43 5eminole County Properly Appraiser 5554 222.01 11024 66.12 12 13 14 15 16 ° _ L.eng'(y 459 Feet a 3 N ` 1 ,o° t 4 a B a 221.51 ' 131.35 0110 F , f,0 7 L.e th:286.2Feet eel 5 OE00- a 6 g 4 ZB 6 0000 i 6 5 4 I 3 S s 3 2 '� 4 2 zo- 7 L.engLb.'.9V.Eoet 137.65 gg ,zs 5 1 _... 8 ,2.20 2 3 4 5 g W- 6 u - 14 15 16 17 18 = 5 r 2 3 IW A o$ 4 -V Saninole County GI$ 2 rf, nson, CFA mi P��R 00.00av09 6.616 0.02 SEMif�lOLE COIA�fTY FLOR(QA Thla map le for idomiagonal purposes only and Is notprepared for orauitahb un foriegal, engineadng orseying purposes. Data: 6/15/2021 No warranties; expressed orynpl+ed, are provtled for the data herein, Is use orintarprrtadon. 43 STAFF ITAIESUES Eileen Hinson, AICP Experience City of Sanford Planning Manager: 2014 to Present City of Sanford Senior Planner: 2005 to 2014 City of Sanford Planner: 1998 to 2005 Education Bachelor of Arts in Environmental Studies and Regional Planning Florida State University Additional Certifications Association of Certified Planners (AICP), American Planning Association, 2011 Emergency Management Institute's Professional Development Series Federal Emergency Management Association Sabreena Colbert Experience City of Sanford Senior Planner: 2020 to Present City of Sanford Planner. 2014 to 2020 MAI Landscape Architects, Inc. Project Manager: 2005 to 2013 Education Graduate Certificate, Urban and Regional Planning University of Central Florida Bachelor of Science in Urban Studies, Geography Minor University of South Florida Associate of Science Architectural Design and Building Construction Technology Seminole Community College Additional Certifications Modern Management Tools Certificate, USF Office of Corporate Training and Professional Education, 2021 Certificate of Completion, International City/County Management Association Effective Supervisory Practices, 2019 Certificate of Achievemen4 Emergency Management Institute, FEMA, Independent Study, IS -00700.a, NIMS and IS -00100.b, ICS -100, 2013 Giuliana Pieras Experience City of Sanford Planning Admin. Coordinator: 2019 to Present City of Sanford Development Services Admin. Specialist I: 2018 to 2019 Education Bachelor of Applied Science in Supervision and Management, Daytona State College Additional Certifications Advanced Technical Certification in Project Management, Daytona State College, 2017 Notary Public, 2018 MASTER PLAN FOR VISTAS @� LAKE MONROE PARCELS: 30-19-31-506-0100-0010, 30-19-31-506-0100-0020 AND 30-19-31-506-0100-0040 SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 19 EAST, RANGE 31 SOUTH LEGAL DESCRIPTION ,• 3 no'raE°ru•":`rON a rrrc st`.°sE4 (—m m0;e"m"�im, rvmE'ai Eesr, Lana w sLuino,c muwr, names m1iMY1¢ 1M8R5 9JlA+£ EFfi (10➢ AGYS} RaE OR IEA AS a.LLN.AIFFII mA 9M£T. INDEX OF SHEETS SHEET SHEETTITLE CLIal COVERSNEET 1 ALTA/NSPU 0VELE SURVEY C.— MASTER PLAN SEMINOLE BLVD. CITY OF SANFORD, FL 32771 FOR VISTAS @ LAKE MONROE, LLC 999 DOUGLAS AVE. ALTAMONTE SPRINGS, FL 32714 MADDEN MOORHEAD& STOKES, CIVIL ENGINEERS 431 E. HORATIO AVENUE, SUITE 260 MAITLAND, FLORIDA 32751 PHONE (407) 629-8330 FAX (407) 629-8336 PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS: UTILITY PROVIDERS: �Oa� - v.'amn mcitE vDUMPixeftw.ac arcAma susw wrw marc anutl.xr sww. n am Iw I+�w- s» P (4M) mEswc (wn mxw vtilomicv/QICMEER SURV�Y�09stEnw vuww mwn�tnl.uort mean T6�RON@ TRAFFIC: CMMU MCAL RA1mRAt aA4 cAtnE rc am�� ^ M° VICINITY MAP -p.m ?.A 9.13 Loaf. 506 TP R-3031.28' L-181.45' d=3'25'47' CN=181.43' CB=N88'35'13'E J IN 5/8 SSMC LB2108 SEMINOLE BOULEVARD 80.00' RIGHT OF WAY + PER PUT BOOK 8. PAGE 21 , ,.ammmr `t' e tsso � 5.1 S 615 IR 5/8 SSMC LB 2108 (DO, IR 5/8 NO �•"'•t mss �R 1 125"_(p_ ® LOi 4, BLOCK m~� GAN EARLDS EUBDM510, .ter„ 11"I PUT BOOK e, PACE z 1734 •7.82 u I 1096FF 6. IR 1/2 IN LB 7623 7.7 IF Rw ur IN 5/8 SSMC LB2108 SEMINOLE BOULEVARD 80.00' RIGHT OF WAY + PER PUT BOOK 8. PAGE 21 , ,.ammmr `t' e tsso � 5.1 S 615 IR 5/8 SSMC LB 2108 (DO, IR 5/8 NO �•"'•t mss �R 1 125"_(p_ ® LOi 4, BLOCK m~� GAN EARLDS EUBDM510, .ter„ 11"I PUT BOOK e, PACE z 1734 •7.82 u I 1096FF 4l1t�:7 "T�lx� 7.7 IF Rw ur rs rxexvo euwxcss � � ® exmcD � ,r rmrsru I I I 602_ 508 S , 8.87 ,!e LOT , BLOCK r e, TP IRC ADJ� ,{t sAN CARLOS wwHsroN ' 1 pRBT BILK x SrREEi EXIENSrpN iix n UT ROOK 8. PACE 2, �m y Pb�- t ,W-ppMx6t? Y a e me' O � 1° avn J Ui BOOK J. PAGE >6 .S> LU}a ' 3 30C,913iN11flfArpN NUMBER s07-DEoo-oc10 $' ,> Wc n I ¢OIC NOT INCLUpEO a" N � .4 IR 1/2 IN LB 7623 tt1 ��c�� + ST ----------- ♦ SIRE 500 82,00 RIGHT P 095�.r 9501_ I ih I e ® 612 / 7.8 IR 1/2 IN LB 7623 ' �rw rroautb n I� mr s. eLGCK SA CAR,O6 SUBOMGION �' PUi BOOK B, PAGF 2t I �� Z I 510 J, 506-O1pONppSpR w ream amw w, IN 5/8 SSMC LB2108 SEMINOLE BOULEVARD 80.00' RIGHT OF WAY + PER PUT BOOK 8. PAGE 21 , ,.ammmr `t' e tsso � 5.1 S 615 IR 5/8 SSMC LB 2108 (DO, IR 5/8 NO �•"'•t mss �R 1 125"_(p_ ® LOi 4, BLOCK m~� GAN EARLDS EUBDM510, .ter„ 11"I PUT BOOK e, PACE z •7.82 u I 1096FF 4l1t�:7 "T�lx� ® Nw eoxomawc xxw 9. rs rxexvo euwxcss � � ® exmcD � ,r rmrsru I m �xnrr.,rarr 602_ aw ax�xror I Ee h_ IR 1/2 IN LB 7623 x . R,oms m � s=e U aRMy= _ . �Q6.-f-ImP• — `had "�'., NO l8 782J — ff = sRm¢ aolE� f tt1 ��c�� + ST ----------- ♦ SIRE 500 82,00 RIGHT P av sue PUT BDOK s TP NO SSMC . rBLOCK , b I OOK R L OS EUfi OOK 01N5Nry GR J., SLe, PM,E 21 51N a PUT 8001{ B I hLS21 . PAOE 21 I ♦ .To-�jp_ � NNr&A 504 �^ TP IRC Aw a. us. v. pgglECr a \�1 LOGTgN � a N NOTNIT 5� ' brDf ALLEY OL4�^ r g coin wrens a� �M1t iAns�r ♦smMn� cw m� nl. aem ,. s. cm+e. amxaewn, awl oa<t b aaw zr. snwa zo . C , $ N `ffi06 NBS'09'S3Y/ me mgr C5g a o .ZZ .21 206.39' IP 1 IN NO ID .F + :'a��= a wnwr s e ° a«vm,w eaawmml`n ;mw°�'aanm°m' ma nw ram emwa '�8 i ae°rewav'nl<� IP BENT N ID I _ ,epwt a mydml , c >�.eta a 'J y u'I NOi a INCLUOEO an ozs ee sumnxr e.aera', rmano.ne�<v=° �n Mrm*aTawa .�rdrmunv�.nmG..umx sa�i>. Oertea s,ar a �'i 8 ME LONNLLE � � '^°v"�°✓ <r'"°d oa �nmwrve rn w wq<m m..er re ,mr<. Cp a J' $ + PUi BOOK PACE ,20 I mtuam <r we e b ew.ey ro, er .eew M eue. me° w. ,:odp a<q a p°nrm w wd.e,°a .anew mrr.,, cw.m d rrc .y y P� 19 bRON NUMBER 1 w< nw<ewm wwv d�.w n<ua " a r'°r a of n.n sx..r, b.ux w.tn es oz'S5' w.n. y. avrm,cm .nw„ rae paj � 508-0/00-00,0 I _ 'GZ1 F ' ��aixµrea rw amm,n �+ae .rmer�a�,r"�i�ia H e ane vs nr:.. "°"",mm.an av pr�ramzar rzaex fxxmeslexamm/xmm < � 604 { f I�/�r°w .c�a8 r. x,nn m�e,m. mwm ei r eei (wvee1aea). ,eso mwrmmt sr°a Ae.° cwmr.i. qd..°, rwm mn zen.. p tl ems( ••, IP61 IN NO ID rw s ." e" erase.. r m mn�mt we ,mmn, uiw mm�m _, nn cemmnmmr, n ww .m,.n my, mea 2 a u d .amanw mar �r<aw.m ,na.n emeaa ... r..a.e ra e. ,< �mwd�mm m u. cant & ; m a.uaw�oa'w 5 @ t ma I eewb naaN°Aawa+n ..tea i,.�"'Orwn ar "er ru�'m�meaWaerM1aaamay,ame �� aa,. ane inrm aaaamxmaa aax°1 nempM qp() w ... d J , em �,mmama ero r mn xm a.,wmNa ar ,<aam..r anxm.x. xm a�,,..; x. E m m a r.e. d mmxm r me,m mr N85"09'S31V � p.nm. Nom me,,,e,we ww< xw (rww). meP nmaem ,z, ncmmr. mea arm aaimna. zfi. z<wT x. a�a. amnxea mama, < .wx n :em •.• m,e -�� . 1u5'DP „'q,___. + ,s. ,are x = mwmm d ,men..x<w a. M1ae.ew eanwmcrwn a, mea.. aem,.a .n w wamm d mna.,dlxa me ,aa ,mw. R Mvl .. .55 TP NO ADI ,e. xrwna ."e,e.a.wy F,.aemmma a�4. ewuawµgmmmeuen, m sa. emw eae.uem eww<a .n w wamm ar ea,wn,m m. ®I s �.uu/a ems �rrnrF s��°,aao� ..1ow`.Ma Yw aeeo a �W a�a �wsas�anawr�aev�a. n.m. �i� z. z... s. ziai e.ss r�im,z. ,.. ,s. ,z e: 84BB2001� .w ar e a mmyema a. o.e.mw, a:°ym.; minim, mr a�xm ,ab° ana ne mxwr. m.%sxw°m`r " uw°rmmam,d e, r 1 or 1 I. 4l1t�:7 "T�lx� ® Nw eoxomawc xxw a - xxL w/orsc rs rxexvo euwxcss � � ® exmcD � ,r rmrsru o - x,Km mrr m �xnrr.,rarr i� _ aw ax�xror Ee h_ m - swwAw xx,rmrc x . R,oms m � s=e U aRMy= _ . � ® ttuwx,TrurnvuLmm ff = sRm¢ aolE� w owao tt1 ��c�� av sue ® V�!'� ' ® � oww urE �rw rroautb w rmxmmNuxriNux2xmmicn m.,xuraz .� _ mox mor µP wrwnm cur a+z sus sw,v , cxrn '3 xrw+rt .. = Lcxr Pot6 M = NNs, aPow rrLvxmrr _ Pxrx � c ' brDf ALLEY OL4�^ r g coin wrens a� �M1t iAns�r ♦smMn� cw m� nl. aem ,. s. cm+e. amxaewn, awl oa<t b aaw zr. snwa zo . C , $ N `ffi06 NBS'09'S3Y/ me mgr C5g a o .ZZ .21 206.39' IP 1 IN NO ID .F + :'a��= a wnwr s e ° a«vm,w eaawmml`n ;mw°�'aanm°m' ma nw ram emwa '�8 i ae°rewav'nl<� IP BENT N ID I _ ,epwt a mydml , c >�.eta a 'J y u'I NOi a INCLUOEO an ozs ee sumnxr e.aera', rmano.ne�<v=° �n Mrm*aTawa .�rdrmunv�.nmG..umx sa�i>. Oertea s,ar a �'i 8 ME LONNLLE � � '^°v"�°✓ <r'"°d oa �nmwrve rn w wq<m m..er re ,mr<. Cp a J' $ + PUi BOOK PACE ,20 I mtuam <r we e b ew.ey ro, er .eew M eue. me° w. ,:odp a<q a p°nrm w wd.e,°a .anew mrr.,, cw.m d rrc .y y P� 19 bRON NUMBER 1 w< nw<ewm wwv d�.w n<ua " a r'°r a of n.n sx..r, b.ux w.tn es oz'S5' w.n. y. avrm,cm .nw„ rae paj � 508-0/00-00,0 I _ 'GZ1 F ' ��aixµrea rw amm,n �+ae .rmer�a�,r"�i�ia H e ane vs nr:.. "°"",mm.an av pr�ramzar rzaex fxxmeslexamm/xmm < � 604 { f I�/�r°w .c�a8 r. x,nn m�e,m. mwm ei r eei (wvee1aea). ,eso mwrmmt sr°a Ae.° cwmr.i. qd..°, rwm mn zen.. p tl ems( ••, IP61 IN NO ID rw s ." e" erase.. r m mn�mt we ,mmn, uiw mm�m _, nn cemmnmmr, n ww .m,.n my, mea 2 a u d .amanw mar �r<aw.m ,na.n emeaa ... r..a.e ra e. ,< �mwd�mm m u. cant & ; m a.uaw�oa'w 5 @ t ma I eewb naaN°Aawa+n ..tea i,.�"'Orwn ar "er ru�'m�meaWaerM1aaamay,ame �� aa,. ane inrm aaaamxmaa aax°1 nempM qp() w ... d J , em �,mmama ero r mn xm a.,wmNa ar ,<aam..r anxm.x. xm a�,,..; x. E m m a r.e. d mmxm r me,m mr N85"09'S31V � p.nm. Nom me,,,e,we ww< xw (rww). meP nmaem ,z, ncmmr. mea arm aaimna. zfi. z<wT x. a�a. amnxea mama, < .wx n :em •.• m,e -�� . 1u5'DP „'q,___. + ,s. ,are x = mwmm d ,men..x<w a. M1ae.ew eanwmcrwn a, mea.. aem,.a .n w wamm d mna.,dlxa me ,aa ,mw. R Mvl .. .55 TP NO ADI ,e. xrwna ."e,e.a.wy F,.aemmma a�4. ewuawµgmmmeuen, m sa. emw eae.uem eww<a .n w wamm ar ea,wn,m m. ®I s �.uu/a ems �rrnrF s��°,aao� ..1ow`.Ma Yw aeeo a �W a�a �wsas�anawr�aev�a. n.m. �i� z. z... s. ziai e.ss r�im,z. ,.. ,s. ,z e: 84BB2001� .w ar e a mmyema a. o.e.mw, a:°ym.; minim, mr a�xm ,ab° ana ne mxwr. m.%sxw°m`r " uw°rmmam,d e, r 1 or 1 I. E SEMINOLE BLVD. LAKE MONROE r >o aam»c aE,m,m, I t p I O I I I 34 R"-wm I I p1 d -I raffia w• _ -- I I_f=�L _ aal N85'0953 95.01 I .' awa9a I 1 rtu-wDBJ rl�l.. 6�"PI s II I t I ' 208.39 r Alp-, N850953W E IST ST. SITE DATA xoaws: QALYSAM ♦lM8 MTE PROPERTY � ! BOUNDARY I � i remmaa ' gong] ear PLu - wceD i 7118 M7E a Po,n Nnn—ar I I � w BlIH1 E+flf i '. a LEGEND 100 5.43 899 0.36 I E 1ST ST. LAKE MONROE r >o aam»c aE,m,m, I t p I O I I I 34 R"-wm I I p1 d -I raffia w• _ -- I I_f=�L _ aal N85'0953 95.01 I .' awa9a I 1 rtu-wDBJ rl�l.. 6�"PI s II I t I ' 208.39 r Alp-, N850953W E IST ST. RU- GR F 9oa Mtttrttt lMa7 }ii �A�S 6imaN"Wrt�1021 f.e2 MW S rau°rir { Iu rAnemr�a �p,�p f ,a ��s n.msmNe�s �.r�'soros'm” a7� s an n o Ramo s ae�nv �re „7 n. nar 000 ou) .tone cw,ainu) - ua,: oss sm • S�� a«s�ns7 - e SITE DATA xoaws: QALYSAM ♦lM8 MTE z e,�- ao-oo�a, , -eas-moo- ro-, ,-soe-mao-vow GRAPHIC SCALE PM PEM x mxiwc za,xc lu,m mam,s-..uc�i®wvi-rcna-msnnmau 7118 M7E a Po,n Nnn—ar FAR RATE TOTAL BlIH1 E+flf 221 '. a LEGEND 100 5.43 899 0.36 sc�,x,w TMwEavmnw. ours u.rs paaaNana -roma rumr 9 0.44 ' �auuarn eo iAn . ,s, mars FLU - WBIDwunar eoo �,. T.....ss--xN�i i a n i`xaa � - zxx wiac oro ux �w a. semiunas Rol�:` v zawc „« I r ro vinavw[ sr. SOILS LEGEND p4-'0..,w.uia7irore:,maascra`•- a,a:r I ,• I i maaEsm«a �alr ,tea reer. rAmwx7AO°'aAs = a•A°PO`u"DawL ,mr �rcr1earnazmm�vwr. as re a«•7`" «`:.°�; ra _T A' '� .,.`� mar em°an`°u�moAr ro. ,. i a w aoa a n ew «cam a.es as s e� rew. .oes :�Aa, P.o:. a�ssma« sa,as. umu,� sm�srse saxos. aE�sA,rM I j RM A 7. l Avco A o"uc`- axon"r'�""un a ME 'rs1'`m°��a'A,u1ED.r0u,", a `604.07'07�N' 32aks',,.� szaas via wm aaon me u(Auxs rcroe.ua m ee a,aoE.' 1 `i amw , , , Naa am aaalw a�,G,«ya Aa aara .a� ar. :mma�w aa»� E.mm� m"a�a��a.asmm marswaa. .___.__ w rra Raamwr.�sa Ra ctt m. ruaao A. --_.._L-i ,• I ' xAv x sxrartmm var .uas. rxe - i WX re sazs mxn' oosmuMEun: a x,n�wrsr:wwaus • �� n �:c°�x �,a prem. � � mAa w s�.aaewc rA, sus. ...---V.i—; aa� "01m caaaaanac rw. x amroanas a.a. ,sc rxo.Fcr �l - i •� Ru = LOF7ZiF 'r <r i ars rs'"'ME e: „� nm,a., are m wr LrcA,m a as Aaarra �ev�as>E usa. LLI a' Iwvur.,ei£. rws„w ax -a2 r9as m 6c Aa.wowm erx Wwon'x wFe rc � n.uma aouvas':aan.E cCOE i j Z Rars RAa ar a e.. T— oa T— �a mea a a N AT an Lu szgr eemmaarxr `� I z aac,acaoaa,sa.� amQ,aA„aam<7 ----------------------- aea cam RU- GR F 9oa Mtttrttt lMa7 }ii �A�S 6imaN"Wrt�1021 f.e2 MW S rau°rir { Iu rAnemr�a �p,�p f ,a ��s n.msmNe�s �.r�'soros'm” a7� s an n o Ramo s ae�nv �re „7 n. nar 000 ou) .tone cw,ainu) - ua,: oss sm • S�� a«s�ns7 - e s MA® CIVIL ENGINEERS E. SWIa MOA"en uana amuo umlw� sza-s9io e, Z J o w w Q Q � k < �3s � 7 3 c R N 4 m i 9 � Ausoisax�r $ u 5 C1 00 $ I.VD IBE QALYSAM ♦lM8 MTE PEM HOUi PM PEM HOUi 7118 M7E TOTAL BVIHi FAR RATE TOTAL BlIH1 E+flf 221 APARTMENTS 100 5.43 899 0.36 98 0 9 0.44 44 1 D O s MA® CIVIL ENGINEERS E. SWIa MOA"en uana amuo umlw� sza-s9io e, Z J o w w Q Q � k < �3s � 7 3 c R N 4 m i 9 � Ausoisax�r $ u 5 C1 00 $ AS—OF—RIGHT DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO: THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE A GRAPHIC EXAMPLE OF A POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT MAY BE ENTITLED TO APPROVAL AS OF RIGHT UNDER THE CURRENT RMOI ZONING DISTRICT AND MT OVERLAY DISTRICTS/CLASSIFICATIONS ASSIGNMENTS AND THE CITY STAFF HAS MADE GENERAL COMMENTS AND GENERAL OBSERVATIONS RELATIVE TO THE SUBMISSION BUT THE ACTIONS OF CITY STAFF SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE OR CONSTITUTE A WAIVER OF AND PROCESS OR PROCEDURE THAT IS REQUIRED NOR AN APPROVAL OF ANY TYPE OR NATURE THAT REQUIRES THE ISSUANCE OF A DEVELOPMENT ORDER OR PERMIT. t — --- GRAPHIC SCALE 1 SITE DATA ,. ams mwcer �: za wpc -. ao oars > roar ua ss• cmc. s scar a uu soar �I�sa laalsr,e ue,s ms s Haas) �u;msr noa> mor .,scum an au crams scan S MADDEN CIVIL ENGINEERS 0 g Z a 0 J d w ILI Q Z O U Qg H Sig i tI 4 3 b � a d E Zi s s e o� ma as � 3 CONCEPT 9 FST. la's � • ' N,. , U =Ii� WS _ RM X L)o l_i+1 aoryl&ono Item No. CITY COMMISSION MEMORANDUM 21.182 SEPTEMBER 13, 2021 AGENDA TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission PREPARED BY: Sabreena Colbert, Senior Planner SUBMITTED BY: Norton N. Bonaparte, Jr., ICMA-CM, City Manager SUBJECT: Second Reading Ordinance No. 4618; Rezoning; RMOI, Multi -Family Residential -Office -Institutional, To PD, Planned Development, Proposed 100 -Unit Multiple Family Residential Development; 1100 East 1 st Street. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES: ® Unify Downtown & the Waterfront ❑ Promote the City's Distinct Culture ® Update Regulatory Framework ❑ Redevelop and Revitalize Disadvantaged Communities THIS IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTER AND, AS SUCH, REQUIRES DISCLOSURE OF ALL, EX -PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, INVESTIGATIONS, SITE VISITS AND EXPERT OPINIONS REGARDING THIS MATTER (PLEASE NOTE LEGAL REVIEW) SYNOPSIS: A request to rezone approximately 3.09 acres of real property from the RMOI, Multi -Family Residential -Office -Institutional, zoning district/classification to the PD, Planned Development, zoning district/classification in order to establish the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD, a proposed 100 - unit multiple family residential development with a project address of 1100 East I' Street has been received. The property owner is Paul V. Mellini, Successor Trustee. The applicant is Richard Shassian with Vistas at Lake Monroe, LLC. The attorney representing the applicant is Stephen H. Coover of Sanford. The Affidavit of Ownership and Designation of Agent form is attached and other information is available in order to ensure that all potential conflicts of interests are capable of being discerned. FISCAL/STAFFING STATEMENT: Based on the 2020 property tax roll of Seminole County, the 3 tax parcels that are the subject of this application had a combined assessed value of $1,645,132. The total tax bill in 2020 was $30,199.07. If the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD is approved and subsequently developed, the property will continue to be assessed the City's millage rate for the commercial/multi-family use. No additional staffing is anticipated if the PD amendment is approved. BACKGROUND: The property is 3.09 acres in size and is located on the southwest corner of East Seminole Boulevard and Mellonville Avenue just south of Lake Monroe and north of the Seminole County Services Building. The property is assigned the RMOI, Multi -Family Residential -Office -Institutional, zoning district/classification under the City of Sanford Land Development Regulations (LDRs) with an underlying future land use designation assignment of WDBD, Waterfront Downtown Business District, under the City's Comprehensive Plan. The RMOI policy district/classification is a planned mixed use district/classification designed to accommodate business and professional offices and high density multiple family residential and institutional land uses. The allowable maximum residential density for the RMOI is 20 dwelling units per acre except, however, that multiple -family dwellings located adjacent to single-family dwellings or single-family zoning districts/classifications shall have a maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre. The maximum intensity of nonresidential development measured as a floor area ratio is 0.35. To achieve the mix of uses, a development must contain at least 20% of the lesser use, residential and office/institutional, based on intensity and/or density of the uses proposed. The RMOI zoning district/classification expressly excludes general retail sales and services, warehousing and outside storage as allowable land uses. Pursuant Schedule `B" of the City's LDRs, various land uses including but not limited to day care facility, residential care facility, nursing home, house of worship and business training school are uses permitted as -of -right in the RMOI zoning district/classification. Furthermore, this district/classification is intended for sites which: (a) Have accessibility to major thoroughfares or are located along the outer fringe of core commercial areas; (b) Build on the purpose and function of the central business district and Lake Monroe waterfront; (c) Encourage reinvestment in declining residential areas adjacent to commercial core areas; (d) Have potential to be served by a full complement of urban services; (e) Contain sufficient land area to accommodate good principles of urban design, including sufficient land area to provide adequate landscaping and buffers to separate existing as well as potential future adjacent land uses of differing intensity; (f) Frequently serve as a transition area which buffers residential uses located in one area from a nearby area which accommodates uses of a higher intensity. The property is also within the MT, Midtown, overlay zoning district/classification. The special standards and regulations established in Schedule "U" of the City's LDRs for overlay districts/classifications apply to the entire parcel. These provisions are in addition to the underlying RMOI standards, however, when in conflict, the standards of the overlay prevail. The special standards established for the City's overlay districts/classifications will encourage connections between the waterfront, shopping, working and residential areas. The design of PDs 2�',. must adhere to traditional design development and shall generally conform to the overlay standards for block development, site design, lot layout, prototype design, and building design. Any acceptable deviation from the standards contained within Schedule "U" of the City's LDRs must result in a development that is beneficial to the City, enhances the character of the community in which it is located and is superior to a project that is designed consistent with the overlay standards. The overlay districts/classifications are based on the key principles of urban type development, which are walkable and designed to contain a diverse range of housing, shopping and offices. All 3 districts/classifications will offer design standards for development that provide for an efficient land use form and cost effective delivery of urban services. The primary purpose of the MT overlay zoning district/classification is to encourage residential uses. This MT overlay zoning district/classification provides for a mixed-use area for single-family, multifamily housing, offices and neighborhood serving retail, where appropriate, and is not in direct conflict with the residential usage. In addition, the site design and layout criteria outlined in Schedule "U" of the City's LDRs directly relates to the following street type identification related to the project: Street Name Designation East 1 st Street (Sanford Avenue to Mellonville Avenue) Pedestrian Priority Seminole Boulevard Pedestrian Priority "Pedestrian priority" streets shall have building frontage requirements, established build to lines, and restrict parking and service uses adjacent to a "pedestrian priority" street. The subject property, given its location, is subject to multiple layers of design and development standards including those set forth in the City's LDRs pertaining to the MT overlay district/classification. An as -of -right development scenario meeting the requirements of both the RMOI and MT overlay districts/classifications could yield the following: Schedule U -MT Development RMOI Overlay As -of -Right Development Standard Zoning District/Classification Scenario Transitional Block Multi -family, Daycare, Residential Care Facility, 4 SFR lots fronting Uses Nursing Home, House of Encourages Residential; Mellonville; 4 -story Mixed (Per Schedule B) Worship, Office, Business Mixed Use Use with 15C floor office and Training School top 3 floors Multi -family Front Setback -North Within 5' of adjacent 30' (15' side street setback (Seminole Boulevard) 30' structures; Detached SFR could be applied for SFR compatible with existing use) Front Setback -East 30 , Within 5' of adjacent 30 , (Mellonville Avenue) structures Front Setback -South 30 Within 5' of adjacent 30 , (East. 1St Street) structures Side Setback 20' Within 5' of adjacent 20, structures Rear setback 20' Within 5' of adjacent 20' structures Height 50' 2 to 4 stories or 56' 3 -story or 42' for SFR; 4 -story or 56' for mixed use Density/Intensity 20 du/acre; 0.35 FAR Not addressed in Sch. U 20 du/acre or 60 units; 0.30 FAR Parking 2 spaces/residential unit; 2 spaces/residential unit; (Per Schedule H) 1 space/250sf office Not addressed in Sch. U Assumed Shared Parking Agreement for Mixed-use The as -of -right development scenario outlined above and in the attached concept plan identifies a mix of certain uses. Given the flexibility of uses permitted in Schedule "B" of the City's LDRs for the RMOI zoning district/classification, the intensity of the different uses that could be established may vary based on their function and operational times. The only use that can be assumed in this scenario are the four single family residential lots with curb -cut access onto Mellonville Avenue due to the MT overlay district/classification requirements. City staff engaged in discussions with representatives of the applicant to generally ascertain what as -of -right development scenario that could be approvable as a land use entitlement without the PD rezoning action that has been proposed. The concept plan and the summary presented in this memorandum would, generally, be approvable as of right. Reviewing that evidence may provide some perspective as to any benefits that may derive from the approval of a PD vis-a-vis an as -of -right development while also providing evidence that, should the negotiated PD not be approved, the property owner is left with a reasonable beneficial use of the subject property. The proposed PD provides for a 100 -unit multiple family residential development. The first table below outlines existing or approved developments downtown within similar Euclidean or PD zoning districts/classifications or overlay district/classification standards. The second table below is provided to better outline the requirements of the City's LDRs and the development standards proposed to be agreed upon relative on the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD Master Plan. Although the applicant provided a written explanation addressing deviations to the design guidelines for multi -family developments, pursuant Schedule "E", Section 16.0, of the City's LDRs which sets forth the "Multiple Family Housing Design Guidelines". The design guidelines do not apply to multiple family residential developments within the WDBD where a higher density and more urban character is advocated. In addition, the applicant has assessed concurrency for the project and a traffic study has been completed. The following tables are presented for evaluation by the City Commission. 4 1 z s ;3 0 C Table f Approved Heritage Park Gateway at Riverwalk San Leon Home for Good Proposed Vistas at Development (Catalyst Site) 225 West Seminole 201 Sanford 1004 East 2"d Lake Monroe Standard Monroe PD Boulevard Avenue Street 1100 E. 1st Street Zoning/Overlay SC-3/DT SC-3/RF SC-3/MT RMOI/MT PD Proposed, RMOI Current/MT Parking 1.5 spaces/unit (on - 2 spaces/unit 1 spaces/unit 1.7 spaces/unit 1.5 spaces/unit site for multi -family) approvals of residential Front Setback -North Density 41.8 units/acre 33 units/acre 43.47 units/acre 17.54 units/acre 32.36 units/acre Front Setback - Seminole Boulevard North (Seminole 11' 20' NA; 0' NA; 30' to 2nd Street 20' Blvd.) designation per Buffer -North 0' 10' NA; 0' NA; 5' to 2nd Street 20' (Seminole Blvd.) No setback deviation Height 89'-4" max 64' 56' 24' 56' the increased setback (2-5 stories) proposing in lieu of SFR with Table ' Table 2 is continued on the following page. 511", Single Use Dev. Schedule U -MT Vistas at Lake Development RMOI Overlay Monroe PD Staff Standard Zoning District/classification Proposed Recommendations Transitional Block Staff finds 20' is consistent with current approvals of residential Front Setback -North Within 5' of adjacent development fronting (Seminole Boulevard) 30 structures 20' Seminole Boulevard and the Pedestrian Priority street designation per Schedule U No setback deviation requested; Staff finds 100'; the increased setback proposing in lieu of SFR with Front Setback -East Within 5' of adjacent increased setback in driveway access onto (Mellonville Avenue) 30 structures lieu of SFR fronting Mellonville Avenue to Mellonville Avenue be an appropriate per Schedule U transition from the existing SFR to the proposed development Consistent with Front Setback -South 30 Within 5' of adjacent 10 Pedestrian Priority (East. 1't Street) structures street designation per Schedule U ' Table 2 is continued on the following page. 511", Side Setback 20' Within 5' of adjacent 20' No deviation requested structures Rear setback 20' Within 5' of adjacent No deviation requested structures Height 50' 2 to 4 stories 4 stories or 56' No deviation requested or 56' Staff finds 20% is in line with the urban form of development promoted in Schedule U; RMOI is Open Space 30% - 20% a mixed use district/classification throughout the city and not specific to downtown Staff finds the request 2 spaces/unit = 2 spaces/unit = 1.5 spaces/unit = is consistent with other Parking 200 spaces total 200 spaces total 150 spaces total multi -family approvals downtown and throughout the City The WDBD land use allows a maximum of 50 units/ac. Staff finds the downtown/waterfront Density 20 units per acre - 32.36 units per acre location to be conducive to the higher density and in line with the WDBD and the urban standards in Schedule U Buffer -North 20' as determined by (Seminole Blvd.) 10' Administrative 20' No deviation requested Official No buffer deviation requested; Staff finds 25'; proposing the increased buffer in 10' with a Type I or 20' as determined by increased buffer in lieu of SFR with Buffer -East II Visual Screen per Administrative lieu of SFR fronting driveway access onto (Mellonville Avenue) Schedule J Official Mellonville Avenue Mellonville Avenue to per Schedule U be an appropriate transition from the existing SFR to the proposed development Staff finds 5' on interior Buffer -South (East 15L 20' as determined by 10' adjacent to I" property lines adjacent Street) 10' Administrative Street; 5' other to uses/zoning of same Official south property lines intensity to be adequate Staff finds 5' on interior Buffer -West and All 20' as determined by property lines adjacent other Property Lines 10' Administrative 5' to uses/zoning of same Official intensity to be adequate As outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan, the WDBD land use designation is designed to provide centralized residential, governmental, cultural, institutional, and general commercial activities within the downtown and waterfront urban area, while preserving the City's historic character and cultural heritage through context -sensitive design. The designation provides a planning and management framework for promoting the revitalization, development and redevelopment of the historic downtown commercial area. The purpose of the WDBD land use designation is to: • Generate a revitalization effort that attracts private sector investment and strengthens the City's economy; • Establish the area as a regional center; • Strengthen public/private partnerships; • Enhance the livability of North Seminole County by encouraging improved residential, retail, educational, cultural and entertainment opportunities; and • Provide the framework for redevelopment and infill. A rezoning of the property to PD to establish the proposed multi -family residential use as specified on the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD Master Plan provides the improved residential component to enhance the livability of North Seminole County in accordance with the requirements of the WDBD land use designation and is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan in that regard. The consistency review of the request with the goals, objective and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan predominantly assesses whether the request is consistent with the intended designation, discourages urban sprawl, creates neutral or minimal concurrency impacts and has minimal impacts to natural systems. Policy 1. 11.2 of the Future Land Use Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan: The City shall apply performance criteria objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan to developments and all new development shall comply with the following criteria, all of which shall be implemented through mandatory site plan review of new development: • Parking Provisions: New development within real property assigned the WDBD land use designation shall be served by adequate parking resources. New development shall provide off-street parking sufficient to serve each proposed new development either on site or through the provision of a shared parking agreement or shall otherwise comply with the provisions of this Comprehensive Plan and implementing land development regulations. • Urban Design Amenities: Proposed new development shall provide a higher level of urban design amenities including landscaping, compatible signage, and pedestrian linkages together with a broader mix of land uses attractive to potential users of the downtown area. • Mix of Land Uses: Achieve a higher level of urban design amenities together with a broader mix of land uses attractive to potential users of the downtown and waterfront area. Policy FLU 1.11.3 of the Future Land Use Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan: The City shall establish aesthetic cohesiveness in the City's Lake Monroe Waterfront Corridor and Historic Downtown District/classification through an architectural design program. The City shall continue to enforce the City's LDRs to enhance the identity design, and vitality of the Lake Monroe waterfront commercial area and the Commercial Historic District. The Lake Monroe Waterfront Corridor and Historic Commercial District shall continue to be part of an architectural design 7 (4' program which shall be coordinated closely with the public and private special interest groups concerned with promoting the central traditional neighborhood. Policy FLU 2.2.5 of the Future Land Use Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan: The City shall continue to manage the redevelopment of Lake Monroe waterfront and the downtown historic districts consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Redevelopment planning activities shall direct highest priority to areas with local historical significance, especially areas along the waterfront or within and adjacent to the downtown area. The City shall continue to coordinate public and private resources necessary to initiate needed improvements and/or redevelopment within these areas. Furthermore, the City shall continue to analyze potential alternative scenarios for redeveloping the downtown waterfront corridor along Lake Monroe. The focus shall be on achieving a more active, attractive, and fully -utilized waterfront that includes residential, retail, and commercial activities. The Lake Monroe corridor redevelopment shall continue to emphasize design measures which promote a unique waterfront development pattern reinforced by significant pedestrian oriented urban design amenities and a mix of uses. Chad Moorhead, P.E. with Madden, Moorhead and Stokes has informed the City that he was responsible, on behalf of the applicant, for completing the Citizens Awareness and Participation Plan (CAPP) requirements of the City's LDRs. The applicant has advised the City that it distributed a CAPP notice on December 14, 2020 and according to the CAPP summary the applicant made attempts to communicate with residents in the adjacent Mayfair subdivision to the east. At the May 6, 2021 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission continued the public hearing on the application in order to provide the applicant and residents an opportunity to communicate and hold a community meeting in line with the CAPP requirements. The applicant has advised the City staff that the applicant's efforts to coordinate and schedule a community meeting in accordance with that direction were unsuccessful. Despite the applicant's attempts to meet collaboratively, City staff has also been advised that representatives from the community in opposition to the development held an independent meeting on May 25, 2021 and City staff did not attend that meeting as it was not the collaboratively scheduled "CAPP like" meeting that was anticipated. The applicant and the opponents of the development may have differing accounts as to what has been said, or not said, since the last meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission between the developer and opposing community members and with regard to what meetings were held, or not held, and the reason(s) for such occurring or not occurring. On June 3, 2021 the Planning and Zoning Commission continued the public hearing for a second time due to the inability to review and provide proper consideration of the new evidence that was untimely submitted. Given these circumstances, the Planning and Zoning Commission established a rule at the meeting on June 3, 2021 providing a deadline for the submission of evidence by interested parties. The deadline established for the submission of evidence was by the close of business on Thursday, June 17, 2021. All information submitted by interested parties by the deadline is attached to this report. Additional information pertaining to citizen concerns, drainage and utilities, including staff's correspondence is attached for review. On July 1, 2021, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted the public hearing which included testimony by staff, the applicant and members of the public. After discussion, Ms. Victoria Wilson made a motion to deny the request based on the 4th District Court of Appeals application of strict scrutiny when reviewing the comprehensive plan. Ms. Wilson then cited Policy FLU 1.1.6, number 2, 3 as well as b, d and g. Ms. Ashlee Woodard seconded the motion to deny 811).. which passed by a vote of 4 to 1. Mr. Dominick Fiorentino was the dissenting vote and provided an explanation that he agreed with staff's recommendation and finds the request to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The specific policy in the City's Comprehensive Plan is set forth below; cited on the record as Policy 1-1.1.6, #2, #3, b, d and g. Policy FLU 1.1.6: Implement Land Development Regulations. The City's LDRs governing zoning; subdivision; signage; landscaping and tree protection; and surface water management shall be revised as needed in order to: 1) effectively regulate future land use activities and natural resources identified on the Future Land Use Map; 2) adequately protect property rights; and 3) implement the goals, objectives, and policies stipulated in the Comprehensive Plan. The LDRs shall continue to be applied to: a. Regulate the subdivision of land; b. Regulate the use of land and water consistent with this Element, ensure the compatibility of adjacent land uses, and provide for open space; c. Protect the environmentally sensitive lands designated in the Comprehensive Plan and those historically/culturally significant resources as designated by the City; d. Regulate areas subject to seasonal and periodic flooding and provide for drainage and stormwater management; e. Protect potable water wellfelds and aquifer recharge areas and ensure consistency with the City's water conservation regulations; f. Regulate signage; g. Ensure safe and convenient on-site and off-site traffic flow and vehicle parking needs and prohibit development within existing and future rights-of- way; and h. Enforce the Concurrency Management System (CMS) to maintain levels of services (LOS) for public facilities in accordance with Policy CIE 1.5.1. Following the public hearing, it was noted on the record that the policy cited in the motion, Policy FLU 1.1.6, is a regulatory policy for the City to implement and revise the City's LDRs, as needed, in order to regulate, protect and implement the Goals, Objectives and Policies in the comprehensive plan. Further discussion on the need for specificity, given the application of strict scrutiny previously noted, Mr. Fiorentino made a motion to rescind the previous motion to deny. Mr. Derek Thomas seconded. The motion to rescind Ms. Wilson's previous motion to deny the request passed unanimously. In an effort to cite an applicable goal, objective or policy, Ms. Wilson made a second motion to deny the request based on Goal INF I and Policy INF 1.1.1. Ms. Woodard seconded and the motion to deny passed 4 to 1. Mr. Fiorentino was the dissenting vote, again stating he agreed with staff's recommendation and finds the request to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Woodard added that her reason to recommend denial was due to the requested deviation to the parking requirements and the request not applying strict provision of the code for the MT overlay district/classification. The remaining members, Mr. Derek Thomas and the Chair Mr. Mike Loader did not provide a reason for their recommendation to deny. 9�4 The specific goal and policy in the City's Comprehensive Plan is set forth below; cited on the record as Goal 4 Public Facilities, Solid Waste and Sewer and Policy 4 General Performance Standards. GOAL INF 1: Provide Adequate Public Facilities. Ensure availability and provision of adequate public facilities including potable water, sanitary sewer, Solid waste, stormwater drainage, and aquifer recharge in a manner which protects investments in existing facilities, continues to serve Existing residents and supports orderly, compact growth. Policy INF 1.1.1: Enforce General Performance Standards. The City shall maintain LDRs that include performance standards requiring that public facilities be provided concurrent with the impacts of new development. The City shall enforce performance standards ensuring that the location, scale, timing and design of development shall be coordinated with public facilities and services in order to prevent the proliferation of urban sprawl and achieve cost effective land development patterns. Urban sprawl shall be further addressed through performance standards that: • Direct future development only to those areas where provision of public facilities necessary to meet levels of service (LOS) standards are available concurrent with the impacts of the development; • Maximize use of existing central potable water, reclaimed water and wastewater facilities by requiring that all new development hook up to the City's existing central systems; • Require all new development connect to irrigation quality reclaimed water lines for irrigation purposes. If not within the required reclaimed water connection distances as listed in the "Utilities Standards and Specifications and Design Standards for Water Conservation" (referred to as the Utilities Manual), new development shall utilize the lowest quality available water for irrigation purposes; • Avoid expensive development at very low densities surrounding the City's urban core area; • Promote planned mixed use development within the strategically located Westside Industry & Commerce area, the I-4 interchange, the Waterfront/Downtown Business District, and Airport Industry and Commerce area; • Conserve wetlands, natural drainage corridors, and other environmentally sensitive areas; • Prevent extended strip commercial development within the areas designated planned mixed use development by mandating access and curb cut controls together with required dedication of cross easements to restrict and/or to facilitate well planned access, internal circulation, shared parking, and egress; and • Provide density and intensity thresholds that promote infill. As to the second motion, the pertinent policy is directed at the City and requires the City to maintain provisions in the LDRs that include performance standards requiring that public facilities be provided concurrent with the impacts of new development and for the City to enforce those performance standards ensuring that the location, scale, timing and design of development shall be coordinated with public facilities and services in order to prevent the proliferation of urban 101 sprawl and achieve cost effective land development patterns. The types of performance standards that are to, then, address urban sprawl are outlined. This goal and policy place a burden on the City to have LDRs in effect, which it does, and to apply those LDRs, which it does. This would occur in the next stages of development and would, indeed, occur if the rezoning was not changed. In short, the provisions cited in both