Commission recommends small‑scale future‑land‑use change and rezoning for Highway 46 collision center

On Feb. 5, 2025, the Seminole County Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a small‑scale future land‑use map amendment and a concurrent rezoning to Planned Development (PD) for a proposed automotive collision center located north of State Road 46, west of Harvest Time Drive.

Caitlin Apgar, Planning and Development Services, presented the staff report. The applicant proposes redeveloping an abandoned borrow pit with an automotive collision center on the eastern portion of the site and a second commercial parcel on the western portion. The proposal would change the future land use from Higher Intensity Planned Development Target Industry (HIPTI) to Planned Development and rezone the site from A‑1 agriculture and C‑1 retail commercial to PD. Staff said the project proposes a maximum floor‑area ratio of 0.35, a minimum 50‑foot building setback from State Road 46, a 25‑foot buffer required by the gateway overlay, an additional 15‑foot landscape buffer to the east, and at least 25% open space. Stormwater retention would use part of the former borrow pit; a portion would be dewatered for development.

During discussion, commissioners and staff addressed an apparent conflict caused by two overlay layers. Staff explained that the HIPTI future‑land‑use designation allows collision centers, but where the urban centers and corridors overlay applies in combination with other overlays, the overlay provisions can preclude that use unless the future land use is changed. Commissioners asked whether a pre‑annexation agreement with the City of Sanford would resolve the issue; staff said coordination with Sanford is underway and that a pre‑annexation agreement for utilities would be executed at the time of site plan, but the overlay/future‑land‑use conflict is resolved by the requested map amendment.

County staff also advised the commission about procedure: a comp‑plan amendment is a legislative action and a rezoning is quasi‑judicial, so best practice is to make two separate motions — one to recommend the future land‑use amendment and a second to recommend the rezoning. The commission followed that approach, making two motions (one to recommend adoption of the small‑scale future land‑use amendment and a second to recommend the rezoning to PD), and both motions carried with all members voting in favor.

Staff noted the property is within the City of Sanford utility service area and subject to a joint planning agreement; the applicant and staff are coordinating with Sanford on a pre‑annexation agreement to allow Sanford to provide utilities if annexation occurs. The commission’s approvals are recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners.