4754 Approve/Deny Rezone 17.32 Acres from AG to PDOrdinance Number 2023-4754
An ordinance of the City of Sanford, Florida relating to a Planned
Development (PD) by creating the Airport Industrial Partners PD with
regard to a parcel about 17.32 acres in size; providing for the rezoning
of real property generally addressed and located at 3475 East Lake
Mary Boulevard and assigned Tax Parcel Identification Numbers
03 -20 -31 -SAY -0000-0270 and 03-20-31-5AY-0000-0430 by the
Seminole County Property Appraiser which parcels are located within
the City Limits (map of the PD 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 the Airport Industrial Partners 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 under the provisions and
procedures of the City's Land Development Regulations (LDRs) proposing to create a
Planned Development (PD) zoning district classification named the Airport Industrial
Partners PD in order to develop the property for multi -family residential, communication
tower and commercial uses relative to property addressed as 3475 East Lake Mary
Boulevard involving approximately 17.32 acres of land (PD Property); and
Whereas, the PD Property is located on the southeast side of East Lake Mary
Boulevard, east and west of Cameron Avenue; and
Whereas, the Property Owners of the PD Property, which is assigned Tax
Parcel Identification Numbers 03-20-31-5AY-0000-0270 and 03-20-31-5AY-0000-0430
by the Seminole County Property Appraiser, are William Kirchhoff, Nixie Coleman and
Airport Industrial Partners , LLC a Florida limited liability company, whose primary
member/manager is Sadique Jaffer with the other member/manager being Mohamedtaki
Jaffer; and
Whereas, Nicole Martin of Madden, Moorhead, and Stokes, LLC, located in
Maitland made application on behalf of the Property Owners for the PD rezoning action
set forth herein; and
Whereas, the PD Property is assigned the AG, Agriculture, zoning
district/classification under the County's Land Development Code with a future land use
designation assignment of Airport Industry and Commerce (AIC) pursuant to the City of
Sanford Comprehensive Plan; and
Whereas, the Airport Industrial Partners PD Master Plan provides for a split
development of multi -family residential and general commercial uses together with the
communications tower use; and
Whereas, the development within the Airport Industrial Partners PD is
described and depicted in detail in the staff report accompanying this Ordinance; and
Whereas, a CAPP (Citizens Awareness and Participation Plan) meeting was
held on June 6, 2023 and the CAPP process has been found satisfactory to the City; 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, objectives and policies
of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sanford, the City's LDRs, and the controlling
provisions of State law; and
Whereas, the City of Sanford's Planning and Zoning Commission held a public
hearing on September 7, 2023, in order to consider application and by a 3 to 1 vote
recommended approval of the rezoning action for the PD Property as requested by the
21
Property Owners; and
Whereas, the City Commission has determined that the proposed rezoning of
the PD 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 Airport Industrial Partners 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 PD 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 Owners have 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 Airport
31' . .
Industrial Partners PD.
(a), Upon enactment of this Ordinance the PD Property, as depicted in the map
attached to this Ordinance, shall be rezoned to the Airport Industrial Partners 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 Airport Industrial Partners 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 PD Master
Plan, any required elements missing from or not shown on the Airport
Industrial Partners PD Master Plan or associated PD documents shall
comply with and default to the regulations in the City's LDRs.
(3). A development/engineering plan prepared and sealed by a
licensed Florida professional engineer meeting the requirements of the
City's LDRs must be submitted and approved prior to any construction on
site. With regard to this requirement, a separate development/engineering
plan is required for each parcel, outparcel, or phase proposed for
development within the Airport Industrial Partners PD.
(4). A comprehensive signage program meeting the standards of
the City's LDRs shall be required for the entire development.
(5). The Property Owners shall coordinate with LYNX to
determine the possible addition of a bus stop and shelter and the extension
of bus or transit services to the site; provided, however, that this condition
shall not delay the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
(6). The Property Owners shall install a decorative and functional
fountain in all wet retention ponds in accordance with Schedule "D" of the
City's LDRs.
(7). The project shall meet all the requirements of Schedule "U" —
Lake Mary Boulevard Gateway Corridor Overlay District, of the of the City's
LDRs.
(8). Although elevations were provided with this application, new
architectural elevations in accordance with Schedule "G" of the City's LDRs
shall be provided at the time of the development permit.
(9). At the time of development plan the sites shall be orientated in
accordance with Schedule "G" of the City's LDRs with regard to parking and
building placements.
(10). The following design elements will be considered during the
development plan review:
(i). Site improvements occurring on the PD property may include the
incorporation of low impact development (oftentimes referred to as
51 i> _
"LID") techniques and crime prevention through environmental design
(oftentimes referred to as "CPTED") guidelines.
(ii). Elements of buildings may be constructed incorporating
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (oftentimes referred
to as "LEED"), Florida Green, or such other equivalent energy savings
standards as may be approved by the City.
(iii). Unless specifically requested and approved on the PD Master
Plan, any required elements missing from or not shown on the PD
Master Plan shall comply with the of the City's LDRs.
(11). The applicant shall provide 10% of parking spaces Electric
Vehicle (EV) capable for future EV charging stations.
(12). Due to the proximity of the PD Property to the Airport and the
adopted interlocal agreement, the developer shall file a Federal Aviation
Administration Form 7460 and provide to the City written acknowledgement
of receipt and determination of no objection from Sanford Airport Authority
prior to any development approvals.
(13). Unless specifically requested and approved on the PD Master
Plan, an associated deviation waiver request which is approved or the
associated PD non -statutory development agreement, all development
shall comply with:
(i). The Multiple Family Housing Design Guidelines within Schedule
"E", Section 16.0 of the City's LDRs.
(ii). Tree mitigation per Section 4.2 of the City's LDRs, Criteria For
Tree Removal, Replacement And Relocation.
(iii). Light source setback for site lighting shall be no less than 75% of
the width of the buffers identified on the PD Master Plan.
(iv). Renderings of the architectural elevations for the garages shall be
provided at the time of development plan application
(14). If City staff and the Property Owners are unable to agree to
the details of this Ordinance or the implementing PD non -statutory
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.
(15). In agreeing to the above conditions in the subsequent PD
development agreement, the Property Owners 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
mitigate."
Section 3. Incorporation of map and Airport Industrial Partners PD
Master Plan for the Airport Industrial Partners PD.
71
The Master Plan attached to this Ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed and
incorporated into this Ordinance as a substantive part of this Ordinance establishing the
Airport Industrial Partners 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 Owners, or their successor(s) in interest within 60 days of the effective
date of this Ordinance or the PD 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
sig
rights of the Property Owners against the City nor contractual obligations of the City to the
Property Owners and, to that end, the Property Owners 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 and, further, all matters set forth herein may be enforced by any code
enforcement process available to the City under the provisions of controlling law.
Section 7. Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall take effect upon enactment.
Passed and adopted this 23rd day of October, 2023.
1 0 JR.T_�
Attest: �,�'" ° �N City Commission'
' `y anford, Florida
i
Traci Hou in, M C `'� r,r J
, CRM ,.: �,.,� oodruff
Ci y Clerkks� '• Mayor
Apps ed as to form and legal suFicie y.
r'
illiam L. Colbert,i ttorney
A -CA
of the City of
//9
91.
PROJECT INFORMATION -- 3475 EAST LAKE MARY BOULEVARD
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE
Requested Action: Rezone of 17.32 acres from AG, Agriculture (City of Sanford) to PD,
Planned Development (City of Sanford) at the project address of 3475 East
Lake Mary Boulevard.
Proposed Use: Multiple -family Residential, Communication Tower, GC -2 Uses
Project Address: 3475 East Lake Mary Boulevard
Current Zoning: AG, Agriculture
Current Land Use: Agriculture, Vacant Residential
Proposed Zoning: PD, Planned Development
Tax Parcel Numbers: 03-20-31-5AY-0000-0270, 03-20-31-5AY-0000-0430
Site Area: 17.32 Acres
Property Owner(s): William Kirchhoff, Nixie Coleman
and Airport Industrial Partners
2044 Hibiscus Court
Sanford, FL 32771
Applicant/Agent:
CAPP Meeting:
Commission District:
Nicole Martin &
Chad Moorhead
431 Horatio Avenue, Suite 260
Orlando, FL 32751
Phone: (407) 629-8330
Email: nicole@madden-eng.com
A CAPP meeting was held on June 6, 2023. A copy of the report is attached.
District 1 — 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.
Current Future Land Use: I, Industrial (County)
Proposed Future Land Use: AIC, Airport Industry and Commerce
SURROUNDING USES AND ZONING:
Zoning
North RI -1, Restricted Industrial
South A-1, Agriculture (County)
RI -1, Restricted Industrial
East PD, Planned Development (City)
A-1, Agriculture (County)
West Boombah Sports Complex
Uses
Airport Authority
St. Johns Water Management
Sanford Water Treatment Plant
Vacant Commercial
St. Johns Water Management
Boombah Sports Complex
ITNTI)m S-rrtmi
Site
3475 East Lake Mary Boulevard
03-20-31-5AY-0000-0270 &
03-20-31-5AY-0000-0430
SITE
Y.
Zoning
Sanford
AG (Agriculture)
_ PRO (Parks, Recreation, and Open Space)
RI -1 (Restricted Industrial)
Seminole County
A-1 (Agriculture)
PD (Planned Development)
SITE
Site
3475 East Lake Mary Boulevard
03-20-31-5AY-0000-0270 &
03-20-31-5AY-0000-0430
N
74,
1-
----------------------
AN
Finn I
LILIxLis -
I
SECTION 16.0 MULTIPLE FAMILY HOUSING DESIGN GUIDELINES.
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 and 3.4 of
Schedule J, Landscape, Buffer and Tree Requirements of the Sanford Land Development
Regulations. 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.
Explanation:
The proposed project will comply with this provision except as noted. Ungated access and
limited parking will be available to visitors and potential residents at the clubhouse and
leasing center. An aluminum picket style fence at least 6' in height will be provided at the
entry and along the East Lake Mary Boulevard frontage along with landscaping to provide
the visual screening intended to be accomplished by the 4' masonry wall requirement. We
feel that the this is a much more aesthetically pleasing and superior visual buffer.
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.
Explanation:
The proposed project will comply with this provision except as noted. The main entry road
from East Lake Mary Boulevard is parking free from East Lake Mary Boulevard to the
apartment entrance. Due to the fact that we are providing detached parking garages on site,
the parking courts are inefficient and cannot be provided. The current parking layout also
provides a better distribution of spaces around each building to minimize the walking
distance for our residents from the parking spaces to the building entrances for their
respective apartment.
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.
Explanation:
The proposed project will comply with this provision. All building facades will feature
consistent architectural elements.
Clustering of Units. Clustering of multifamily units shall be a consistent site planning element.
Structures composed of a series of simple yet varied planes assure compatibility and variety in overall
building form.
Explanation:
Units are arranged to allow for varied planes on the exterior of the buildings.
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 ol'uninterrupted
parking, whether in driveways or open parking areas.
Explanation:
The proposed project will comply with this provision except as noted. Due to the fact that
we are providing detached parking garages on the site the parking courts are inefficient and
cannot be provided. Parking spaces are evenly distributed around the buildings to allow for
casual surveillance and to facilitate convenient walking distances to the apartment units.
There will be the required landscape island for every 10 parking spaces or less.
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.
Explanation:
The proposed project will not comply with this provision. Due to the current multifamily
market. the typical multifamily site has approximately 30% (need to verifi• after we get the
Cad of the survey) open space and our site plan will accomplish that. We have attempted to
provide as much open space as possible by utilizing 4 story buildings. We will have the
required 200 s.f. of recreation area required by the LDC.
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.
Explanation:
All ground floor equipment will be screened with landscape material.
6. Common Facilities. Common facilities, such as clubhouses, 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 Iights sliall 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 Lunt.
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.
Explanation:
The proposed project will comply with this provision except as noted. All residential
buildings will have individual street addresses. All dwelling units in each building will
have an individual unit number associated with the building address. A covered seating
area will be provided at clubhouse entrance.
Trash and recycling areas shall be landscaped on three (3) sides and will be located by the
main entrance of the property. The property will have Valet Trash pickup which means
trash is picked up at each individual resident's unit by our management company and
transported to the trash compactor so that the resident does not need to make a trip to the
trash compactor. For those rare times that a resident does not utilize the Valet Trash
pickup, residents prefer it by the Main entrance so they can take it out on their way out of
the property.
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.
1. Units per Building. There shall be no more than eight (8) dwelling units per building.
Explanation:
There are (7) three and four-story residential apartment buildings on the site composed of
the following:
(2) Building Type 2 with 24 units each
(2) Building Type 6 with 24 units each
(1) Building Type 8 with 72 units
(1) Building Type 10 with 68 units
(1) Building Type 11 with 48 units
The buildings have one, two and three — bedroom units which are accessed through open
breezeways, which also provide access for the stairs.
The residential buildings are situated on the site around the pool and amenities courtyard as
well as a pond area which provide interior focal points to the residential community.
2. 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 units, and by the pattern and rhythm
of windows and doors. The use of rows of balconies which give the building a `motel'
look shall be avoided.
Explanation:
The facades are made up of vertical collections of units articulated by their materials, depth
of plane changes and fenestration patterns to create rhythmic elevations. Balconies are
stack vertically to compliment the rhythm and vertical plane of the elevations. Row
balconies will not be utilized. Additionally, the elevations are accentuated with varied roof
forms.
3. 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.
Explanation:
Each of the units have individual entries accessed through open breezeways. All stairs are
interior to the breezeways and any exterior stair fagade elements are designed to
complement the rest of the building's architecture.
4. 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, buildings interior to the development and separated from adjacent properties
by two hundred (200) linear feet and a two (2) -story building may be three (3) stories.
Building roof lines 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. Roof lines 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.
Explanation:
The buildings are 3 and 4 stories in height and the top of the ridge is up to 60' above grade.
Rooflines are varied with a mix of roof lines to establish variety in height and create visual
interest.
5. Balcony/porch Requirement. All dwelling units shall have a useful private open space
such as a balcony, porch, deck or patio.
Explanation:
The proposed project will comply with this provision.
6. 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.
Explanation:
The design of the apartment buildings does not lend itself to provide garages with direct
access from the units, which would visually interrupt the elevation design and articulation
and create larger areas of asphalt paving adjacent to the buildings.
There are (6) one-story detached garage buildings — (4) with (6) garage units and (2) with
(7) garage units and (7) storage units, for a total of 38 garage units and 14 storage units,
which combined is equal to approximately 20% of the total number of dwelling units.
The exterior of the detached garages is treated in the same style and materials as the
residential buildings. All garages have roll — up doors with automatic openers.
HAData\20030\Cor\Multiple Family Standards Responses.docx
MADDEN
CIVIL ENGINEERS
May 25, 2023
Dear Neighbor:
This letter is to inform you of a community meeting to discuss the future development of 17.32 Acres
located at 3475 E. Lake Mary Blvd. and 2044 Hibiscus Ct., Sanford, FL 32773, identified as Parcels 03-
20-31-5AY-0000-0270 and 03-20-31-5AY-0000-0430 per Seminole County Public Records. The meeting
will be held at the Galileo School for Gifted Learning (Cafeteria), 3755 Skyway Drive, Sanford, FL
32773 on Tuesday June 6, 2023, at 6 P.M. — 7 P.M.
The subject property is currently zoned Agriculture with a proposed zoning of PD (Planned
Development). The subject property has a current future land use designation of Airport Industry and
Commerce.
Our development application will request a rezoning to Planned Development and propose 284
residential units and up 142,091 s.f. of commercial/retail uses along with retention ponds, and
amenities to serve the development.
If you have any questions and/or require additional information, please don't hesitate to contact me
at:
Mr. Chad Moorhead, PE
President
Madden, Moorhead & Stokes, LLC
431 E. Horatio Avenue, Suite 260
Maitland, FL 32751
407-629-8330
chad@madden-eng.com
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
&4d Xoam(x4d
Chad Moorhead, P.E.
President
H:\Data\22018\C0r\CAPP MEETING INFO\Community Meeting Info Letter-5.25.23.doc
431 E. Horatio Avenue 0 Suite 260 ■ Maitland, FL 32751 ■ 407-629-8330
ST JOHNS RIVER WATER MGMT DIST
C/O VICTORIA M KROGER
PO BOX 1429
PALATKA, FL 32178-1429
SEMINOLE B C C
1101 E 1ST ST
SANFORD, FL 32 i71.1468
SEMINOLE B C C
1101 E 1ST ST
SANFORD, FL 32771-1468
SANFORD AIRPORT AUTH/CITY OF
SANFORD
1 RED CLEVELAND BLVD
STE 1200
SANFORD, FL 32773-6844
SFMINOLE B CC
1101 E'IST-SL__
SANFORD, FL 32771--l-468
AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PTNR &
KIRCHHOFF, 'uv'!LI IAM E
CO -TRS & COLEMAN, NiX!E CO -TRS
2044 HIBISCUS CT
SANFORD, FL 32771-4523
ST JOHNS RIVER WATER MGMT DIST --,A�O RD CITY OF
C/O VICTORIA M KROGER 300 N P
PO BOX 1429 ---- SANFORD, FL 32771- 1244
PALATKA, FL 32178-1429
HARMAN, DONALD G & GEORGANN
3257 E LAKE MARY BLVD
SANFORD, FL 32773-6605
ST JOHNS RIVER WATER MGMT DIST
C/O VICICI?!A M KROGER
PO BOX 1429
PALATKA, FL 32178-1429
CSX TRANSPORTATION INC
500 WATER ST
JACKSONVILLE, FL 32202-4423
SEI"MNOLE B C C
1101E1SI'ST`
SANFORD, FL 32771--1468
AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PTNR &
COLEMAN, NIXIE CO -TRS &
KIRCHHOFF, WILLIAM E CO -TRS
2044 HIBISCUS CT
SANFORD, FL 32771-4523
ST JOHNS RIVER WATER MGMT DIST
C/O VIC10R!.A M KROGER
PO BOX 1429
PALATKA, FL 32178-1429
THOMPSON, STANLEY F
PO BOX 235
DUNN, NC 28335-0235
CSX TRANSPORTATION INC
500 WATER 'IT
JACKSONVILLE, FL 32202-4423
Community Meeting Sign In Sheet
PROJECT NAME: 3475 E. Lake Mary Blvd.
MADDEN
..• A.
CIVIL ENGINEERS
June 22, 2023
City of Sanford
Attn: Darren Ebersole
200 North Park Avenue
Sanford, FL 32771
RE: East Lake Mary Boulevard PD — CAPP Summary
PDR23-000001
Dear Darren:
We sent out the attached notice on May 25, 2023. We had one person in attendance at the CAPP
meeting and he was in attendance because his brother could not attend. His name is Kevin
Thompson and his brother's name is Stanley. Stanley's property is at the north end of Jesup Ave
and is approximately 0.22 ac.(tax parcel id#09-20-31-501-0200-0180). We explained that the
project will access Lake Mary Boulevard and that it would not affect Stanley's property at all
since we are not adjacent to it. We further explained that we are early in the process and that the
project, if approved, would not be under construction for at least 6 months. We told Kevin that if
he had any further questions he could call or e-mail us.
If you have any questions or need further information, please do not hesitate to call our office at
407-629-8330.
Sincerely,
clod %"444d
Chadwyck H. Moorhead, P.E.
President
CHM:nwm
H:1Dala\2201MCOACAPP MEETING lNFO1CAPP Summary.doc
431 E. Horatio Avenue 0 Suite 260 0 Maitland, FL 32751 ■ 407-629-8330 0 FAX 407-629-8336
nr ❑r
,��._ SANFORD AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND DESIGNATION OF AGENT
WWw. a anfordfl.gav
Please use additional sheets as needed If any additional sheets are attached to this document, please sign here and note below:
Ownership
Sadlque Jaffer, Managing Member for Airport Industrial Partners, LLC hereby attest to ownership of the property described below -
Tax Parcel Number(s): 03-20-31-5AY-0000-0270
Address of Property: 3475 E LAKE MARY BLVD SANFORD, FL 32773
for which this Rezoning 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): Nicole Martin, Permitting Manager Signature: /
Agent Address: Madden, Moorhead & Stokes, LLC, 431 E. Horatio Ave., Ste. 260, Maitland, FL 32751
Email. nicole@madden-eng.com Phone: 407-629-8330 Fax:
Additional authorized Applicant's Agent: Chadwyck H. Moorhead, P.E., President
111. 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. (i.e : 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)
.. Individual f i Corporation a Land Trust a Partnership a Limited Liability Company
❑ 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: William E. Kirchhoff, Revocable Trust
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
1
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: Airport Industrial Partners, LLC
6. In the circumstances of a contract for purchase. IIsi 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
100%
Sadique Jaffer Managing Member
_ --------.INTEREST
103 Commerce Street, Lake Mary, FL 32746
(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 I
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. —
L.
Datet 1 Owner . Applicant Signature
Airpo Industrilr arlr s, LLC
A Florida limded lrabllll; company
STATE OF FLORIDA By: Sadique Jaffer, Managing Member
COUNTY OF orange
Sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me by Sadique Jaffer, Managing Member
on this4 20 day of �0 ��22 ,J`•KELLI ANN TUTT08ENE
( Notary Public - State of Florida
Commlision C HH 319293
v orfSo Oct 5.
ced through National Notary %ass-
Signature of Notary Public Print, Type or Stamp Name of Notary Public
Personally Know Yes _pR Produced Identification
Type of Identification Produced
Aff,dnvd of pnnerxn,p - January2015
NSI
TNG
vl-- I uF ir=e E D I 'f 0V
Ppl,
THE
FIFTH EDITION
NATIONAL
PARKING
ASSOCIATION
AB(iin' THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE
The mission of the Urban Land Institute is to provide leader-
ship in the responsible use of land and in creating and sus-
taining thriving communities worldwide. ULI is committed to
D Bringing together leaders from across the fields of real
estate and land use policy to exchange best practices and
serve community needs;
D fostering collaboration within and beyond ULI's member-
ship through mentoring, dialogue, and problem solving;
D Exploring issues of urbanization, conservation, regeneration,
land use, capital formation, and sustainable development;
> Advancing land use policies and design practices that respect
the uniqueness of both built and natural environments;
D Sharing knowledge through education, applied research,
publishing, and electronic media; and
> Sustaining a diverse global network of local practice and
advisory efforts that address current and future challenges.
Established in 1936, the Institute today has more than
32,000 members worldwide, representing the entire spec-
trum of the land use and development disciplines. ULI relies
heavily on the experience of its members. It is through mem-
ber involvement and information resources that ULI has been
able to set standards of excellence in development practice.
The Institute has long been recognized as one of the world's
most respected and widely quoted sources of objective infor-
mation on urban planning, growth, and development.
P'r'oject Staff
ABOUT THE NATIONAL PARKING
ASSOCIATION
The National Parking Association is an international network
of companies representing thousands of parking industry
professionals. It represents private operators, parking consul-
tants, colleges and universities, airports, municipalities, park-
ing authorities, hospital and medical centers, developers, and
others, along with industry vendors.
It has as its mission:
D To serve and assist members in identifying and solving the
difficulties that arise in their business activities;
> To promote the research and publications necessary to
keep the industry abreast of all critical developments affect-
ing parking and parking -related services;
> To enhance the image, public acceptance, and economic
progress of the parking industry by means of programs and
projects directed to the general public instrumentalities of
government and the business community; and
D To encourage and promote ethical business practices
among the operators of parking facilities, and to instill in pub-
lic and nonpublic users of parking services confidence in the
integrity and skills of parking operators.
DEAN SCHWANKE
ADRIENNE SCHMITz
BETSY VANBUSKIRK
Senior Vice President
ULI Project Manager
Creative Director
Publications
STEPHEN SHANNON
BYRON HOLLY
ROBERT T. DUNPHY
NPA Project Director
Senior Designer
ULI Project Manager
JAMES A. MULLIGAN
CRAIG CHAPMAN
JASON SCULLY
Managing Editor
Director, Publishing Operations
ULI Project Manager
SANDY CHIZINSKY
Manuscript Editor
Recommended Parking Ratios
U
Parking Ratio
Source
RESIDENCES AND COMMERCIAL ACCOMMODATIONS
Heavy/hard goods'
2.5/1,000 square feet (2.69/100 square meters) of GFA, Including 1,4
Single-family dwelling unit (DU)
tfl <2,000 square feet (186 square meters): 1/DU
1
5,5/1,000 square feet (5.92/100 square meters) of GFA, including 1
6 2,000-3,000 square feet (186-279 square meters): 2/DU
outdoor sales areas
SPeCralty superstores'
! >3,000 square feet (279 square meters): 3/DU
fAulnfa nuly DU
Shoppnig centers with not more than 10% of
0 <400,000 square feet (37,160 square meters) of GLA: 4.0/1,000 3
F:••ntcrl
1.65/DU
2
Owned
1.85/DU
2
Accessory
Add 1/acce5sory DU
4
Sli fling rooms
1/unit or room, plus 2 for owners/managers
4
Commercial lodgings'
1.25/room plus 10/1,000 square feet (10.8/100 square meters) of gross
2,4
floor area (GFA) for lounge and/or restaurant, plus conference/banquet
facilities at the fallowing rates:
® <20 square feet (1.86 square meters)/room: 0
13 20 square feet (1.86 square meters)/room: 30/1,000 square feet
(32.3/100 square meters) of GFA
10 20-50 square feet (1.86-4.65 square meters)/room: scaled propor-
tionally between 20 and 50 square feet/room (1.86 to 4.65 square
meters)
9 >50 square feet (4.65 square meters)/room: 20/1,000 square feet
(21.5/100 square meters) of GFA
Housing for seniors
0.5/DU
Congregate care or assisted living
0.35/DU
1
Group homes, convalescent homes,
0.5/bed
1
and nursing homes
RETAIL SALES AND SERVICES
General and convenience retail'
2.75/1,000 square feet (2.96/100 square meters) of GFA I
Grocery ,tares'
6.75/1,000 square feet (7.26/100 square meters) of GFA 1
Heavy/hard goods'
2.5/1,000 square feet (2.69/100 square meters) of GFA, Including 1,4
outdoor sales areas
Discount superstores'
5,5/1,000 square feet (5.92/100 square meters) of GFA, including 1
outdoor sales areas
SPeCralty superstores'
4.5/1,000 square feet (4.84/100 square meters) of GFA, including 1
outdoor sales areas
Shoppnig centers with not more than 10% of
0 <400,000 square feet (37,160 square meters) of GLA: 4.0/1,000 3
gross Irr asable area (GLA) in nonretail sales
square feet (4.3/100 square meters) of GLA
and s;rvice uses, as defined in Chapter 2,
19 400,000-600,000 square feet (37,160-55,740 square meters) of GLA:
"Definitions of Square Footage," page 9.
scaled proportionally between 4.0 and 4.5/1,000 square feet (4.3 and
4.84/100 square meters) of GLA
4 >600.000 square feet (>55,740 square meters) of GLA: 4.5/1,000
square feel (4.84/100 square meters) of GLA
C H A P T E R 4: Zoning Requirements 29
30
FIGURE 4-1: Recommended Parking Ratios (continued)
Use
Parking Ratio
Source
Shopping centers with more than 10% of GLA in
Should be established in accordance with a shared parking study pre-
2
nonretail sales and service uses, as defined in
pared specifically for the subject project
EDUCATIONAL OR INSTITUTIONAL USES
Chapter 2, "Definitions of Square Footage," page 9.
Elementary or middle school
0,2/gym ar auditorium seat, or 0.25/student—whichever is higher 1,4
FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICES
0.3/gym or auditorium seat, or 0.3/student—whichever is higher 4
Fine or casual dining (with bar)
20/1,000 square feet (21.5/100 square meters) of GFA
2
Family restaurant (without bar)
15/1,000 square feet (16/100 square meters) of GFA
2
Fast food restaurant
15/1,000 square feet (16/100 square meters) of GFA
2
Night club
19/1,000 square feet (20.5/100 square meters) of GFA
2
OFFICE AND BUSINESS SERVICES
General business offices
■ <25,000 square feet (2,325 square meters) of GFA: 3.8/1,000 square
2
feet (4.1/100 square meters) of GFA
■ 2S,000-100,000 square feet (2,325-9,290 square meters) of GFA:
scaled propnrtionally between 3 8 and 3.4/1,000 square fent (4.1 and
3.67/100 square meters) of GFA
10 100,000 square feet (9,290 square meters): 3.4/1,000 square feet
(3.67/100 square meters) of GFA
■ 100,000-500,000 square feet (9,290-46,450 square meters): scaled
proportionally between 3.4 and 2.8/1,000 square feet (3,67 and
3/100 square meters) of GFA
■ >500,000 square feet (>46,450 square meters): 2.8/1,000 square
feet (3.0/100 square meters) of GFA
Consumer services offices
4.6/1,000 square feet (5/100 square meters) of GFA
2
Data processing, telemarketing, or
6/1,000 square feet (6.S/100 square meters) of GFA
2
operations offices
Medical offices that are not part of
4.5/1,000 square feet (4.8/100 square meters) of GFA
2
a hospital campus
Medical offices within a hospital campus
4/1,000 square feet (4.3/100 square meters) of GFA
4
Government facilities
Should be established In accordance with a study of parking needs
prepared specifically for the subject property
INDUSTRIAL, STORAGE, OR WHOLESALE FACILITIES
Manufacturing or industrial
1.85/1,000 square feet (1.99/100 square meters) of GFA, plus required parking 1
spaces for office, sales, or similar uses where those uses exceed 10% of GFA
Storage or wholesale
0.67/1,000 square feet (0.72/100 square meters) of GFA 1
Mini -warehouse
1.75/100 units 1
EDUCATIONAL OR INSTITUTIONAL USES
Elementary or middle school
0,2/gym ar auditorium seat, or 0.25/student—whichever is higher 1,4
Secondary school
0.3/gym or auditorium seat, or 0.3/student—whichever is higher 4
DIMENSIONS OF PARKING
Use Parking Ratio Source
College or university Should be established in accordance with a study of parking needs pre- 4
pared specifically for the subject institution
f)aycare center 0.3/person, based on licensed enrollment capacity 1
Hospital or medical center Should be established in accordance with a study of parking needs pre- 4
pared specifically for the subject institution
ARTS, RECREATION, AND ENTERTAINMENT USES
Convention centers or meeting and banquet
M <25,000 square feet (<2,320 square meters): 30/1,000 square feet
facilities that are not within a hotel but that
(323/100 square meters) of GFA
exceed 100 square feet (9.3 square meters)
I, 25,000-50,000 square feel (2,320-4,645 square meters): pro-
per sleeping room
portionally scaled between 30 and 20/1,000 square feet (32.3 and
21.5/100 square meters) of GFA
:1 50,000 square feet (4,645 square meters): 20/1,000 square feet
(21.5/100 square meters) of GFA
1 50,000-100,000 square feet (4,645-9,290 square meters): scaled
proportionally between 20 and 10/1,000 square feet (21.5 and
10.8/100 square meters) of GFA
r' 100,000 square feet (9,290 square meters): 10/1,000 square feet
(10.8/100 square meters) of GFA
N 100,000-250,000 square feet (9,290-23,225 square meters): scaled
proportionally between 10/1,000 and 6/1,000 square feet (10.8 and
6.5/100 square meters) of GFA
12 >250,000 square feet (>23,225 square meters): 6/1,000 square feet
(6.5/100 square meters) of GFA
Health club
Cinema
Theater (live performance), house of
worship, or religious center
Arena
foolball stadium
Baseball .tadrum
All other public assembly spaces
7/1,000 square feet (7.5/100 square meters) of GFA
1 screen: 0.5/seat
2-5 screens: 0.33/seat
5-10 screens: 0.3/seat
>10 screens: 0.27/seat
0.4/seat
033/seat
0.31/seat
0.35/seat
Where not seated, 0.25/person, based an permitted capacity
Where seated, 0.3/seat
2.4
2,4
2
2
ticurcns:
1 in&WWe til "'`ha1alwn Eugmeers (ITE) S'arking Gen craIion, 3rd ed. (Washington, DC.: ITE. 2004).
2 t •any S Sntd 1101 Parking, 2nd ed. (N/ash:ngton, D C ULI-the Urban Land Pislilule and th^_ Inle(nalional Council of Shopping Centers. 2005)
3 ULI-the Urh v I rj rn,tdule, the International Council of Shopping, Centers, and Walker Parking Cunsultanls Porkrny Requirements for Shuppioq Centers:
S`n q1'`I c, "'. -:hrlmns and Research Study Report, 2nd ed (Washmglon. DC ULI-theUrban Land Inst lute, 1999)
Thr collrcl"" .I,r.riPuce of the Parking Consultants Council
5-
C H A P T E R 4: Zoning Requirements 31
Recommended Minimum Widths for Parking Stalls
Feet Meters
Low turnover (employees, students, etc.) 8' 3'4' 6" 2.51-2.59
Low to moderate turnover (offices, regional retail centers, long-term airport parking, etc.) 8' 6"-8' 9" 2.59-2.66
Moderate to high turnover (community retail, medical facilities, etc.) 8' 9"-9' 0" 266-2.74
Source: Parking Consultants Council, Guidelines for Parking Geometries (Washington, D.C.: National Parking Association, 2002).
to take account of what kind of parking facilities users are
likely to be accustomed to, for example, a self -park facility in
a downtovm location in a large city can be designed with less
generous dimensions than a self -park structure in an upscale
suburban mall or in a smaller, rural community
Fina!I, , designers must be aware that vehicle sizes no longer
vary significantly by region and locality. SUVs are just as popu-
lar in Calilornia and Hawaii as in rural areas and the Snowbelt
The sole e<ception is in the Southwest, where pickups are
more likely to be used for everyday transportation than else-
where in thr• country.
Other c, itical elements determining the dimensions of
parking facilities are the width of the vehicles and the ease of
maneuve, Ing the vehicles into and out of the parking space.
The ease „f maneuvering, in turn, depends on three related
factors: tl r- width of the space itself, the angle of parking,
and the OLI I It of the aisle Within reasonable limits, the same
degree of I,rrrning comfort can be achieved with a wider aisle
and a nanoi�er parking space, or with a wider parking space
and a nanuwer aisle.
DETE: ;INING THE DIMENSIONS OF
PAPK JG SPACES
Because ,, i,,,, king space that has sufficient clearance for doors
to be open:-il cumfortdbly will be wide enough for vehicle
maneuw:r. , f the adjacent ,w ld: is properly sized, the widths
01 park Ii, ,,, ties have generally been based on required clear
antes fir III 11111111g doors (that is, on the nece-,nary distance
betwpi, '.,'I+.. Door opening clearances should range from
20 incli, enlimelers) for vehlLles In low -turnover fdcih-
ties 10 2•I h, / Inches (61 to 69 centrineters) for vehicles in
high -turnover facilities. Combining these dimensions with the
width of the current design vehicle results in parking -space
widths that range from 8 feet. 3 inches (2 5 meters) to 9 feet,
0 inches (2.7 meters)
As noted earlier, turnover plays a strong role in determin-
ing parking geometrics; parking spaces are no exception.