motions to deny are not provisions that, in and of themselves, can be targeted toward a particular development. The subject property where the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD is proposed is located in the downtown waterfront corridor along Lake Monroe and conducive to the redevelopment scenarios outlined in the policy above. Given the proximity to the established single family residential use to the east, public facilities to the south and proposed Mayfair Hotel to the west, more intense commercial activities are not ideal. The proposed multi -family residential use provides a transition to the adjacent uses as well as a pedestrian connection to the sidewalk and trail system. Building frontage toward Lake Monroe promotes utilization of the waterfront. Although the rezone request does not include building architectural elevations, the development will be subject to the architectural standards identified in Schedule "U" of the City's LDRs for the MT overlay district/classification which supports the architectural design and development pattern referenced in the policies above. Given the urban character encouraged within the WDBD land use designation and Schedule "U" of the City's LDRs, staff finds the proposed multi -family development and associated master plan are consistent with the criteria noted above, previous approvals and the entirety of the goals, objectives and policies set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City Commission continued the first reading of Ordinance No. 4618 to the August 23, 2021 City Commission meeting. The City Clerk published notice of the 2"a Public Hearing in the Sanford Herald on August 11, 2021. On August 23, 2021 the first reading of Ordinance No. 4618 was approved to move to second reading. However, the motion maker (Mayor Woodruff who has passed the gavel in order to make the motion) stated that he intended to vote to approve the application only if, at a minimum, the following revisions/conditions were agreed upon by the applicant/property owner upon negotiation at second reading: 1. Covered parking structures or storage units shall be provided consistent with the requirements of Schedule E, Section 16.0. 2. A developed recreational facility/amenity such as a pool, fitness center, or the like, shall be constructed and applied at a rate of one hundred square feet per dwelling unit. A pedestrian trail, lawn area, park, etc. as identified in note 15 on the PD Master Plan is not acceptable. 3. A maximum of 80 units or 25.89 dwelling units per acre. 4. No vertical improvements shall be provided within the 20' setback along East Seminole Boulevard. LEGAL REVIEW: The City Attorney has reviewed the staff report and has noted the following: Section 166.033, Florida Statutes, as amended in the recent Legislative Session, in Chapter 2021-224, Laws of Florida (deriving from Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for House Bill Number 1059) provides as follows (please note emphasized text): "(1) When reviewing an application for a development permit that is certified by a professional listed in s. 403.0877, a municipality may not request additional information from the applicant more than three times, unless the applicant waives the limitation in writing. Before a third request for additional information, the applicant must be offered a meeting to attempt to resolve outstanding issues. Except as provided in subsection (4), if the applicant believes the request for additional information is not authorized by ordinance, rule, statute, or other legal authority, the municipality, at the applicant's request, shall proceed to process the application for approval or denial. (2) (a) When a municipality denies an application for a development permit, the municipality shall give written notice to the applicant. The notice must include a citation to the applicable portions of an ordinance, rule, statute, or other legal authority for the denial of the permit. (b) If a municipality makes a request for additional information and the applicant submits the required additional information within 30 days after receiving the request, the municipality must review the application for completeness and issue a letter indicating that all required information has been submitted or specify with particularity any areas that are deficient within 30 days after receiving the additional information. (c) If a municipality makes a second request for additional information and the applicant submits the required additional information within 30 days after receiving the request, the municipality must review the application for completeness and issue a letter indicating that all required information has been submitted or specify with particularity any areas that are deficient within 10 days after receiving the additional information. (d) Before a third request for additional information, the applicant must be offered a meeting to attempt to resolve outstanding issues. If a municipality makes a third request for additional information and the applicant submits the required additional information within 30 days after receiving the request, the municipality must deem the application complete within 10 days after receiving the additional information or proceed to process the application for approval or denial unless the applicant waived the municipality's limitation in writing as described in paragraph (a). (e) Except as provided in subsection (5), if the applicant believes the request for additional information is not authorized by ordinance, rule, statute, or other legal authority, the municipality, at the applicant's request, shall proceed to process the application for approval or denial. (3) As used in this section, the term "development permit" has the same meaning as in s. 163.3164, but does not include building permits. (4) For any development permit application filed with the municipality after July 1, 2012, a municipality may not require as a condition of processing or issuing a development permit that an applicant obtain a permit or approval from any state or federal agency unless the agency has issued a final agency action that denies the federal or state permit before the municipal action on the local development permit. (5) Issuance of a development permit by a municipality does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the municipality for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the 12 <, obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. A municipality shall attach such a disclaimer to the issuance of development permits and shall include a permit condition that all other applicable state or federal permits be obtained before commencement of the development. (6) This section does not prohibit a municipality from providing information to an applicant regarding what other state or federal permits may apply." The above -referenced definition of the term "development permit" is as follows: "(16) 'Development permit' includes any building permit, zoning permit, subdivision approval, rezoning, certification, special exception, variance, or any other official action of local government having the effect of permitting the development of land." (Section 163.3164(16), Florida Statutes). Thus, if this application is denied, a denial development order must be issued which must cite to the applicable portions of each ordinance, rule, statute, or other legal authority supporting the denial of the application. For example, if a goal, objective or policy of the Sanford Comprehensive Plan were to be the basis for a denial, then such goal, objective or policy must be part of the motion proposing the denial. A denial development order would be drafted to implement the actions of the City Commission in the event of such occurrence. Accordingly, any motion to deny must state, with particularity, the basis for the proposed denial. The term "development order" is defined as follows and, as can be seen, refers to the "granting, denying, or granting with conditions [of] an application": "(15) `Development order' means any order granting, denying, or granting with conditions an application for a development permit." (Section 163.3164(15), Florida Statutes). Importantly, it is noted that City planning staff has determined that the proposed development is consistent with the goals, objective s and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The staff report is evidence of a competent and substantial nature. It analyzes the pertinent provisions of the City's LDRs that relate to the subject application. Matters that do not relate to this type of land use decision should not be considered or evaluated. Evidence that is submitted must be factual directed at an issue that arises under controlling land use law and not mere opposition or non -fact or law based matters. Along that line, the attempt to bring into the decision making process matters of economics of the project or the economic status of potential residents can run afoul of controlling law. Indeed, issues that cause Fair Housing Act implications to arise can place the City in legal jeopardy. When staff states that it has no comment as to certain objections or statements, oftentimes that is due to the fact that the matters raised in those objections or statements, whether made by opponents or the applicant, have no impact on the correct issues and controlling matters to be decided. In that vein, with regard to the CAPP process, that is a process that was designed to ensure that property owners and those who may be impacted by developments relating to property owned by property owners would have an opportunity to meet and discuss issues. The CAPP process is not another City meeting. In the situation involved in this particular land use case, the issue as to whether or not a CAPP meeting has occurred is moot. That matter has been resolved. First, City 13�t`' staff has concluded that the requirements of the CAPP process, particularly in view of the COVID related concerns of late, have been satisfactorily implemented. With regard to the attempt to have the parties meet and discuss matters, that either did or did not happen and matters either were or were not discussed. Those matters are not particularly pertinent to the decision to be made. Either the parties agreed or did not. The land use decision still must be made on the issues that are pertinent to the decision and none other. The Florida Supreme Court in Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County v. Snyder, 627 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1993), adopted the strict scrutiny standard of review for comprehensive plan consistency cases. In adopting the strict scrutiny standard in Snyder the Supreme Court cited, with approval, Machado v. Musgrove, 519 So.2d 629 (Fla. 3`d DCA 1987), and Lee County v. Sunbelt Equities, H,, Ltd Partnership, 619 So.2d 996 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), as examples of strict scrutiny review in land use cases. 627 So.2d at 475. In citing these cases, the Supreme Court observed that "[t]he term `strict scrutiny' arises from the necessity of strict compliance with comprehensive plan." 627 So. 2d. at 475. Further underscoring the importance of the consistency requirement, the Supreme Court held in Snyder that the landowner applicant has the burden of proving that his or her development proposal is consistent with the local government's comprehensive plan. 627 So. 2d at 476. Given the unequivocal language of the Act and the case Iaw construing the consistency requirement, there can be no reasonable dispute that strict compliance with the goals, objectives, policies, and elements of a comprehensive plan are required as a matter of law. To achieve the legislative objectives of orderly growth, stability of land uses, and the protection of natural resources throughout the State, Florida courts have wisely recognized that they must strictly scrutinize development orders and development permits issued by local governments to ensure that the statutory consistency requirement is satisfied. Florida's courts have previously recognized and reinforced the critically important role of the consistency requirement. The courts have recognized that the deferential fairly debatable standard of review traditionally accorded to local land use decisions is not appropriate in evaluating consistency with a comprehensive plan and that a stricter and more rigid standard of judicial scrutiny is required to ensure compliance with the statutory consistency requirement. Also, the judiciary has recognized that the consistency requirement has transformed the nature of many local land use decisions from legislative to quasi-judicial actions and that stricter judicial scrutiny is necessary in the review of these quasi-judicial actions. In Machado v. Musgrove, 519 So.2d 629 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1987), the court recognized that strict compliance with the goals, objectives and policies in a local comprehensive plan is necessary to prevent a return to the ad hoc decision-making that created, in significant part, the need for Florida's Growth Management Act. The court determined that a strict standard of judicial review was necessary in cases where local actions are challenged on the basis of inconsistency with a local comprehensive land use plan. 519 So. 2d at 632. Acknowledging the new role of the State - mandated comprehensive pians, which it "likened to a constitution for all future development" 519 So. 2d at 632, the Machado court noted that: A Comprehensive Land Use Plan is not a "vest-pocket tool, for making individual zoning changes based on political vagary. Instead, it is a broad statement of a legislative objective "to protect human, environmental, social, and economic resources; and to maintain through orderly growth and development, the 14 4. character and stability of present and future land use and development in this state. 519 So. 2d at 625 (Emphasis added). Section 163.3194(3) (a) and (b), Florida Statutes, defines consistency as follows: (a). A development order or land development regulation shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan if the land uses, densities or intensities, and other aspects of development permitted by such order or regulation are compatible with and further the objectives, policies, land uses, and densities or intensities in the comprehensive plan and if it meets all other criteria enumerated by the local government. (Emphasis added). (b). A development approved or undertaken by a local government shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan if the land uses, densities or intensities, capacity or size, timing, and other aspects of the development are compatible with and further the objectives, policies, land uses, and densities or intensities in the comprehensive plan and if it meets all other criteria enumerated by the local government. (Emphasis added). Thus, any contrary finding to the recommendation of City staff should set forth goals, objectives and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan that support that recommendation. Also, inasmuch as the rezoning application is for a PD zoning, the City Commission would need to support any denial with competent substantial competent evidence of record which states (and is stated in a denial development order) the basis for the denial from a planning or land development perspective. Elected officials and appointed board members participating in quasi-judicial proceedings, hereinafter referred to as "decision makers," shall not allow or permit ex parte contact from any person attempting to influence the decision of such decision maker. Any such contact is presumed to be prejudicial to the parties involved in such quasi-judicial proceeding including, the general public. Ex parte contact includes oral communication, written communication, electronic communication or communication of any other type. Thus, it is the duty of the decision maker at a quasi-judicial proceeding to disclose at the commencement of the quasi-judicial proceeding by the decision maker and such disclosure shall include the name of the person or persons making such contact, the essential content of the communication and the approximate date of such communication. Following such disclosure, the prejudicial nature of such contact is presumed to have been cured subject to an objection from a party to the quasi-judicial proceeding objecting to the continued participation of a decision maker in the quasi-judicial proceeding and subject to the decision maker or a party to the proceeding establishing by competent evidence that there was no prejudicial effect from such communication. In furtherance of the above legal principals and requirements, if any Member of the City Commission attended the aforementioned community meeting, that fact should be disclosed and the basis for attending the meeting should be stated as well as a statement of the ex parte contacts that occurred at the meeting. Likewise, if a Member of the City Commission attended the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, a statement as to that matter should be disclosed as well as the basis for attending and what evidence was derived from the ex parte nature of that attendance. 15 y, Disclosure of ex parte communications should occur at the commencement of the proceeding. In the case of Power U Center for Social Change, Inc. v. Miami City Commission, an ex parte communication "was disclosed as a comment after the public hearing just before the ... Commission voted." Power U Ctr. for Soc. Change, Inc. v. Miami City Comm'n, 14 Fla. Law Weekly Supp. 814 (11th Cir. Ct. July 9, 2007). The Eleventh Circuit held that this lack of disclosure "failed to comply with section 286.0115(1)(c)(4), Fla. Stat. (2006)" and therefore the "Commission violated Petitioners' due process rights under Jennings as the presumption of prejudice was never removed by any statute or any procedure because Petitioners had no opportunity to object or rebut the [communication] which was not properly disclosed." Id. In the case of German Britto and Claudia Cardenas v. Orange County, Florida, (9th Cir. Ct. October 13, 2009) a Commissioner did not disclose her ex parte communication until after the conclusion of the public portion and immediately prior to introducing her resolution which was followed by discussion by the Commission. As a result, the Court determined that the parties that were not privy to the ex parte communications were not afforded an opportunity to object to or rebut or even learn the substance of the communication between Commissioner Stewart and opponents at the hearing. Thus, the decision of the County was quashed. Again, an "ex parte" contact or communication is any oral or written communication that occurs outside a formal quasi-judicial proceeding of the City Commission. It is the obligation of decision makers in quasi-judicial proceedings to be impartial in order to protect the due process rights of the participants in such a proceeding. It is the obligation of decision makers to: (1) hear all of the evidence; (2) avoid the combination of investigation or prosecution and decision making; and (3) to consider only competent and substantial evidence offered during the quasi-judicial proceeding, the facts and matters of general knowledge. With regard to impartiality, the attached Florida Institute of Technology, Inc. v. City of Melbourne judicial decision should be reviewed. The term "substantial evidence" means evidence that will establish a basis of fact from which the fact at issue can be reasonably inferred and which is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Evidence is "competent" when it is offered by persons with the appropriate professional or other qualifications qualifying them to be particularly expert, knowledgeable or capable in a particular matter because of education, training or experience, or which are observed facts known to the witnesses testifying to them. Mere generalized statements of opposition are not competent or substantial evidence. Fact -based testimony must be considered and evaluated during the decision making process. It should be noted that Florida's Community Planning Act was amended during the 2021 Legislative Session by the passage of Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for House Bill Number 59 (initially codified as Chapter Number 2021-195, Laws of Florida) to require every city and county within the State "to include in its comprehensive plan a property rights element." (Section 163.3177(6)(i)l, Florida Statutes). City staff is working on implementation of that legislative mandate upon the City which provides a model statement of rights of property owners. Land use decisions implicate fundamental constitutional right. The legislation, together with other legislation that has been enacted over the years, is indicative of the Legislature's concern that due process is not being afforded property owners during the course of the local government hearing processes. If a property owner's application is to be denied after a fair hearing comporting with due process requirements, that denial must be based upon competent substantial evidence that is relevant to the proceeding and placed into evidence during the hearing(s) held on the matter. Given the action on first reading, the property owner/applicant may agree to additional conditions being placed upon the PD rezoning action and incorporated into the implementing ordinance and non -statutory development agreement. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the action taken at the July 1, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting outlined above, the Planning and Zoning Commission, contrary to staff s recommendation, recommends the City Commission deny the request based on Goal INF 1: Provide Adequate Public Facilities and Policy INF 1.1.1: Enforce General Performance Standards. Staff recommends the City Commission adopt the ordinance rezoning approximately 3.06 acres from the RMOI, Multi -Family Residential -Office -Institutional, zoning district/classification to the PD, Planned Development, zoning district/classification to establish the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD, a 100 -unit multiple family residential development with a project address of 1100 East 1st Street based on consistency with the goals, objectives and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The following conditions should be considered to accompany any approval in the ordinance and its associated development order as well as staffs recommendations in the table above: 1. Pursuant to Section 4.3.G of the City's LDRs, this rezoning shall expire 3 years from the effective date of this Ordinance if all improvements have not been completed or an extension granted. 2. All development shall be consistent with the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD Master Plan, revision dated May 20, 2021, unless otherwise specifically set forth in any associated development order; provided, however, that all subsequent development orders shall be consistent with the provisions of this Ordinance. 3. Unless specifically requested and approved on the referenced PD Master Plan, any required elements missing from or not shown on the PD Master Plan shall comply with the City's LDRs. 4. New development on the subject real property shall be served by adequate parking resources which shall include off-street parking sufficient to serve each proposed new development either on site or through the provision of a shared parking agreement as approved by the City Attorney with regard to a site approved by the Administrative Official based upon reasonable proximity and sound and generally accepted planning and land development principals relating to pedestrian traffic. If off-street parking cannot be reasonably accommodated on-site as determined by the Administrative Official based upon reasonable proximity and sound and generally accepted planning and land development principals, the property owner shall contribute a sum equivalent to the development costs of each parking space not provided, as determined by the Administrative Official, which funds shall be deposited into to a special parking trust fund of the City which trust fund shall be used only for purposes of purchasing land and contributing to strategically located parking facilities which benefit the subject property. 5. All outdoor improvements and uses including, but not limited to, tables, chairs and decor shall be compatible with the sidewalk cafe standards provided in Section 20 of Schedule "E" of the City's LDRs. 17 1 P y 6. The final design and location of all driveways and access points including, but not limited to, cross access locations, shall be proposed within and shall be subject to City approval during, the development plan review and approval process. 7. A decorative and functional fountain shall be installed in all wet retention ponds as part of development approval which approval shall provide for ongoing maintenance requirements and responsibilities upon the appropriate party, but not the City. 8. A dog walk area with waste collection receptacles shall be provided as determined by the City for use by residents of the development. 9. A comprehensive signage program meeting the standards of the City's LDRs, shall be required for the entire development including, but not limited to, the commercial and multiple family residential uses. 10. Unless specifically requested and approved on the Vistas at Lake Monroe PD Master Plan or the associated PD Development Order, all development shall comply with: a. The site design and architecture and finishes of the proposed structures shall meet the requirements of Schedule "U", Section G. General Block Standards, including figures I and J of the City's LDRs. b. Lighting and pedestrian amenities shall be included to improve the overall image of the pedestrian network. c. A comprehensive landscape design, including landscape and hardscape elements shall be provided to complement the existing streetscape improvements and the urban form of the Midtown Overlay District. The comprehensive landscape design shall incorporate landscape/hardscape elements to screen the parking area and any mechanical equipment/appurtenances from the public right of way. 11. If City staff and the property owner are unable to agree to the details of this Development Order in any way, the matter will be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission for resolution at a public hearing, and the matter will be adjudicated by means of a development order or denial development order relating thereto. In agreeing to the above conditions, the property owner will agree that, in accordance with the provisions of Section 70.45, Florida Statutes, pertaining to governmental exactions, the City has not imposed any prohibited exaction. The term "prohibited exaction" is defined by that statue to mean "... any condition imposed by a governmental entity on a property owner's proposed use of real property that lacks an essential nexus to a legitimate public purpose and is not roughly proportionate to the impacts of the proposed use that the governmental entity seeks to avoid, minimize, or mitigate." Additional comments or recommendations may be presented by staff at the meeting. SUGGESTED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. 4618 on second reading as recommended by staff and to enact the Ordinance subject to a development order that includes all recommended conditions and standards." POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE MOTION (Drafted by City Attorney): "I move to approve Ordinance No. 4618 on second reading as recommended by staff together with the additional conditions and standards agreed to by the property owner/applicant and to enact the Ordinance subject to a development order that includes all conditions and standards as recommended and as agreed." Attachments: (1). Project Information Sheet. (2). Site Zoning Map. (3). Site Aerial Map. (4). CAPP Summary with Applicants list of Addresses. (5). Affidavit of Ownership. (6). Traffic Impact Analysis. (7). Written Explanation/Justification to Schedule U. (8). School Impact Analysis. (9). Property Owner's Letter. (10). Citizens Letters/Emails/Reports. (11). Vistas at Lake Monroe PD Master Plan, Revised May 20, 2021. (12). As -of -Right Development Scenario Concept Plan (13). Map Of Historic Districts. (14). Florida Institute of Technology, Inc. v. City of Melbourne judicial decision. (15). Water, Sewer and Water Supply Report & Impact provided by the Utilities Department. (16). Staff's Correspondence. (17). Staff's Response to Citizen Concerns submitted by Ms. Amy Berrios. (18). Staff's Response to Citizen Analysis Report submitted by Mr. Ven Sequenzia. (19). Staff Vita/Resumes. (20). Ordinance No. 4618 191P,-Ia - —.'6 0 E. 1 st StreetParcel No: 30-19-31-506-0100-0010,30-19-31-506-0100-0020,30-19-31-506-0100-0040Awl 1"Mu MEN Zoning ELI L MISAMISWAML Lake Monroe ,� iioiiiiiiii = � � SITE J I W Zoning > a ®1100 E 1st Street m a MR3 o > PRO a E Site Z N LU 1100 E. 1 st Street RMOI Z Parcel No: 30-19-31-506-0100-0010, SR1 9 30-19-31-506-0100-0020, 0 30-19-31-506-0100-0040 SR1AA I - —E-1ST'ST-- Z w L ZW W Q U) ° i j W a z a o w w U w Z ;° LU S J I W Zoning > a ®1100 E 1st Street m a MR3 o > PRO a E Site Z N LU 1100 E. 1 st Street RMOI Z Parcel No: 30-19-31-506-0100-0010, SR1 9 30-19-31-506-0100-0020, 0 30-19-31-506-0100-0040 SR1AA I n n n .,.,''..,MADDEN �= MOORHEAD &STOKES, LLC CIVIL ENGINEERS April 26, 2021 City of Sanford Attn: Sabreena Colbert 200 North Park Avenue Sanford, FL 32771 RE: Vistas at Lake Monroe — CAPP Summary PDR21-000001 Dear Sabreena: We sent out the attached notice on December 14, 2020 and received one email from Ms. Sara Jacobsen on December 28, 2020. Ms. Jacobsen did not specify if she was for or against the development and stated via email that she would coordinate a meeting with our office. After emailing Ms. Jacobsen on January 5t', January 20'', January 27`x', and February 241, 2021 with our office's availability to meet, a meeting was not set up; therefore, we moved forward with the project. If you have any questions or need further information, please do not hesitate to call our office at 407-629-8330. Sincerely, &4dU4"d/"d Chadwyck H. Moorhead, P.E. President CHM:nwm HAData12006TCoACAPP 5ummary.doc 431 E. Horatio Avenue 0 Suite 260 0 Maitland, FL 32751 ■ 407-629-8330 ■ FAX 407-629-8336 DDEN .. . e — MOORHEAD 8� S'['C3KES, LLC CIVIL ENGINEERS December 14, 2020 Subject: - .