Figure 7-2 lists recommendations for adjusting stall widths on
the basis of turnover
Unlike width, the length of a parking spare rs not affected
by turnover rate or user type Currently, the recommended
length of a parking space is 18 feet (5 5 meters). This recom-
mendation is based on the length of the design vehicle -17
feet, 3 inches (5.25 meters)—plus nine inches (23 centime-
ters) to account for the typical distance from the bumper of a
parked vehicle to the end of the stall (i e., the edge of the stall
farthest from the aisle)
DETERMINING THE DIMENSIONS OF
DRIVE AISLES AND MODULES
The drive aisle is the spare between two vehicles that are
parked directly opposite each other The parking design term
module refers to the distance created by the width of the drive
aisle, combined with the length of the vehicle (or vehicles)
parked on one (or both sides) of the drive aisle When a
vehicle is located on only one side of the drive aisle, this is
referred to as a single -loaded module When vehicles are
located on both sides of the drive aisle, ,t is referred to as a
double -loaded module.
In the early days of the parking garage, the size of parking
modules was determined by trial and error But in the 1950s,
Edmund Ricker, an early pioneer in the field of parking geometrics,
C H A P T E R 7: Parking Geor-netrics 61
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
March 17, 2023
Mr. Darren Ebersole
City of Sanford Planning Division
300 N. Park Ave.
Sanford FL 32771
06-6-
G6
)UfflY
FtOPOKS NATURAL QCKE
SUBJECT: Proposed Multi -Family Apartments at 3475 Lake Mary Blvd., Parcel # 03-20-
31-5AY-0000-0270
Dear Darren:
Seminole County has been informed of a proposal within Sanford City Limits to build 248 multi-
family units on 14.06 acres at a site on the south side of East Lake Mary Blvd., in the vicinity of
the Boombah Sports Complex. As you know, the City and County jointly sponsored a special
analysis known as the East Lake Mary Blvd. Small Area Study. This effort was aimed at creating
a long-range plan for the corridor that addresses a wide range of planning issues, including the
needs and desires of area residents.
The location of the proposed development is designated by the study as the Boombah Sports
Commercial District, which is intended to provide facilities complementary to users of the Sports
Complex, offering goods and services not presently available in the area. Preferred uses include
tourist and general commercial, hotels, and recreational facilities.
On Jan. 11, 2022, the Board of County Commissioners voted to approve the Study as a guide
to future development in the area. Based on recommendations of the Study, Seminole County
Planning staff would not support the proposed multi -family development.
Sincerely,
REBECCA HAMMOCK, AICD
DIRECTOR, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
'r
Nsz",a 1-
- 1
;�
'.�^'•t:� �. W \� •'lam
A L�
Sirategic Action Plan: E. Lake Mary Blvd. Small Area Study
4.7 Boombah Sports Commercial District
This district is located adjacent to the Boombah Sports Complex and east of Cameron Avenue,
and on both sides of E. Lake Mary Boulevard,
Souill AdporI --.\ 1
Commrcat D"Irc1
!{Doren S/a1lno-Apud _ (
ort Boulnvord —' �.� L�
��DnnrmSrreal7 r•.a �
1
1 I 800mboh /
.d,. �Morqu�u�srmuc—��J sports .(
Complex C
� _ 1
! BoombohC;..iIs
District
E. Lake Nary Blvd.
Hind C'. r 6.. "".1
Figure 9: Boombah Sports Commercial District
Regulatory Context
Seminole County FLU designations:
■ none
City of Sanford FLU designations:
■ Airport Industry and Commerce (AIC); Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PRO)
Vision
This district provides uses complementary to the Boombah Sports Complex that cater to people
attending events/tournaments/training, offering them goods and services not presently available
in the area.
Preferred Land Uses
Tourist commercial
■ Community/general commercial
RENAISSANCE 2S
PLANNING
Strategic Action Plan: E. Lake Mary Blvd. Small Area Study
• Hotel
■ Recreational facilities
■ Open spacelpark
Regulatory Strategies
• none
Projects
No. Recommended Improvements
Planning Short Term Mid -Term Long -Term
Cost (<5 years) (5-10 years) (10+ years)
BS -1 Extend sidewalk along Cameron
$33,000 X
Avenue to provide a continuous
connection between sports fields and
new development.
BS -2 Add a pedestrian bridge over ELMB
$5,000,000 - X
$8,000,000
Example of commercial use appropriate in fhe Boombah Sports Commercial District
RENAISSANCE 24
PLANNING
I
-M.
.. �,•`�• •r* ... .tom
I.
ow
;. MADDEN
MOORHEAD & STOKES.
CIVIL ENGINEERS
June 22, 2023
City of Sanford
Attn: Eileen Hinson
300 N. Park Avenue
Sanford, FL 32771
RE: Project: 287 Multi -Family Units
Plan Type: Planned Development Rezone
Application #: PDR23-000001
Address: 3475 E LAKE MARY BLVD
Parcel #: 03-20-31-5AY-0000-0270
Dear Eileen:
Below please find our responses to those comments.
Engineering Plan Review: Prince Bates
Comment 1: Refer to Land Development Regulation Article IV, Section 4.5 for the Master
Plan Requirements.
Response I: Understood
Development Administrative Review: Eileen Hinson
Comment 1: As identified, the property use proposed is not consistent with the Joint Planning
assessment undertaken by the City of Sanford, Seminole County and the City of
Sanford Airport.
Response]: Understood, however the proposed use is consistent with the underlying future
land use of AIC.
Comment 2: The Master Plan as provided is limited in information, and many of the waivers
requested cannot be determined without a proper site layout. Submit a site plan
identifying the elements required in both Article IV, Section 4.5.C.5 and Schedule
E, Section 15.
Response 2: Please see conceptual site plan included with this response.
431 E. Horatio Avenue ■ Suite 260 ■ Maitland, FL 32751 ■ 407-629-8330
Comment 3: City of Sanford Standard Parking Spaces are 10' x 20'. The Master Plan shows a
standard parking space size of 9' x 18', in addition to a reduction in required
minimum parking standards as determined by use. As 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units
are proposed, no explanation as to where the 1.75 for the multiple family
residential was derived. A reduction of parking spaces or parking stall size may be
considered, if an applicant can demonstrate a higher level of design incorporating
two of the following elements: 1. Additional usable open space above minimum
required open space 2. Preservation of trees 3. Hardscaping elements 4. Enhanced
landscaping 5. EV charging stations or installation of electric conduit to serve
future EV infrastructure. 6. Fee in lieu payment
Response 3: See ULI parking study included with this response. This shows the justification
for the reduced number as well as the reduced size to 9'xff spaces. We will be
installing a minimum of 2 EV spaces and enhanced landscaping details with be
provided during the final engineering process.
Continent 4: EV Charging Stations will be required. Calculation of the percentage will be
determined at final adoption of the new parking regulations. As the regulations
have been in Zoning in Progress since June of 2022, this project is subject to the
new regulations.
Response 4: Acknowledged
Comment 5: Footnote 36 states "All building heights subject to Sanford Airport Authority and
FAA Approval." This statement needs to be revised to state all buildings and
accessory structures.
Response S: See revised note on MP.
Comment 6: As noted in other reviews, the uses permitted will only include those that are
permitted by right. Conditional Uses will not be waived as part of the PD process
unless for a specific use if identified during the process, such as the request for a
Conununication Tower. A maximum building height for the PD is required to be
identified.
Response 6: See revised uses on MP.
Comment 7: Open space for Multiple Family is required at 50%. Justification shall be required
for any reduction in this calculation. Minimum required recreation space as
identified in Schedule D does not substitute for Open space as required.
Response 7: We have revised the plan to state that 20% open space will be provided on the
commercial/hotel site and 30% will be provided on the multi family site. This is
in line with several recently approved apartment projects within the City.
431 E. Horatio Avenue 0 Suite 260 0 Maitland, FL 32751 ■ 407-629-8330
Comment 8: The following comments are being provided as it relates to the separate letter
provided to waive requirements of the Multiple Family developments: Items 2
and 4. As no parking lot layout is provided, or general location of parking areas
delineated, no justification is available to identify how the parking courts are
"inefficient" and "cannot be provided". Also as no layout is provided, it cannot be
determined if the parking provides better distribution or walking distance. Open
Space (has no number) — 30% open space will not necessarily be supported unless
shown on a site plan that it is open space that is functional, usable and provides
for an aesthetic that meets the intent of the greater open space. Item 5 Mechanical
equipment shall be screened whether "ground floor equipment" as identified to be
screened or roof mounted, which has not been noted to be screen. Item 6 Trash
and recycling location is not shown on the Master Plan and cannot be determined
to be a convenient walking distance to each dwelling unit, even if Valet service is
offered. Item D.1, D.3and DA - No plan has been provided to determine if the
increase from 8 units per building to as many as 68 units per building is justified
in the site design. In addition, no architectural elevations or an explanation has
been given to determine if the open breezeways are of better design than the
required, no prohibited breezeway design. D.6 Without elevations, the design of
the building and the interrelation of how garages could be incorporated cannot be
determined.
Response 8: Please see concept plan including with his response.
Planning and Zoning Compliance Review: Darren Ebersole
Comment 1: Provide CAPP package.
Response 1: Please see CAPP meeting summary included with this response.
Comment 2: Staff cannot support multi -family and cannot support AL GC2 uses including all
conditional uses by right.
Response 2: Understood
Comment 3: Provide a parking justification for the reduction in parking.
Response 3: See response above and ULI study included with this response.
Comment 4: Provide Traffic/trip generation report
Response 4. This is included with this submittal.
Comment 5: A letter of objection was provided by Seminole County regarding the multi-
family being inconsistent with the East Lake Mary Corridor Study
431 E. Horatio Avenue ■ Suite 260 ■ Maitland, FL 32751 ■ 407-629-8330
Response S: Understood
Architectural Plan Review: Miten Patel
Comment 1: Please provide colored elevations of all four sides of each type of building on site.
Response 1: Per meeting with Eileen: and Darren, the elevations as submitted are sufficient.
Utility Site Review: Richard Blake
Comment 1: See Deborah Cole's comments.
Response 1: Acknowledged
Pre Treatment Review: Rope Duncan
Comment 1: Please be advised that the proposed hotel and multi -family development which I
assume will be multiple floors are being proposed directly adjacent to one of the
City's wastewater treatment plants. Therefore, they will be overlooking
wastewater treatment equipment which can produce mists and odors during the
wastewater treatment process. This fact should be seriously considered during
planning and development of said properties.
Response 1: Acknowledged.
Plan Review: Deborah Cole
Comment 1: Need to submit utilities for both parcels. The City does not guarantee water and
sewer capacity until your project has been reviewed, approved and you have
received FDEP permits.
Response 1: Acknowledged
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office.
Sincerely,
&44"I'd q. ill"Wwad
Chadwyck H. Moorhead, P.E.
President
CHM/ja
HA\Data\22018\Cor\Comment & Response Letters\City of Sanford Response - 2.doc
431 E. Horatio Avenue 0 Suite 260 0 Maitland, FL 32751 ■ 407-629-8330
• , Y OF Fv� WROVED
SXNFORD
WS— _ RM X
FLORIDA Item No. A
CITY COMMISSION MEMORANDUM 23.194
OCTOBER 23, 2023 AGENDA
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission
PREPARED BY: Eileen Hinson, AICP, Director of Planning
SUBMITTED BY: Norton N. Bonaparte, Jr., ICMA-CM, City er
SUBJECT: Rezoning; 17.32 Acres; AG, Agricultur o PD, P ed Development;
3475 East Lake Mary Boulevard; Ord' ance N 023-4754
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.
SYNOPSIS:
A request to rezone 17.32 acres addressed as 3475 East Lake Mary Boulevard from the AG,
Agriculture, zoning district/classification to the PD, Planned Development, zoning
district/classification has been received.
The property is owned by William Kirchhoff, Nixie Coleman and Airport Industrial Partners, LLC
a Florida limited liability company, whose primary member/manager is Sadique Jaffer with the
other member/manager being Mohamedtaki Jaffer. Nicole Martin of Madden, Moorhead, and
Stokes, LLC has filed an application on behalf of the property owners. The property owners and
applicant are represented by attorney J. Christy Wilson of Orlando.
A Citizens Awareness and Participation Plan (CAPP) meeting was held on June 6, 2023, which
has been found to be satisfactory to the City. A CAPP report is attached to this staff report.
The Affidavit of Ownership and Designation of Agent form is also attached and other information
is available in order to ensure that all potential conflicts of interests are capable of being discerned
and to provide requisite evidence upon which to base a decision as to this matter.
Detailed legal guidance is provided below in that this matter is one to be heard and determined
under the legal principles that control the quasi-judicial land use decision making processes of
Florida local governments.
FISCAL/STAFFING STATEMENT:
According to the Property Appraiser's records, one of the tax parcels comprising the property is
designated agriculturally exempt while the other tax parcel as vacant residential with assessed tax
values and total tax bills for 2022 shown below:
Parcel Number
Assessed Value (2022)
Tax Bill (2022)
Property Status
03-20-31-5AY-0000-0270
$38,384
$685.44
Agriculture
03-20-31-5AY-0000-0430
$135,851
$3,126
Vacant Residential
According to the applicant, it is the intent of the property owner to develop one parcel as a 284 -
unit multiple -family development and the other with commercial uses consistent with those
permitted in the GC -2, General Commercial, zoning district/classification. If found consistent with
the City's Comprehensive Plan and development occurs as currently proposed in its preliminary
form, the proposed development could facilitate new additional tax revenue to the City.
No additional staffing is anticipated if the rezoning is approved although a full evaluation of this
agenda memorandum is necessary to fully evaluate any net benefits that could result to the City.
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located on the southeast side of East Lake Mary Boulevard, east and west
of Cameron Avenue. The applicant is proposing a split development of multi -family residential
and general commercial uses. A breakdown of the two developments are further analyzed as
follows.
The Multifamily Portion:
The PD Master Plan proposes seven buildings at a maximum four stories in height and a maximum
building height of 65'. In addition to the apartment buildings, the applicant is proposing to include
a clubhouse. As part of the PD, the applicant has provided elevation renderings as shown below:
Proposed Apartment Building with Clubhouse
j, .
The following is a table of development standards obtained from the PD Master Plan. Reductions
and variations to the specifically noted minimum code standards are provided to show staff's
position as it relates to the proposed reduction of standards presented in the PD proposal as part of
the negotiated PD non -statutory development agreement.
Requirement
Minimum
Living Area
Building
Height
Open Space
Required
700 square
feet.
Maximum of
35' and no
more than 2 -
stories
adjacent to
single-family.
50% open
space.
Provided
600 square
feet.
Up to 65'.
30% to be
shared over
the whole
development
and includes
ponds and
buffers.
Applicant
Explanation
None given.
The buildings are three
and four stories in
height and the top of
the ridge is up to 60'
above grade. Rooflines
are varied with a mix of
roof lines to establish
variety in height and
create visual interest.
Typical multifamily
site has approximately
30% open space and
our site plan will
accomplish that.
Staff Support
(Yes/No)
Yes.
Yes.
Staff would
support 30%
usable open
space per
development.
Revised concept
plans have been
submitted since
planniniz and
Requirement Required Provided
Applicant
Explanation
Staff Support
(Yes/No)
Zoning
identifying open
space areas.
Minimum 2.0 spaces per 1.75 spaces
A parking study has
Parking dwelling unit. per dwelling
been provided to
Yes.
unit.
support the request.
The applicant has provided a separate memorandum describing the project and the deviations
requested, which has been attached to this report. The applicant requests deviation from the
following standards in Schedule E of the City's Land Development Regulations (LDRs), Section
16.0, Multiple -Family Housing Design Guidelines.
Requirement
Units per
building
Dwelling Unit
Access
Building Height
Garage and
Storage
Required
No more than
eight dwelling
units per
building.
Breezeways
shall be
prohibited
Maximum 35'
and no more
than three -
stories.
50% of
dwelling units
shall have
garages
Provided
Up to 72
units per
building
Each of the
units have
individual
entries
accessed
through open
breezeways
Up to 65 feet
0 direct
access
garages.
However,
Deviation Explanation
This project consists of
seven buildings
containing up to 72
units per building
All stairs are interior to
the breezeways and any
exterior stair fagade
elements are designed
to complement the rest
of the building's
architecture.
The buildings are 3 and
4 stories in height and
the top of the ridge is
up to 60' above grade.
Rooflines are varied
with a mix of roof lines
to establish variety in
height and create visual
interest.
The design of the
apartment buildings
does not lend itself to
provide garages with
Staff Support
(Yes/No)
No. Recent
approvals
range from 40-
159 per
building.
Based on
context of this
site, staff has
identified the
building size
exceeds that
which is
compatible to
surrounding
uses.
Neutral. Subject
to the stairs
being concealed
and the open
hallways being
concealed at the
end points.
Yes, as the four
story
construction is
similar to recent
approvals.
Staff
recommends a
minimum of
30% of total
Requirement Required Provided Deviation Explanation
accessed
directly from
the dwelling
unit (142
garages are
required)
Detached
garages are
required at a
rate of 20% of
the total units.
14% direct access from the
detached units, which would
garages visually interrupt the
provided. elevation design and
articulation and create
larger areas of asphalt
paving adjacent to the
buildings.
Staff Support
(Yes/No)
units havinE
access to
covered
narking with a
minimum of
15% as
garages Recent
approvals have
included
carports and
garages.
While staff finds some of the requested deviations could be appropriate; available amounts of open
space and availability of covered parking, storage and garages have been found to be important
elements of a quality balanced development.
The Commercial Parcel
The applicant is proposing the southern parcel to allow the following commercial uses: cell tower,
indoor/outdoor kennel, and all permitted uses allowed within the GC -2 General Commercial
zoning district/classification. The PD Master Plan also provides for building heights of 70' for
hotel and 200' for cell towers. Further, the applicant has proposed a cumulative open space by
dividing it across the entirety of the PD and by including elements not considered quality open
space that can be functionally utilized such as the required stormwater ponds and exterior buffers.
Staff notes that certain uses, such as the introduction of an indoor/outdoor kennel, auction sales
establishments, landscaping establishments, crematory, funeral homes, outdoor motion picture
theatres, and bail bonds are inconsistent with the East Lake Mary Boulevard Small Area Study and
the other uses currently in the vicinity. Staff finds a reduction to the open space to thirty 30% as
consistent with recent approvals; however, the inclusion of required infrastructure such as buffers,
and stormwater ponds receiving 100% credit for open space is inconsistent with the intent and
purpose of quality open space as established in sound and generally accepted land use planning
practices and principles. A proposed concept plan showing areas of open space has been
submitted since the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
The proposed communication tower was not supported by any of the required analysis or
documentation for the establishment of a cell tower as required. Per Schedule E of the City's LDRs
the applicant is required to provide detail regarding separation from residentially zoned property,
lighting, color, fencing, landscaping, and colocation. Additionally, applicants desiring to construct
new communication towers are required to submit written documentation that clearly explains the
need for and reasons for the proposed construction of a new communication tower rather than
locating proposed antenna array/communication equipment upon an existing tower. Such
documentation shall include plans of existing and future towers by the applicant/provider in
question, correspondence with existing communication tower owners and may include a cost
analysis of alternatives.
East Lake Mary Boulevard Small Area Study
In partnership with Seminole County and the Orlando -Sanford International Airport the City
recently approved an East Lake Mary Boulevard Small Area Study.
The northern of the two parcels, proposed for multi -family residential development is in an area
identified as the Boombah Sports District. This District provides uses complementary to the
Boombah Sports Complex that caters to people attending events/tournaments/training, offering
those goods and service not presently available in the area.
The Boombah Sports District is designated for AIC or PRO land use designation in the context of
comprehensive planning with the preferred land uses being:
• Tourist Commercial.
• Community/General Commercial.
• Hotels.
• Recreational Facilities.
• Open Space/Parks.
The planning vision of this District is not supportive of residential of any kind. This District
provides uses complementary to the existing sports complex that caters to people attending events
and tournaments, offering goods and services that are not presently available in the District.
The southern of the two parcels is located in the Mixed Use District.
While, the East Lake Mary Mixed Use District is designated for uses such as those within the
following land use designations: AIC, LDRSF, PSP, RP and SE.
The preferred land uses are:
Community/General Commercial.
Tourist supportive commercial.
Open space/park/preserve.
The stated vision of this District is not supportive of kennel, auction sales establishments,
landscaping establishments, crematory, funeral homes, outdoor motion picture theatres, and bail
bonds and communication towers, but is to supply complimentary conveniences for existing
residential. This District is intended to provide goods and services that support tourist and
recreational opportunities.
Seminole County has provided a letter of objection to the request to establish multi -family based
on the use being inconsistent with the East Lake Mary Boulevard Small Area Study. A copy of
Seminole County's letter of objection is attached to this agenda memorandum. City staff supports
the objections stated in the letter.
Importantly, it should also be noted that a traffic study generated by a traffic engineer detailing the
trip generation anticipated by the proposed development and the required upgrades to the existing
transportation infrastructure as a result of this development was received between the scheduling
of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and the City Commission meeting.
LEGAL REVIEW:
Florida land use public hearings are of two types, legislative and quasi-judicial. "Quasi" means
"like." Thus, "quasi-judicial" means judicial or court like. Most Florida hearings on land use
applications are quasi-judicial in nature. Hearings for comprehensive plan amendments and large-
scale rezonings are exceptions to that general rule.
In a quasi-judicial hearing the evidence presented must be based on facts known personally, or a
witness must possess proven expertise in a subject area (for example, planning, engineering or
environmental issues) on which to give an opinion. Only the evidence that is part of the record
before the City Commission can be considered and the evidence is measured against the adopted
criteria to include, as noted below, sound and generally accepted land use practices and principles
in the case of negotiated zoning districts/classifications such as the City PD. The rules on the
evidence are not as strict as in court, however and the hearings are less formal but significant
formality is required. In some jurisdictions, all witnesses testify under oath and, as noted below,
cross examination is an entitlement of administrative due process as to certain parties to the action.
Quasi-judicial processes are like court hearings in the presentation of the evidence to be
considered. In a quasi-judicial process, the decision -maker applies existing law to the record
evidence to determine the result. This is in contrast to decisions made in a legislative process where
the decision -maker is making new policy or laws.
This rezoning action is subject to review under procedures that are quasi-judicial unlike when the
City Commission votes on matters such as whether to approve an amendment to the City's
Comprehensive Plan or the enactment of, or amendment to the City's LDRs. Under the controlling
case law, those matters are legislative in nature and not quasi-judicial matters.
Accordingly, among other principles relating to the quasi-judicial process, the City Attorney
advises that the following should be part of the procedures adhered to in all quasi-judicial
decisions.
Section 166.033, Florida Statutes, as amended in the 2022 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):
"166.033 Development permits and orders.—
(1) Within 30 days after receiving an application for approval of a development
permit or development order, a municipality must review the application for
completeness and issue a letter indicating that all required information is submitted
or specifying with particularity any areas that are deficient. If the application is
deficient, the applicant has 30 days to address the deficiencies by submitting the
required additional information. Within 120 days after the municipality has deemed
the application complete, or 180 days for applications that require final action
through a quasi-judicial hearing or a public hearing, the municipality must
approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application for a development
permit or development order. Both parties may agree to a reasonable request for
an extension of time, particularly in the event of a force majeure or other
extraordinary circumstance. An approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the
application for a development permit or development order must include written
findings supporting the municipality's decision. The timeframes contained in this
subsection do not apply in an area of critical state concern, as designated in s.
380.0552 or chapter 28-36, Florida Administrative Code.
(2)(a) When reviewing an application for a development permit or
development order 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.
(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) When a municipality denies an application for a development permit or
development order, 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 or order.
(4) As used in this section, the terms "development permit" and "development
order" have the same meaning as in s. 163.3164, but do not include building
permits.
(5) 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 or development order 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.
(6) Issuance of a development permit or development order by a municipality
does not 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 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.
(7) 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).
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).
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. It is noted that, in the context of a proposed
PD zoning district/classification proposed master plan, a valid reason to deny the PD would be that
the PD is not consistent with sound and generally accepted land use planning_ practices and
principles as articulated by City planning staff or other competent evidentiary sources.
As mentioned above, a quasi-judicial proceeding has a significant degree of formality and,
although due process is a flexible concept, it requires that proceedings be essentially fair. For
example, with regard to the asserted right to cross examine witnesses, in the case of Carillon
Community Residential Association, et al. v. Seminole County, Florida, et al., 45 So.3d 7 (Fla. 5th
DCA. 2010) certain members of the community challenged the Board of County Commissioner's
refusal to allow them to cross-examine witnesses during a rezoning hearing. The community
members contended that such refusal denied them their right to due process because they could be
adversely impacted if the rezoning application was granted. In deciding whether the community
members were deprived of their right to due process — which is the principle that requires that
proceedings be fundamentally fair — the Court initially noted that hearings before governmental
agencies such as a county commission are "quasi-judicial." As such, they are not controlled by the
strict rules of evidence and procedure that govern traditional lawsuits. Despite this less stringent
atmosphere, however, the principles of due process still require that quasi-judicial proceedings be
"essentially fair."
In further examining what exactly due process requires in the context of quasi-judicial
proceedings, the appellate Court recognized that it was important to distinguish between the actual
parties to the hearing, which would include the applicant and the government agency, and those
who were merely participating in the hearing, such as the members of the community. The Court
recognized that due process required that "parties" to quasi-judicial proceedings have the right to
present evidence, cross-examine witnesses and generally be informed of all the facts that form the
basis of the government action.
The Court then examined what due process rights "participants" have in quasi-judicial
proceedings. The Court held that depending on the type of proceeding involved and the nature of
the interest that will be affected, "participants" are entitled to some measure of due process. The
Court held, though, that "participants" are not entitled to cross-examine witnesses. In making this
finding, the Court explicitly rejected the community members' claim that due process requires that
adjoining landowners have the right to cross-examine witnesses during a rezoning hearing. It
observed that allowing all participants the right to cross-examine witnesses in this context could
create "a cumbersome, unwieldy procedural nightmare for local government bodies." In fact, it
could be the classic "zoo!"
Before the Planning and Zoning Commission, the attorney for the property owner asserted the right
to cross examine the City's planners and was afforded that right. The same should hold true before
the City Commission.