- Subject: Vistas at Lake Monroe (PD), 1100 E. In Street and 1105 E. Seminole Blvd, City of Sanford Parcels 30-19-30-506-0100-0040, 30-19-30-506-0100-0020 and 30-19-30-506-0100-0010 Dear Neighbor: This letter is to inform you of the future development of +/- 3.03 Acres located at 1100 E. 1st Street and 1105 E. Seminole Blvd. within the City of Sanford, identified as Parcels 30-19-30-506-0100-0040, 30-19-30-506-0100- 0020 and 30-19-30-506-0100-0010 per Seminole County Public Records. The subject property is currently zoned Multiple -Family Residential -Office -Institutional (RMOI) with a future land use designation of Waterfront Downtown Business District (WDBD) and could be entitled for up to 151 units. Our development application will request a rezoning to Planned Development and propose up to 100 multi- family units. The proposed site improvements will consist of one 4 story building, a retention pond, and landscape buffer on the eastern portion of the property adjacent to Mellonville Ave. Attached is our proposed site plan. Normally we would have an in person meeting to discuss specifics, but due to COVID 19 we ask that you contact our office with any questions by 12/30/2020. Sincerely, &moi U041AW'd Chad Moorhead, P.E. President H:\Data\20067\Cor\LAPP invitation 12-14-2020.doc 431 E. Horatio Avenue ■ Suite 260 ■ Maitland, FL 327510 407-629-8330 0 FAX 407-629-8336 __ I( 6 � 8 ! A ( A �� 07; Cc A I A rk M Apartments SITE DATA (1) 4 STORY BUILDING 70 -1 BEDROOM WITH OFFICE UNITS 30- 2 BEDROOM UNITS 100 UNITS TOTAL PARING 123 - OPEN PARKING SPACES 4 - HC PARKING SPACES 127 TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED (--;--�SITE 2PLAN ....... . .... .... .... \-Lj > SITE PLAN B - Se" LIVING OP. APARTMENIS SLOCUM PLATTS A , P.A- od VISTAS a LAKE MONROE ARCHITECTS APARTMENTS cr0 CnY/COUNrf FLOWA Lake Monroe SITS w E Seminole Blvd w d a cv E 1st ST t L+sh:: i,ionroe Central Florida Zoo e% & Botanical Gardens V LAKE MONROE lake Monroe 77 SITE i; A a1 d Z: (46 , b S 3 Pkwy Sanford 1s 17 n a 0 0 A k. c x — - HEThomasJrPkwy 417 HE Thomas Jr Pkwy 14c.i 0 c v A a 17 �a N G A Z t7 3 17 410 F Ln" Mary 6}rd E Lake Mary G awn�t,BrY 8t;,�y �,lANY 6t+d Yltabs Mnry i~'rd M't ��,o ,rb Seminole State Terrain • r:JN view topography and elevation JOB NO. 20067 1105 SEMINOLE BLVD MADDEN SEC. 27, TWP. 19S, RANGE 30E SANFORD DRAWN BY: FM MOORHEAD & STOKES,APPROVED BY: CHM LOCATION MAP CIVIL ENGINEERS DATE: 12/08/2020 431 E. HORATIO AVE., STE. 260, MAITLAND, FL 32751 • (407) 629-8330 Scale: 1 = 4000 GOOGLE MAPS TRUITT, DONNA L TR ETHNOS 360 INC LEARNED, CAROL B 5700 RADNOR CT 312 W 1ST ST 103 N MELLONVILLE AVE BETHESDA, MD 20817 SANFORD, FL 32771 SANFORD, FL 32771 ROE, LOIS S JONES, STANLEY L & CYNTHIA C GONZALEZ, ARTHUR G 101 S MELLONVILLE AVE 148 N ELLIOTT AVE 144 N ELLIOTT AVE SANFORD, FL 32771 SANFORD, FL 32771 SANFORD, FL 32771 ROE, LOIS S JARRELL, CYNDEE M & ALBERT M JACOBSON, SARA 101 S MELLONVILLE AVE 3915 S ATLANTIC AVE 1203 E SEMINOLE BLVD SANFORD, FL 32771 PORT ORANGE, FL 32127 SANFORD, FL 32771 SANFORD CITY OF MELLINI, PAUL V SUCC TR MELLINI, PAUL V SUCC TR PO BOX 1788 201 W 1ST ST 201 W IST ST SANFORD, FL 32772 SANFORD, FL 32771 SANFORD, FL 32771 MELLINI, PAUL V SUCC TR NEW TRIBES MISSION INC SEMINOLE B C C 201 W IST ST 1090 E 1ST ST 1101 E 1ST ST SANFORD, FL 32771 SANFORD, FL 32771 SANFORD, FL 32771 SANFORD PROPCO LLC SANFORD PROPCO LLC NEW TRIBES MISSION INC 114 W 1ST ST 114 W 1ST ST 1000 E 1ST ST SANFORD, FL 32771 SANFORD, FL 32771 SANFORD, FL 32771 SANFORD CITY PARK (FT MELLON PK & SANFORD CITY PARK (FT MELLON PK & SEMINOLE B C C CIVIC CENTER CIVIC CENTER 1101E IST ST PO BOX 1788 PO BOX 1788 SANFORD, FL 32771 SANFORD, FL 32772 SANFORD, FL 32772 DocuSign Envelope ID: 9F986080-C6F3-4BB7-AEBD-OE7293162AF6 CITY OF SkNFORDi PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND DESIGNATION OF AGENT Please use additional sheets as needed. If any additional sheets are attached to this document, please sign here and note below: 1. Ownership i Paul Mellini, Manager of MELLINi, PAUL V - Successor Trustee., hereby attest to ownership of the property described below: Tax Parcel Number(s): 30-19-31-506-0100-0010, 30-19-31-506-0100-0020 and 30-19-31-506-0100-0040 Address of Property: 1100 E. 1 st Street and 1105 E. Seminole Blvd., Sanford, FL 32771 for which this PD Rezone/Master Plan application is submitted to the City of Sanford. 11. Designation of Applicant's Agent (leave blank if not applicable) As the owner/applicant of the above designated property for which this affidavit is submitted, I designate the below named individual as my agent in all matters pertaining to the application process. in authorizing the agent named below to represent me, or my company, I attest that the application is made in good faith and that all information contained in the application is accurate -and. complete to the best of my personal knowledge. Applicant's Agent (Print): Richard Shassian, Manager Signature. Agent Address: Vistas at Lake Monroe, LLC, 999 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714 Email: Miguel@centralparcgroup.com Phone: 407-257-7334 Fax: Ill. Notice to Owner A. All changes in Ownership and/or Applicant's Agent prior to final action of the City shall require a new affidavit. If ownership changes, the new owner assumes all obligations related to the filing application process. B. If the Owner intends for the authority of the Applicant's Agent to be limited in any manner, please indicate the limitations(s) below. (Le.: limited to obtaining a certificate of concurrency; limited to obtaining a land use compliance certificate, etc.) The owner of the real property associated with this application or procurement activity Is a (check one) o Individual o Corporation B Land Trust o Partnership o Limited Liability Company o Other (describe): 1. List all natural persons who have an ownership interest in the property, which is the subject matter of this petition, by name and address. 2. For each corporation, list the name, address, and title of each officer, the name and address of each director of the corporation; and the name and address of each shareholder who owns two percent (2%) or more of the stock of the corporation. Shareholders need not be disclosed if a corporation's stock are traded publicly on any national stock exchange. 3. In the case of a trust, list the name and address of each trustee and the name and address of the beneficiaries of the trust and the percentage of interest of each beneficiary. If any trustee or beneficiary of a trust is a corporation, please provide the information required in paragraph 2 above. Name of Trust: MELLINI, PAUL V - Successor Trustee DocuSign Envelope ID: 9F986080-C6F3.4BB7-AEBD-OE7293162AF6 4. For partnerships, including limited partnerships, list the name and address of each principal in the partnership, including general or limited partners. If any partner is a corporation, please provide the information required in paragraph 2 above. 5. For each limited liability company, list the name, address, and title of each manager or managing member; and the name and address of each additional member with two percent (2%) or more membership interest. If any member with two percent (2%) or more membership interest, manager, or managing member is a corporation, trust or partnership, please provide the information required in paragraphs 2, 3 and/or 4 above. Name of LLC: 6. In the circumstances of a contract for purchase, list the name and address of each contract purchaser. If the purchaser is a corporation, trust, partnership, or LLC, provide the information required for those entities in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and/or 5 above. Name of Purchaser. Date of Contract: NAME TITLE/OFFICE/TRUSTEE OR BENEFICIARY ADDRESS % OF INTEREST (Use additional sheets for more space.) 7. As to any type of owner referred to above, a change of ownership occurring subsequent to the execution of this document, shall be disclosed in writing to the City prior to any action being taken by the City as to the matter relative to which this document pertains. 8. 1 affirm that the above representations are true and are based upon my personal knowledge and belief after all reasonable inquiry. understand that any failure to make mandated disclosures is grounds for the subject rezone, future land use amendment, special exception, or variance involved with this Application to become void or for the submission for a procurement activity to be non- responsive. I certify that I am legally authorized to execute this Affidavit and to bind the Applicant or Vendor to the disclosures herein. Date Owner, Agent, Applicant Signature STATE OF FLORIDA Paul Mellini, Manager of MELLINI, PAUL V - Successor Trustee COUNTY OF SEMINOLE HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, b fore me, an officer duly authorized to administer oaths and take acknowledgments, personally appeared Fe., -i iy% (neh(W:{ o is personally known to me or { ) who produced as identification an cknowledged before me that s/he executed the sad. Sworn and subscribed before me, by 'ttr l IJ. tYlvl' irbi/% by means of physical presence or { } online notarization on the D 'day of d` fGVc _ , the said person did take an oath and was first duly sworn by me, on oath, said person, further, deposing and saying that /he h read the foregoing and that the statements and allegations contained herein are true and correct. 61, WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County d State last aforesaid his �ay of VLi/ 2020. 2021 <1X Notary blic; State of Florida (Affix N arial Seal) Printed Name: Affidavit of Ownership- February 2020 ;01pasm EL17ABETHRA6ITAILLEo Public • State of Floridamission k HH 015971m. Expires !un 29, 2024ugh National Notary Assn. VISTAS LAKE MONROE APARTMENTS Project Ns 21044 April 2021 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF SANFORD FLORIDA 3101 Maguire Boulevard, Suite 265 Orlando, Florida 32803 www.trafficmobility.com (407) 531-5332 Prepared for: Central Parc Group 630 N Wymore Road, Suite 300 Maitland, Florida 32751 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that I am a Professional Engineer properly registered in the State of Florida practicing with Traffic & Mobility Consultants LLC, a corporation authorized to operate as an engineering business, CA -30024, by the State of Florida Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers, and that I have prepared or approved the evaluations, findings, opinions, conclusions, or technical advice attached hereto for: PROJECT: Vistas Lake Monroe Apartments LOCATION: City of Sanford, Florida CLIENT: Central Parc Group I hereby acknowledge that the procedures and references used to develop the results contained in these computations are standard to the professional practice of Transportation Engineering as applied through professional judgment and experience. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN DIGITALLY SIGNED AND SEALED BY ON THE DATE ADJACENT TO THE SEAL PRINTED COPIES OF THIS DOCUMENT ARE NOT CONSIDERED SIGNED AND SEALED AND THE SIGNATURE MUST BE VERIFIED ON ANY ELECTRONIC COPIES. TRAFFIC & MOBILITY CONSULTANTS LLC 3101 MAGUIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 265 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32803 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION CA -30024 AYMAN H. AS-SAIDI, P.E. NO. 56849 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Proiect Information Name: Vistas Lake Monroe Apartments Location: Southwest corner of the intersection of North Mellonville Avenue and East Seminole Boulevard Jurisdiction: City of Sanford, Florida Description: 100 apartment units Findings Trip Generation: 543 daily trips / 36 AM peak hour trips / 44 PM peak hour trips Roadway Capacity: The study roadway segments currently operate at an acceptable LOS and will continue to do so at the project buildout. Intersection Capacity: The study intersections currently operate at an acceptable overall LOS and will continue to do so at the project buildout. Access Plan: One (1) full access driveway on East 1st Street The site access driveway will operate at an acceptable LOS. Vistas Lake Monroe Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis Project Ns 21044 rraffk a MoWfity consvRants Executive Summary