Additionally, it should be noted by the City Commission that ex -parte communications within the
context of quasi-judicial proceeding are subject to regulation as a result of the Jennings v. Dade
County, 589 So.2d 1337 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1991), appellate Court decision. The so called "Jennings
Rule" derives from that judicial decision and stands for the proposition that elected officials may
not discuss zoning matters outside of the public hearing. The Jennings Rule resulted from an appeal
to the Dade County Commission from a decision of the Dade County Zoning Appeals Board
("Zoning Board"). The applicant applied for a variance to permit him to operate a quick oil change
business on his property adjacent to that of Mr. Jennings. The Zoning Board granted the applicant's
request and the County Commission upheld the Zoning Board's decision. Following the decision,
Jennings filed a lawsuit requesting declaratory and injunctive relief. In his complaint, Jennings
alleged that a lobbyist for the applicant had engaged in ex parte communications with several Dade
County Commissioners prior to the vote. Jennings argued that he was denied due process under
the United States and Florida constitutions as well as the Dade County Citizens' Bill of Rights.
The trial court dismissed Jennings' claim and he thereafter appealed to the Third District Court of
Appeal. The Third District Court of Appeals declared the following, which has been subsequently
referred to as the Jennings Rule:
Ex parte communications are inherently improper and are anathema to quasi-
judicial proceedings. Quasi-judicial officers should avoid all such contacts where
they are identifiable. However, we recognize the reality that commissioners are
elected officials in which capacity they may unavoidably be the recipients of
unsolicited ex parte communications regarding quasi-judicial matters they are to
decide. The occurrence of such a communication in a quasi-judicial proceeding
does not mandate automatic reversal. Nevertheless, we hold that the allegation of
prejudice resulting from ex parte contacts with the decision makers in a quasi-
judicial proceeding states a cause of action. Upon the aggrieved party's proof that
an ex parte contact occurred, its effect is presumed to be prejudicial unless the
defendant proves the contrary by competent evidence.
Section 286.0115, Florida Statutes, was enacted by the Florida Legislative after the rendering of
the Jennings decision and relates to access to local public officials in the course of quasi-judicial
proceedings on local government land use matters. Although the City has not enacted an ordinance
adopting procedures the City Commission generally follows the procedures outlined in the statute.
That is, any person may discuss with any City Commissioner the merits of any matter on which
action may be taken and the presumption of prejudice arising from ex parte communications with
local public officials is removed when the substance and subject of the communication and the
identity of the person, group or entity with whom the communication took place is disclosed and
made a part of the record before final action on the matter.
Also, a City Commissioner may read a written communication from any person and doing so shall
not be presumed prejudicial to the action, and such written communication shall be made a part of
the record before final action on the matter.
Further, a City Commissioner may conduct investigations and site visits and may receive expert
opinions regarding quasi-judicial action pending before them and such activities shall not be
presumed prejudicial to the action if the existence of the investigation, site visit or expert opinion
is made a part of the record before final action on the matter.
The above disclosures must be made before or during the public meeting at which a vote is taken
on such matters, so that persons who have opinions contrary to those expressed in the ex parte
communication are given a reasonable opportunity to refute or respond to the communication.
In a quasi-judicial proceeding on a City land use matter, a person who appears before the City
Commission who is not a party or party -intervenor shall be allowed to testify before the City
Commission and may be requested to respond to questions from the City Commission, but need
not be sworn as a witness, is not required to be subject to cross-examination and is not required to
be qualified as an expert witness. The City Commission shall assign weight and credibility to such
testimony as it deems appropriate. A party or party -intervenor in a quasi-judicial proceeding on
City land use matters, upon request by another party or party -intervenor, shall be sworn as a
witness, shall be subject to cross-examination by other parties or party -intervenors, and shall be
required to be qualified as an expert witness, as appropriate.
The City Attorney will propose, again, the enactment of an ordinance that will address the ex parte
communications issue.
The City Commission approved the first reading of Ordinance No. 4754 on October 9, 2023, with
the following changes: strike the original number four regarding establishing hardscape elements;
provide modifications to playground area; include 20% covered parking; include 30% open space
multi -family; and include 20% open commercial space.
The City Clerk published notice of the 2"d Public Hearing in the Sanford Herald on October 11,
2023.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommended the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend the City Commission deny
the request to rezone the 17.32 acres as proposed by the applicant based upon the conclusion that
the request is inconsistent with standards in the City's LDRs that should be applicable to the
development, as proposed, and the East Lake Mary Boulevard Small Area Study and, as a result,
the PD, as proposed, is inconsistent with the provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan
providing for compatible land uses and uses that are in harmony with the County's Comprehensive
Plan.
On September 7, 2023 the City of Sanford Planning and Zoning Commission recommended the
City Commission approve the request to rezone 17.32 acres from Agriculture (AG) to Planned
Development (PD) at project address 3475 East Lake Mary Boulevard, by a vote of three to one
based on the finding that the applicant has proven consistency with the City's LDRs and the East
Lake Mary Boulevard Small Area Study and the City's Comprehensive Plan, subject to the
following conditions as provided by staff, to be incorporated into the PD rezoning ordinance and
in an associated development order (non -statutory development agreement) with the addition of
adding a secondary sheet of the master plan, explicitly showing the open spaces and how they
apply. The only dissenting vote was cast by Dominick Fiorentino, who recommended denial based
on a finding that the request did not meet the East Lake Mary Boulevard Small Area Study.
1. Pursuant to Section 4.3.G of the City's LDRs, this rezoning shall expire three years from
the effective date of the PD Ordinance if all required infrastructure improvements have not
been completed or an extension granted.
2. Unless specifically requested and approved on the PD Master Plan, any required elements
missing from or not shown on the PD Master Plan or associated PD documents shall
comply with and default to the regulations in the City's LDRs.
3. An Engineering Plan generally consistent with Article III of the City's LDRs, including a
landscape plan and all parking improvement must be provided and approved prior to
approval of any building permits.
4. A comprehensive signage program meeting the standards of the City's LDRs shall be
required for the entire development.
5. The property owner shall coordinate with LYNX to determine the possible addition of a
bus stop and shelter and/or the extension of bus or transit services to the site; provided,
however, that this condition shall not delay the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
6. The Property Owner shall install a decorative and functional fountain in all wet retention
ponds in accordance with Schedule D of the City's LDRs.
7. The project shall meet all the requirements of Schedule "U" — Lake Mary Boulevard
Gateway Corridor Overlay District, of the of the City's LDRs.
8. Although elevations were provided with this application, new architectural elevations in
accordance with Schedule G of the City's LDRs shall be provided at the time of the
development permit.
9. At the time of development plan the sites shall be orientated in accordance with Schedule
G of the City's LDRs, as relates to parking and building placements.
10. The following design elements will be considered during the development plan review:
a. Site improvements occurring on the PD property may include the incorporation of
low impact development (oftentimes referred to as "LID") techniques and crime
prevention through environmental design (oftentimes referred to as "CPTED")
guidelines.
b. Elements of buildings may be constructed incorporating Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (oftentimes referred to as "LEED"), Florida Green, or such
other equivalent energy savings standards as may be approved by the City.
c. Unless specifically requested and approved on the PD Master Plan, any required
elements missing from or not shown on the PD Master Plan shall comply with the
of the City's LDRs.
11. The applicant shall provide 10% of parking spaces Electric Vehicle EV capable for future
EV charging stations.
12. Due to the proximity of the subject property to the Airport and the adopted interlocal
agreement, the developer shall file an FAA Form 7460 and provide to the City written
acknowledgement of receipt and determination of no objection from Orlando -Sanford
International Airport prior to any development approvals.
13. Unless specifically requested and approved on the PD Master Plan, associated deviation
waiver request, approved or the associated PD Development Order, all development shall
comply with:
a. The Multiple Family Housing Design Guidelines within Schedule E, Section 16.0
of the City's LDRs.
b. Tree mitigation per Section 4.2 of the City's LDRs, Criteria For Tree Removal,
Replacement And Relocation.
c. Light source setback for site lighting shall be no less than 75% of the width of the
buffers identified on the PD Master Plan.
d. Renderings of the Architectural Elevations for the garages shall be provided at the
time of development plan application.
14. If City staff and the property owner are unable to agree to the details of the PD 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.
Minor modifications, as noted in bold and underlined text in the Background, section of this
report were made to the staff report as new information was incorporated following the hearing at
the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Additional comments or recommendations may be presented by staff at the meeting.
It is staff's recommendation to adopt Ordinance No. 4754 with the changes as noted above.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
"I move to adopt Ordinance No. 2023-4754."
Attachments: Ordinance No. 4754
Project information sheet.
Aerial map.
Zoning map.
Schedule E of City's LDRs - deviation explanation.
CAPP report.
Affidavit of ownership.
Parking study.
Seminole County letter of objection.
Elevations
PD master plans.
East Lake Mary Boulevard Small Area Study.
Traffic study.