The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutP&Z Minutes Jan-Jun 2010LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING MINUTES JUNE 23, 2010 A Regular Meeting of the Local Planning Agency was held on June 23, 2010, at the City Canaveral Public Library, 201 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Lamar Russell, Chairperson, called the meeting to Order at 7:00 p.m. The Secretary called the roll. MEMBERS PRESENT Lamar Russell Bea McNeely John Fredrickson Harry Pearson Donald Dunn Ron Friedman MEMBERS ABSENT John Johanson OTHERS PRESENT Barry Brown Susan Chapman Kate Latorre Robert Hoog NEW BUSINESS Chairperson Vice Chairperson 2nd Alternate 1St Alternate Planning & Development Director Secretary Assistant City Attorney Council Member 1. Recommendation to City Council Re: Proposed Amendments to Comprehensive Plan Pursuant to Evaluation and Appraisal Report — Barry Brown, Planning & Development Director. Barry Brown, Planning & Development Director, advised that the Planning & Zoning Board was meeting as the Local Planning Agency to review proposed Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) based amendments for the Intergovernmental and Housing Elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan. He explained that the EAR assesses the attainment of the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and identifies possible revisions to the plan that reflect the current "vision" for the City's future; and to recognize changes to the Florida Statutes and implement regulations. He noted that the EAR was adopted in November, 2007 and found sufficient by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in March, 2008. The EAR identified proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. He further explained that some of the proposed amendments were based on a review of the attainment and effectiveness of the goal, objectives, and policies in the Plan. Other proposed amendments were the result of public input, direction from the 2007 Redevelopment Plan, or Legislative changes. Local Planning Agency Meeting Minutes June 23, 2010 Page 2 Barry Brown advised that the proposed amendments were summarized for each element in outline and matrix form in Section 7.0 of the EAR. He identified each of the proposed amendments. Discussion was held regarding making recommendation to City Council. Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney advised that, because the agenda identified the proposed amendments as a discussion item and not a public hearing, the Board may only make an informal recommendation. By unanimous consensus, the Board members agreed to informally recommend approval of Intergovernmental and Housing Elements. OPEN DISCUSSION Discussion was held regarding hometown democracy on the next voting ballot (November 2nd). Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by Donald Dunn, to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m. Approved on this C 7 day of , 2010. If, Susan L. Chapman, Sbcretary PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 26, 2010 A Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on May 26, 2010, at the City Canaveral Public Library, 201 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Lamar Russell, Chairperson, called the meeting to Order at 7:00 p.m. The Secretary called the roll. MEMBERS PRESENT Lamar Russell Bea McNeely John Fredrickson Harry Pearson Donald Dunn John Johanson Ron Friedman OTHERS PRESENT Susan Chapman Kate Latorre Robert Hoog Barry Brown NEW BUSINESS Chairperson Vice Chairperson 1s' Alternate 2nd Alternate Secretary Assistant City Attorney Council Member Planning & Development Director 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes: May 12 2010 Motion by Bea McNeely, seconded by Harry Pearson, to approve the meeting minutes of May 12, 2010. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 2. Continued Discussion & Recommendation to City Council Re: Proposed Ordinance Amending Section 110-557 to Allow Commercial Parking Facilities by Special Exception in the C-1 M-1 and C-2 Zoning Districts (tabled at previous meeting). Barry Brown, Planning & Development Director, gave an overview of the agenda item and staff report. He advised that he gave this request a considerable amount of deliberation, and was involved in the Board's discussions. He continued by stating that this was an appropriate use given the right location, buffering, screening, and with the city's ability to limit the number of commercial parking facilities; and the use should be allowed in C-1, C-2 & M-1. He advised that he was not in support of parking garages. He commented that the economics of paving and providing stormwater would preclude most people from converting their vacant land into a commercial parking facility. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 26, 2010 Page 2 The Board held discussion regarding restricting hours of operation. Following discussion, the Board members agreed that the hours of operation should be flexible. Discussion was held regarding provisions for security. Following brief discussion, the Board agreed that provisions should be added to individual special exceptions. Discussion was held regarding the City's need for additional parking. Bea McNeely commented that she recognized the need for parking and believed the ordinance criteria was adequate. Discussion was held regarding distance requirements between like establishments. Barry Brown pointed -out that 1/3 mile was the distance requirement for vehicle rental facilities. Bea McNeely suggested that the distance criteria for commercial parking be changed to a 1/2 mile to create more space between them. Donald Dunn advised that he would not support adding car lots on A1A, because they would not help or improve the look of the City, and should only be allowed in the M-1 zoning district. Ron Friedman believed that there was a need for commercial parking. He noted that one of the car rental facilities was allowed a maximum of 28 vehicles and he recently counted 43 vehicles. He advised that another car rental facility parks vehicle overflow on the grass, right up to the sidewalk. He explained that since part of the vision was to have people come and walk around town to restaurants and shops there would be a need for added parking. He agreed with Mr. Porter that in our present economic times, it was a reasonable request to get something out of the land now in terms of return, and when economics improved those property owners will want to do something different with their land. John Johanson agreed that there was a need for parking. He noted that on the south end of town from the A1A/N. Atlantic Avenue triangle south, there was a need; however, the north end appeared not to have the same need. He advised that new parking facilities would need to be built to the current code, because there was no grandfathering, since the use as it stood now did not exist. He voiced his opinion that this issue needed to be addressed at the same time as the visioning so it was uniform with the vision. He commented that if the open properties at the north end of the City were allowed to have commercial parking it would be a huge mistake. He wanted the distance requirement to be 1/3 of a mile south of the A1A split only, and no distance requirement for the north end. John Fredrickson advised that he has lived in the City for 19 yrs. This morning he drove from the north end of the City to the south end and looked at what his town had to offer. He advised that along A1A, there were two carpet stores, three car washes, three hotels, four gas stations, five car rental facilities, who over park their lots and do what they want; and if they were a forewarning of future parking lots then he wanted no part of it. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 26, 2010 Page 3 John Fredrickson noted that there were at least 17 vacant lots, two outside entertainment places, Fairvilla, and a few nice buildings; when he turned around at the south end of the City and came back, he did not see a town that he would like to live in. There was nothing from Route 528 south through the City. He voiced his opinion that the City did not need a parking lot, because there was nothing in Cape Canaveral that anyone would want to park their car and walk to see. He noted that the City paid $35,000 for visioning to find out how it could improve and be something. The City did not even have a chance to vision, and the requests were already coming through for commercial parking lots. Harry Pearson voiced his opinion that there was no need for a minimum separation between commercial parking lots. He commented that a 15 ft. buffer was excessive. Barry Brown disagreed and added that along A1A 15 ft. should be considered a minimum. Discussion was held regarding the legal standing of the City's visioning. Chairperson Russell advised that if the Board made a favorable or adverse decision based on the visioning, it would have no legal standing. The only legal standing that the members could base their decision on was the existing Comprehensive Plan and the existing Zoning Code. He commented that the Board had spent a lot of time on the visioning process, and it was unknown how commercial parking would compliment or mess- up the coming visioning. He advised that the vision was a facilitating plan and had no legal standing. Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney, explained that the visioning plan did not have the force of law, and it was a planning tool to be impetus to start adopting Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendments, so the City could obtain these things that have been included in the visioning. She did not see anything wrong with looking at the visioning for purposes of analyzing the proposed amendment to the City code. She noted that the visioning should be used as a guide, and in reviewing the application, the Board should be reviewing it from a planning and zoning perspective. John Fredrickson stated that the saying "build them and they will come" was nonsense, because there was nothing here for them to see. Chairperson Russell stated that an ordinance for commercial parking was premature. Discussion continued. John Porter, applicant, advised that most of his points were already made at previous meetings and most of the five City Council members supported paid parking at the beach ends and that this request may weigh-in favorably, for the simple reason that if the City wants to do it, the taxpaying citizens should have that same opportunity. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 26, 2010 Page 4 John Porter advised that many existing large parking lots on AlA were not well buffered or attractive, because they were installed so long ago that the current City code did not apply to them. He advised that his parking lot would be heavily buffered, landscaped, and virtually unseen from AlA. He had no intention on obtaining a special exception to enhance the resale value of the property. He planned to cash Flow the property and keep it long term. If the City did not approve the ordinance, the City was going to have more of what it already had right now. He noted that there was parking all around town in violation of City code and pressure from existing infrastructure for more parking. Chairperson Russell asked for audience comments. Leo Nicholas, citizen, commented regarding commercial parking that the City already had. He noted that the 800 lb. gorilla already existed at the hotels on the City's north end. He voiced his opinion that it should be legalized or addressed by code enforcement for violation of the City code. Joyce Hamilton, citizen, advised that she travels up and down AlA and has witnessed cars parked on grass areas. She believed that there was a need for additional parking, but not necessarily on AlA. She voiced a concern that one of the problems would be transporting people once they park their vehicle at a commercial parking site. At 8:20 p.m. Chairperson Russell called for a five minutes recess. He called the meeting back to Order at 8:26 p.m. Chairperson Russell reviewed the draft ordinance, including proposed special exception conditions for commercial parking facilities. He advised that 1/3 of a mile should be changed to a 1/2 mile; and condition #9 - hours of operation be deleted as suggested by some of the Board members. Brief discussion followed. Motion by Lamar Russell, seconded by Donald Dunn, to recommend that the City Council disapprove the proposed ordinance to authorize paid commercial parking facilities by special exception. Vote carried by a 4 to 1 vote, with members voting as follows: Donald Dunn, for; John Fredrickson, for; Bea McNeely, against; Harry Pearson, for; Lamar Russell, for. Donald Dunn asked when a vehicle was considered storage. Kate Latorre responded that it would be a business by business decision, because it was not addressed in the City code. OPEN DISCUSSION No open discussion was held. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 26, 2010 Page 5 Motion by Lamar Russell, seconded by Donald Dunn, to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Approved on this W' day of l 2010. Xam axL ;� Lamar Russell, Chairperson Susan L. Chapman, Secretary PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 12, 2010 A Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on May 12, 2010, at the City Canaveral Public Library, 201 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Lamar Russell, Chairperson, called the meeting to Order at 7:00 p.m. The Secretary called the roll. MEMBERS PRESENT Lamar Russell Bea McNeely John Fredrickson Harry Pearson Donald Dunn John Johanson Ron Friedman OTHERS PRESENT Susan Chapman Kate Latorre Robert Hoog Barry Brown Todd Morley Jeff Ratliffe NEW BUSINESS Chairperson Vice Chairperson 1" Alternate 2"d Alternate Secretary Assistant City Attorney Council Member Planning & Development Director Building Official Assistant Public Works Director 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes: April 14, 2010. Motion by Bea McNeely, seconded by Harry Pearson, to approve the meeting minutes of April 14, 2010, with Donald Dunn's inserted sentence, as read by Chairperson Russell. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Russell asked the Board members if they would consider changing the order of the agenda to move agenda item #4 to #2 in order to accommodate the petitioner, because the other agenda items could have lengthy discussion. Brief discussion followed. Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by Donald Dunn, to move agenda item #4 up to #2. By unanimous consensus, the orders of the agenda items were changed. 2. Recommendation to Board of Adiustment Re: Special Exception Reauest No. 10-01 to Allow a Child Care Facility in the R-2 Zoning District at Palms East Apartments, 211 Caroline Street, Section 14, Township 24 South, Range 37 East, Parcel 502.0 — Jeffrey W. Wells, Petitioner for Palms East LLC Property Owner. Barry Brown, Planning & Development Director gave his staff report. He advised that the city code was recently amended to allow child care facilities in the R-2 zoning district by special exception. Palms East was requesting a special exception to allow a child care facility. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes rN May 12, 2010 Page 2 The Board members reviewed the application packet. The Board reviewed the special exception criteria worksheet, which included consideration and verification of the following: land use and zoning, impact to surrounding properties, traffic and parking, public services, and any miscellaneous impacts. The Board members also verified that the request met the special exception conditions of the City code pertaining to child care facilities. Brief discussion was held regarding the submitted drawing of the facility. Bang Brown verified that it was drawn to scale; however, the drawing was reduced for the Board packet and the scale was cut off. He advised that he would annotate the scale on the drawing. Toni Abeles, Managing Partner for Palms East Apartments, testified that there are over 100 children living at the complex. The reason why they want to start this child care is so the kids have some supervision, because some have no supervision before and after school; they will make the care affordable for the residents; they are anticipating that 95% of the children that come into the facility will be from the apartment complex. Since the property is only one block from the elementary school, they also anticipate some children for before and after school care. She verified that staffing would depend on the State requirement, and parking was available all along the facility. Hours of operation will be from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. Motion by Donald Dunn, seconded by Harry Pearson to recommend approval of Special Exception Request No. 10-01, with the conditions as specified in the City code. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 3. Recommendation to City Council Re: Voluntary Annexation of 315 Grant Avenue — Jack and Elizabeth Mutter, Petitioners: Chairperson Russell announced that the Board is not making a formal recommendation, because it has no authority to make recommendation on a voluntary annexation; however, the Board can give an informal opinion. He advised that they only needed to recommend the zoning for the property. Barry Brown, Planning & Development Director, explained that Jack and Elizabeth Mutter are requesting a voluntary annexation. He described the property, land use, and zoning designation. He advised that the Mutter's have requested annexation into the City to lower taxes and assessments, better police service, availability of reuse water, and a more favorable interpretation of the Florida building and fire codes regarding alarm systems. He further advised that the City staff review team reviewed the request, and addressed sanitary sewer, water, roads, stormwater, reclaimed water, and nonconformities. Staff recommended that while Florida Statutes do not require that annexations be heard by the Planning & Zoning Board, City code calls for the Planning & Zoning Board to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the zoning to be assigned to the annexed property. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 12, 2010 Page 3 Barry Brown asked for the Board's input in evaluating the request. He commented that it appeared that the Mutter's would benefit from the annexation and was asking the Board to consider how the City benefits and any downstream ramifications from the annexation. He advised that the property did not fully comply with the City code; and the non -conformities were minor or being adequately addressed by other service providers. The Board members viewed photographs and aerials of the property, held discussion and received input from Barry Brown and Jeff Ratliffe, Assistant Public Works Director, regarding: sanitary sewer, sanitary sewer hook-up, reclaimed water, ownership of the roads. Ron Friedman advised that the City code was specific, in that every property in the City had to hook into the City sewer. He questioned how the City could waive that requirement. Barry Brown advised that the question was brought up during the staff review committee meeting. Staff concluded that it would be considered an existing non- conformity. Other existing non -conformities included: the density is greater than what our code allow and the property has less parking than what is required by code. Ron Friedman responded that it is not an existing non -conformity. He advised that City code has a provision that if a property has a septic tank the owner is responsible for 150 ft. of sewer connection. Therefore, in this case, the City was only responsible for 40 ft. of a new sewer line. He commented that anytime the City is considering creating a non- conforming use that is 50% more than the existing surrounding zoning it is not the right thing to do. He asked what benefit this property would be to the City. Donald Dunn commented that the City would not approve someone building a non -conforming use. Barry Brown explained that staff originally analyzed the annexation from the standpoint of how it would benefit the Mutter's. A fiscal analysis determined it would benefit them from a tax and assessment standpoint. Staff had not fully accessed the benefit to the City. Jack Mutter, Applicant, advised that it would be a benefit for the City if any properties south of Grant Avenue were annexed, starting with his property. He noted that other property owners on Grant Avenue are also interested in annexing into the City. He commented that more properties in the City would increase the tax base; he didn't believe there could be a sewer connection on Orange Avenue, because of the elevation, unless a lift station was installed. He noted that the main reason he was requesting annexing, was to increase emergency response time. He was aware that if the building was destroyed more than 50%, only 15 units per acre would be allowed. Discussion was held regarding a referendum that was held in 2005 regarding annexing the properties located in Avon by the Sea that are located between Cocoa Beach and Cape Canaveral. David Hiltoff, 201 Garfield Avenue, advised that the reason the property owners do not want to annex into either city is because they are happy the way things are. Discussion continued. Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by Bea McNeely, to recommend that if the property is annexed into the City, that the zoning be R-2. Motion failed by a (3) to (2) vote, with members voting as follows: Donald Dunn, against; John Fredrickson, against; Bea McNeely, against; Harry Pearson, for; and Lamar Russell, for. Brief discussion followed. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 12, 2010 Page 4 Motion by Lamar Russell, seconded by Harry Pearson, to recommend to City Council that if the property is annexed the Board recommends that it be included into the R-2 zoning. Discussion followed. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 4. Recommendation to City Council Re: Proposed Ordinance Amending Section 110-557, to Allow Commercial Parking Facilities by Special Exception in the C-1 M-1 and C-2 Zoning Districts. Barry Brown, Planning & Development Director, explained the request and gave his staff report. The Board members reviewed, discussed, and commented on the proposed ordinance. Discussion was held regarding buffering and landscaping; future long term planning of how the City should be redeveloped, functionality and aesthetics; minimum area should be flexible; proposed hours of operation should be extended; other cities who allow commercial parking do not have the Port as their neighbor; the City is supporting the Port more than the citizens; what the visioning workshops revealed, what do the citizens want; large open undeveloped properties on the northern end of the city; commercial parking lots being detrimental to the City's future plan; allowing parking garages in the M-1 zoning district only; no parking lots in any zoning district; proposed distance between facilities; potential consequences if use is allowed; parking facilities at the north and south ends of the City; seven factors in the City code that are special exception criteria giving discretion on a site by site basis to consider if a request is an appropriate use on the site proposed; compatibility; commercial parking lot in Cocoa Beach across from Publix; types of security; highest and best property uses; commercial parking lots being a transitional use; market demand; City being a bikeable and walkable community; parking overflow at City hotels; providing and removing a service; allowing commercial parking only in C-1 and C-2; when the visioning process will begin; how parking fits into the vision; and not considering the ordinance until after the visioning is finished; allowing no commercial parking lots or garages in C-1 or C-2; allowing parking garages only in M-1; not allowing parking garages at all; existing vehicle rental facilities; ensure the City codes are in place as a result of the visioning before enactment of this ordinance; create the commercial parking ordinance from an architectural approach; ask the Planning Director to provide visioning information and guidance on how this request fits into the vision. Motion by Donald Dunn to table recommendation of the ordinance. Motion failed for lack of a second. Discussion followed regarding establishing a date to come back to the ordinance for recommendation. Barry Brown advised that the City has an application to amend the code, and at some point the Board needs to move forward and make a recommendation to the City Council, so that they can make a final determination. Discussion continued. Motion by Harry Pearson to recommend to City Council that the proposed ordinance be adopted, as written, in C-1 and C-2. Motion failed for lack of a second. Discussion followed. Motion by Donald Dunn to recommend denial of the ordinance to the City Council, because the Planning & Zoning Board needs more of a match between the visioning process and this code amendment request. Motion failed for lack of a second. Discussion followed. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 12, 2010 Page 5 The Board members agreed that since they could not reach a consensus, they would continue discussion at the next meeting. OPEN DISCUSSION No open discussion was held. Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by Bea McNeely, to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 p.m. A -L XAq9J- Lam Russell, Chairperson p ws Susan L. Chapman, Secretary Date of Approvar PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 14, 2010 A Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on April 14, 2010, at the City Canaveral Public Library, 201 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Lamar Russell, Chairperson, called the meeting to Order at 7:00 p.m. The Secretary called the roll. MEMBERS PRESENT Lamar Russell Bea McNeely John Fredrickson Harry Pearson Donald Dunn Ron Friedman MEMBERS ABSENT John Johanson OTHERS PRESENT Barry Brown Susan Chapman Kate Latorre Robert Hoog NEW BUSINESS Chairperson Vice Chairperson 2"d Alternate 15t Alternate Planning & Development Director Secretary Assistant City Attorney Council Member Approval of Meeting Minutes: March 10, 2010. Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by Bea McNeely, to approve the meeting minutes of March 10, 2010. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 2. Discussion Re: Request to Amend Section 110-332 of the City Code to Allow Commercial Parkinq Facilities as a Permitted Use in the C-1 Zoning District — John Porter, Applicant. Barry Brown, Planning & Development Director, explained that Mr. Porter asked city staff if he could provide parking for a fee on the former Azteca property to support other uses such as: overflow restaurant parking, parking for beach goers, and parking for cruises. Staff researched the city code and determined that it does not expressly address commercial parking facilities either a principal or special exception use. Staff advised Mr. Porter that the city code would need to be amended to allow for a commercial parking facility and he therefore submitted the "Application for Amendment to Zoning Ordinances". Mr. Porter submitted information and codes from other cities to support his request. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes April 14, 2010 Page 2 Barry Brown advised that the cities of Cocoa Beach, Melbourne, Malabar, Vero Beach, and New Smyrna Beach allow for commercial parking facilities as a permitted use in their commercial zoning districts. He reminded the Board members that they were considering a code amendment change that would not only apply to Mr. Porter's property, but all properties in the C-1 zoning district. He advised that some considerations may include: landscape and noise buffers; the use in C-1 and C-2 zoning districts; parking garages and/or ground level parking facilities; architectural design standards; imposing a time limit on parking; and how the use may benefit others in the city. John Porter, Applicant, advised that he researched the codes of "like" communities regarding commercial parking facilities. Port Canaveral and Cocoa Beach both allow commercial parking. He also pointed out that the property located across the street from the Azteca property is located in the County (aka "no man's land) and that it is being leased to a rental car business for parking. The rental car business is located in Cape Canaveral but leasing property in the County for parking, therefore, dollars are going across the street to the County rather than the city. In the past, Izzy's restaurant had approached him for permission to park on his property in order to satisfy a city code requirement for minimum parking to obtain a liquor license. There is a demand for overflow parking for car rental facilities. The Mayor advised him that the car rental facilities are currently parking their overflow at the beach ends. Additionally, hotels are currently using their lots for parking long-term (over two days) for people going on cruises. He explained that the city's Economic Development Plan talks about town centers; and being a walk -able and bike -able community. In order to walk and bike, visitors would need to park their vehicles somewhere. So in order for the city to carry out its "vision" and make the city's "dream come true", vehicles will need to be parked somewhere. He advised that the city can continue through the back door where businesses are currently parking vehicies or through the front door by bringing the issue to the Planning & Zoning Board and address the need, growing need, and demand; and mold it in a way that is more acceptable in our community. He gave an overview of the city's adopted Visioning Statement and highlighted that if the city wants a "walk -able downtown core", then parking will need to be provided. He voiced his opinion that the city should be discussing and taking action now. He reviewed other cities codes regarding commercial parking facilities. He commented that the City of Vero Beach did a wonderful job in safeguarding its natural environment of having a beautiful presentation on their main roads. He hoped and dreamed that someday the City of Cape Canaveral's AIA corridor can look a lot more like Vero Beach. He further commented that Vero Beach obviously saw the need for parking lots and parking garages in there code; and he saw them as a leader in sustainable development. He did not know if they had both private and/or municipal parking areas. He had not recently visited Vero Beach to actually look at the parking, but was merely using their code as an example for the City of Cape Canaveral. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes April 14, 2010 Page 3 Chairperson Russell asked the Board members if they had any questions for Mr. Porter. John Porter advised that he did not have a background as a planning professional; he sells souvenir goods to major theme parks around the Country and operates a miniature golf course. He explained that it is only because of the economic situation that we find ourselves in now that they are considering parking as a use of the property. It would have not made sense to put in a parking facility a couple of years ago because of the land values. He advised that he already has a parking lot and pays over $100,000 a year in taxes. At this time, a parking facility seems to be a good use of the property. He did not believe that everyone along A1A would turn their property into a parking lot, because he did not believe that economics would drive it. Additionally, an existing business, by city code, needs to have a certain number of parking spaces available to the users of that business; therefore, they should not be allowed to "double -dip" with their parking spaces, i.e. allow or charge patrons to park in spaces required for the hotel while they are on cruises. John Porter answered various questions for the Board members. He advised that his property would accommodate 75 to 100 parking spaces; currently there were 70 spaces on asphalt; if they were able to demolish the building, more spaces would be created where the pad is for the building. This zoning change would be accompanied by existing code regarding landscaping, setbacks, and buffer; it was his understanding that if the code amendment were to pass and they were able to have the use in this location, then they would be subject to city code to guard against visual blight. He noted that his property was under Chapter 11 and being reorganized. He was dedicated to making the commercial parking facility work, if the Planning & Zoning Board and the City Council are in favor of changing the city code to allow the use. He gave a history of various contracts he previously had in place for lease of his property. He advised that the city currently had code enforcement action against the property for its dilapidated condition. He realized that the building was a stain on the city and wanted to get rid of it, but it may take up to six months for him to do anything due to the property being under Chapter 11. Joyce Hamilton, citizen, asked John Porter various questions. He answered that the 75 existing parking spaces at Fantasia Miniature Golf would remain separated from the existing 70 parking spaces surrounding the restaurant. If some or all of the restaurant building was demolished, there would be additional parking spaces where the building existed. Entering and exiting from the property would be directly from A1A or Holman Road. There were no plans to sell the golf course. Joyce Hamilton commented that when the City talked about Visioning, they had talked about building closer to the road, constructing buildings on the property frontage with parking in the rear. She asked as the city creates its vision, i.e. downtown area, how the people were going to be transported. Lamar Russell advised that in other places he visits, he parks in a municipal lot and walks or takes a cab wherever he needs to go. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes April 14, 2010 Page 4 Barry Brown advised that the citys Comprehensive Plan was silent as to commercial uses, therefore no changes needed to be made. Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney, advised that this use was considered a'personal servicer; therefore, would not require a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Beatrice McNeely advised that the city should also consider the use in the C-2 zoning district. Discussion was held regarding C-1 and M-1 zoning districts. Harry Pearson advised that the Board should have the opportunity to review and make recommendation on individual requests for the use. He was in favor of the use by special exception rather than a principal use. Leo Nicholas, citizen, advised that the city code already allows outside parking and storage areas in the C-2 zoning district with certain criteria that must be met. He suggested that the Board consider that criteria when considering allowing commercial parking facilities. He commented that the use would be good in both C-1 and C-2. He suggested the Board also consider the use by special exception, because they can consider the economic situation and individual taxable land value on a parking lot, as opposed to if a building was erected on the property. Donald Dunn advised that he reviewed the citys final visioning report and found no indication for a need for commercial parking. He noted that a parking lot would not employ many people or have much business income, compared to a building. He commented that a parking garage would be ideal in the M-1 zoning district. Ron Friedman commented regarding how commercial parking lots could be advantages to nearby commercial businesses and gave an example of how a business could have employees park in a nearby parking lot, thereby keeping on-site parking open for customers. Lamar Russell summarized the Boards discussion and comments. He voiced a concern regarding changing the code to allow the use before the citys visioning and rezoning is completed. Barry Brown explained that city was preparing the 'Strategic Plari', which will help guide future planning, as well as budgeting. He further explained that the Strategic Plan is being created by combining the 2007 Redevelopment Plan, recommendations from the Visioning, and the Economic Development Action Plan. But, this does not mean that the City will not be moving forward with customer requests. The Board members held discussion regarding the need for short-term and long- term parking. Lamar Russell commented that already along A1A, parking is located in the front, and that was only going to change over a long period of time. He explained that the only chance the city has on enacting the vision is to start in places that don't have that situation, such as vacant lots. Joyce Hamilton, citizen, asked if Mr. Porter planned on transporting his customers to their destinations. Lamar Russell responded that whatever Mr. Porter does on his property will serve only a local area and not the entire city. He advised that parking lots will need to be provided to create development opportunities for narrow properties along Al A. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes April 14, 2010 Page 5 Lamar Russell asked the Board members to consider allowing parking areas by special exception or principal use. He noted that if they were allowed by special exception, they could consider each request individually and impose conditions or not, and regulate distances similar to the rental vehicle facilities. John Porter commented that from a business standpoint, a special exception would actually be better, because it is a barrier entry from competitors coming into the market. He advised that one way to accelerate the city's vision to get A1A where the city wants it to be is to lead by example. The city can starton the public right of ways, set up facade with improvements and redevelopment grants to accelerate some of the things that would peak the interest of property owners and business owners to upgrade the looks of their properties. David Schirtzinger, citizen, advised that during the visioning workshops the public seemed to like the parking areas in Winter Park, which were located behind the buildings. They also liked the looks of the parking garages in Boca Raton. He was concerned about what was going to be done along A1A. He commented that what is done should support the residents and not necessarily the Port. The city has already allowed vehicle rental facilities which support the Port, more so than the residents. He advised that the parking problems he sees are at the beach end streets during the summer time, and existing vehicle rental facilities parking overflow on the grass. He commented that in Cocoa Beach parking facilities are located on the east side of A1A a block from the beach. He did not believe that there was currently a need for parking on the west side of A1A. He did not know if the hotels were breaking any codes or laws by allowing their customers to park their vehicles for long periods of time. John Porter advised that per the city code, a hotel must have so many parking spaces for the number of rooms. When they allow people to come there, rent a room, than leave their vehicle at the hotel while they take a cruise is double-dipping. He advised that there is a need for parking right now. The city would be serving a tax -payer and resident of Cape Canaveral by allowing him to use his commercial property, located along A1A, for a commercial parking facility. Following discussion, by consensus of the Board members, agreed to have Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney and Barry Brown, Planning & Development Director work together to draft an ordinance allowing commercial parking in the C-1 and C-2 zoning districts by special exception, to include: criteria for distance, adequate buffering along A1A, enhanced landscaping, consider parking in the rear, possibly incorporating requirements similar to vehicle rental facilities. Also, consider parking garages in M-1. Lamar Russell asked that they also incorporate the use into the visioning. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes April 14, 2010 Page 6 Barry Brown advised that staff would attempt to have the draft ordinance ready for the Board for review by the April 28`h meeting. Once the Board makes it recommendation, the ordinance would then have two readings by City Council for adoption. He explained that if the ordinance is adopted for the use by special exception, then Mr. Porter would be back before the Board with a special exception request. OPEN DISCUSSION Donald Dunn asked when the Board would he considering adult care facilities. Barry Brown, Planning & Development Director, advised that the issue was brought up by one City Council member, after a lengthy discussion about child care. He gave a list of his priorities, including: creating CRA districts, Ear Based Amendments, and creating mixed-use land development regulations. He noted that the city could not make any changes to the Comprehensive Plan until the Ear Based Amendments are adopted. Donald Dunn requested that adult care facilities be placed on a future agenda for discussion. Discussion was held regarding Hometown Democracy Amendment #4. Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by Bea McNeely, to adjourn the meeting at 8:58 p.m. S/f2/2©to Lamar airperson Susan L. Chapman, Secretary PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2010 A Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on February 10, 2010, at the City of Cape Canaveral Public Library, 201 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Bea McNeely, Chairperson, called the meeting to Order at 7:00 p.m. The Secretary called the roll. MEMBERS PRESENT Bea McNeely Lamar Russell John Fredrickson Donald Dunn Harry Pearson John Johanson Ronald Friedman OTHERS PRESENT Barry Brown Susan Chapman Kate Latorre Robert Hoog Betty Walsh NEW BUSINESS Chairperson Vice Chairperson 1 st Alternate 2nd Alternate Planning & Development Director Secretary Assistant City Attorney Council Member Council Member 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes: January 13, 2010 and January 27, 2010. Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by John Fredrickson, to approve the meeting minutes of January 13, 2010. Donald Dunn apologized to the Board for not reading the minutes prior to the last meeting when the Board should have voted on the minutes. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. Motion by Donald Dunn, seconded by Harry Pearson, to approve the meeting minutes of January 27, 2010. Discussion followed regarding a motion that was made and not seconded at the January 27th meeting regarding the approval of the January 13, 2010 minutes. Vote on the motion to approve the January 27, 2010 minutes carried unanimously. 2. Discussion and Recommendation Re: Consideration to Allow Day Care Facilities (Child and Adult) in the Residential Zoning Districts. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes February 10, 2010 Page 2 Barry Brown, Planning & Development Director, advised that the owners of Palms East Apartments desired to start a child day care facility in the apartment complex. He explained that they intended to primarily serve the working parents who are tenants in their complex; they envision accommodating 25 to 40 children and house the day care in vacant space adjacent to the rental office. The City code does not currently allow for day care in the R-2 zoning district. However, in the past and evidently before the current R-2 zoning was applied to the property, there were various commercial uses in the complex, including: a beauty shop, barber shop, doctor's office, library, restaurant, and a bar. He advised that the issue of allowing a day care in R-2 zoning was brought before the City Council at their February 2, 2010 meeting. The City Council passed a motion to direct staff and the P & Z Board to consider and make a recommendation on allowing day cares (child and adult), in the residential zoning districts. He reported that staff surveyed other local governments and prepared a summary of the zoning categories, in which they allow child and adult day care, whether day care is a principal use or special exception use, and if there are criteria to evaluate a day care use. He added that staff had little time to research the issue, but wanted to put the ball in play and start the discussion. Mr. Brown asked the Board members to do some research of their own: He offered that the codes of most cities in the State could be viewed on www.municode.com. He voiced his opinion that it would make perfect sense to have uses such as day care closest to where people live in order to meet their needs. And he supported the request for a day care at Palms East, as a special exception and not a principal use. He asked the Board to consider if this type of use would be appropriate in all of R-2. He advised that they would not want to have a day care facility in an area that was primarily single family residential. Ron Friedman advised that he has a lot of experience with day care centers both professionally and family. He commented that day cares are a very good idea in today's economy, not only with a husband and wife who both work, but also there are a lot of single parents. He voiced his concern that if a day care was to be approved for a single family or duplex, the biggest concern would be parking. He explained that typically a day care center runs from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and if they are caring for ten children, there could be ten vehicles stopping to drop them off and pick them up. Therefore, one of the criteria for a single family or duplex would be adequate parking, including standing and holding areas. A duplex should have to get written approval from the next door neighbor that they would approve having a day care center on the other side of the common wall. There should also be time constraints for what days of the week and times during the day they are open. In apartment complexes, parking should not be a problem, because people live there and they already have parking spaces. To avoid parking problems for multiple dwellings, you could limit it to users that live within the complex or within so many feet (reasonable walking distance) from that complex so they don't create a parking or traffic problem. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes February 10, 2010 Page 3 Ron Friedman continued. He advised that if the property is part of an HOA or condominium association obviously would have to approve of it and would probably have to amend their documents to allow such a use. Additionally, for adult day care, if the adults are physically handicap, other than the parking or standing area there is not much of a problem. When you start talking about adults that are mentally handicap it becomes a controversy in the neighborhood. If the city was to allow drug or alcohol rehab during the day, you would have serious controversy. If the City Council was to change the city code to allow it, he recommended that they exclude any facilities for mentally handicap or alcohol or drug rehab, because of the absolute controversy that would arise. The Board members verified that day cares were allowed in the C-1 and C-2 zoning districts, as a principal use. Barry Brown advised that day cares are not addressed in the Comprehensive Plan, and there were no additional criteria for the use. Jeff Wells, Representative for Palms East, explained that the day care would be located in a one story building that currently houses their offices, and a laundry on the west side of the building that is divided by a hallway, with the other side approximately 6,000 sq. ft. of unused space. There were previous other uses in the building, including a bar and restaurant. He advised that because the space has not been utilized for so long, they would donate the space or have a very reasonable lease for someone who would want to come in and do something that was mutually beneficial. Obviously, a day care would be the best use with regard to the people in the community in that area and for the residents residing at Palms East. Cape View Elementary School is also down the street. Mr. Wells explained that for a parent who works 8:00 to 5:00, the day care could fill in the gaps in the morning before school and after school. They were looking to provide I.ow cost day care for people who are in the community. He noted that there are 400 apartments in the area of Palms East. He advised that they have put together some plans, and would be receiving donations from the community, including Wachovia Bank who would donate money to assist with the modifications. Mr. Wells addressed the concern about parking. He advised that the area has traditionally been used for business and is not used for parking for the residents. He advised that they were hoping to get a day care up and running by the end of the school year in May. Discussion followed regarding State licensing requirements of running a day care business. Lamar Russell suggested that the best locations for a day care in the residential zoning district could be confined to apartment complexes or complexes with large parking lots. Discussion followed regarding staff performing more research on what other city's have in their ordinances for regulating day care facilities. Mr. Brown advised that staff did not research whether or not other cities have specific criteria in determining whether or not a day care was appropriate in a certain location. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes February 10, 2010 Page 4 Discussion continued regarding parking concerns, where to allow a day care facility, noise and outside play areas. The Board agreed to limit consideration of day cares in the residential zoning districts to R-2 only, by special exception. The Board members reviewed Section 110-38, criteria for special exception. John Johanson advised that additional criteria should be considered, such as: time and days the day care operates; number of parking spaces; noise; sufficient lighting; prohibit turning a residential unit into a day care; allowing day care in an established community would be wrong; and mixed use overlay. He commented that Palms East was a unique complex and ideal situation where a mixed use would fit. Harry Pearson made a motion to add day care facilities as a 6th item to Section 110- 294, Special Exception Permissible by Board of Adjustment. Motion failed for lack of a second. Discussion followed regarding: considering only allowing a day care facility in a separate building within a complex; definition of a family day care home; defining child care; addressing adult care as a separate consideration; considering day care in R=3; task staff with bringing other city's requirements to the Board to review and consider. The Board members reviewed special exception criteria in Section 110-39 to determine if it was sufficient for considering a day care in R-2. Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by Donald Dunn that day care facility be added as a 6th item to the list of uses in R-2 allowed by Special Exception in Section 110-294, Special Exception Permissible by Board of Adjustment. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney, advised that she was going to propose bringing back a draft ordinance adding day care to allowable special exceptions in R-2, and proposing additional criteria based on discussion and research for consideration at the next meeting. By consensus, the Board members agreed. 3. Election: Chairperson and Vice Chairperson. Bea McNeely nominated Lamar Russell for Chairperson. Donald Dunn seconded the nomination. Lamar Russell accepted the nomination. There being no other nominations, nominations were closed. By voice vote, Lamar Russell was elected Chairperson. Lamar Russell nominated Bea McNeely for Vice Chairperson. Donald Dunn seconded the nomination. Bea McNeely accepted the nomination. There being no other nominations, nominations were closed. By voice vote, Bea McNeely was elected Vice Chairperson. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes February 10, 2010 Page 5 OPEN DISCUSSION: David Schirtzinger, citizen, asked if a day care at Palms East could be considered an amenity at Palms East for the residents, since they already have their own laundry mat and swimming pool. Barry Brown, Planning Director, advised that at a certain point, that was a judgment call on staff's part, as to whether that is a traditional amenity of an apartment complex. He did not know what staff's answer would be. Kate Latorre advised that it was a use issue. There would have to be an interpretation of the code whether or not that use was a residential amenity to the apartment complex. She added that just given the fact that the use is regulated by the State it probably was not a residential amenity, it was really more of a commercial enterprise. Barry Brown advised that City Council met with the Visioning Committee and went over the Economic Development Action Plan that was prepared by A.G. Consulting, and it was his understanding that the report is in an electronic format and he would e-mail it to the Board members. - He advised that preparing the plan was one of the recommendations of the Visioning Report. He noted the Economic Development Action Plan may be a vehicle by which the City is able to implement many of the recommendations of the visioning. He will also forward the members a copy of the latest Community Development Department's Activity Report. Bary Brown advised that the City was still waiting to receive the revised plat for the Young property from the applicant. Motion by Lamar Russell, seconded by Bea McNeely, to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 p.m. 16 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 27, 2010 A Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on January 27, 2010, at the City Canaveral Public Library, 201 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Bea McNeely, Chairperson, called the meeting to Order at 7:00 p.m. The Secretary called the roll. MEMBERS PRESENT Bea McNeely Lamar Russell John Fredrickson Donald Dunn Harry Pearson John Johanson Ronald Friedman OTHERS PRESENT Barry Brown Todd Morley Susan Chapman Kate Latorre Robert Hoog NEW BUSINESS Chairperson Vice Chairperson 1 st Alternate 2nd Alternate Planning & Development Director Building Official Secretary Assistant City Attorney Council Member Approval of Meeting Minutes: January 13, 2010. Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by John Fredrickson, to approve the meeting minutes of January 13, 2010. Donald Dunn advised that he did not open his e-mail, and therefore did not read the draft minutes. He asked if he could give minor changes to the Board Secretary, if there were any, after he read them. Discussion followed. Harry Pearson withdrew his motion. Lamar Russell moved to postpone approval of the January 13, 2010 until the next meeting, so that everyone would have an opportunity to have read them. There was no second to the motion, however the Chairperson asked the Board Secretary to call the roll. All of the Board members voted in favor of postponing this agenda item until the next meeting. 2. Recommendation to the Citv Council Re: Cape Caribe Revised Site Plan - Michael Allen. P.E.. Aaent for Allen Enaineerinq. Inc., Proiect Enqineers. Barry Brown, Planning & Development Director, gave his staff report regarding the subject property, as follows: future land use and zoning designation(s): surrounding uses and zoning; history and description; and staffs recommendation. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 27, 2010 Page 2 Ken Ward, representative for the Cape Caribe Resort, outlined the benefits of the project; described the use; and highlighted the future development plan. He explained that one (5) acre parcel was added to the project, one of the buildings were removed to create a conservation area; one other building was removed to expand the pool deck; and the buildings footprints were revised. Discussion followed regarding: noise buffering, the distance to the closest tank at Coastal Fuels, stormwater plan, lighting plan, visual appearance, and traffic on George King Boulevard. Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by Lamar Russell, to recommend approval of the Cape Caribe revised site plan to City Council. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS 1. Recommendation to the City Council Re: Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 98, Subdivisions, Relating to Plats, Amending and Clarifying the Criteria Required for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plat Review and Approval; Providing a Procedure for Review and Consideration of Lot Splits; Providing for the Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Ordinances and Resolutions - Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney. Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney, reviewed the additional changes she made to the draft platting ordinance, based on the Board's consensus at the last meeting. Following discussion, the Board members agreed to make the following additional changes: • Page 5, (c), that the first sentence read as follows:. "Topographic Survey showing ground elevations of the tract, based on ......................." • Page 5, (d) - (i), be re -numbered and re -lettered. • Page 13, Section 98-59, (3), add "Declaration of Restrictions" after the words "Articles of Incorporation". • Page 17, Section 98-63(h), read as follows: Upon approval of any lot split by resolution of the City Council, the resolution shall be duly recorded in the public records of Brevard County constant with the requirements of Section 98-62 and reflected on the appropriate" ................................. • Page 18, Section 98-63(i), clarify the intent. • Article vs. Chapter - be consistent with the intent throughout the ordinance. Barry Brown, Planning Director, advised that staff was reviewing a submittal for a subdivision of a lot on Holman Road. He noted that it was applied for as a preliminary plat, under the existing code, and would be ready for the Board's recommendation on February 10th. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 27, 2010 Page 3 Motion by Donald Dunn, seconded by Harry Pearson to recommend approval of the platting ordinance, to the City Council, with the additional changes. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. OPEN DISCUSSION Barry Brown, Planning & Zoning Director, advised the Board that the City Council has accepted the Final Visioning Report. The City Council will be holding a Special Workshop on February 23, 2010, at 5:30 p.m., and has requested two members be appointed from each board to represent that respective board at that meeting. Following discussion, the Board members agreed to appoint Bea McNeely and Lamar Russell as the Board's representatives. Motion by Lamar Russell, seconded by Bea McNeely, to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m. Bea McNee i rson Susan L. Chapman, Sdcretary Leg�end ZONING C1 C2 N wivil R1 wE R2 R3 + S STREET LEGEND A Clara Elizabeth Lane B Maple Court 0 Palm Way D Croton Court E Oleander Court F Coquina Lane G Camelia Court H Jasmine Court I Honeysuckle Way J Intrepid Way ay ,WTranqulfity IAAquarius Way Shuttle Way N Falcon Way 0 Coconutway MILLER' LEGG City of Cape Canaveral Zoning Map Map Prepared by Miller Legg & Associates, Inc. July 02 2008 Data Source: Brevard County Property Appraiser Office. City of Cape Canavera, Brevard County Government. Miles 0 0.050.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 1 CLI J 7 City of Cape Canaveral R-1 Low Density Residential Property Touring Our Town TOTAL CITY ACREAGE 1216.0 TOTAL R-1 ACREAGE 163.4 PERCENT OF R-1 ACREAGE 13.4% TOTAL POTENTIAL R-1 "Lot Splits" 10 HOLMAN ROAD POTENTIAL "Lot Splits" 6 Harbor Heights 0 Ocean Woods 0 Surf Drive & Ridgewood 0 Surf Drive South Side 1 Surf Drive North Side 0 Circle Drive 0 Central Boulevard East 3 Southwest Corner (Holman Road) 6 TOTAL: 10 zi City of Cape Canaveral R-1 Low Density Residential Property Tourinz Our Town-- Methodolozy The attached five (5) -page document relates the methods used to generate the numbers presented in the Touring Our Town single - page document. Earl McMillin 397 Holman Road Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920 �� 3 City of Cape Canaveral R-1 Low Density Residential Property How much R-1 property is there in the Citv? The City is 1.9 square miles in area. This is according to the recent, 2009 Visioning Report. There are 640 acres in a square mile. Therefore the City contains 1216 acres (1.9 x 640 = 1216). There are three R-1 Low Density Residential zones in the City. The largest is the northernmost one that combines Harbor Heights + Ocean Woods + Central Boulevard/Circle Drive/ Surf Drive Area. The total area is 143.4 acres. The smallest is the central one that is along a single street, Long Point Road. The total area is 1.8 acres. The third is the Southwest Corner, which is around Holman Road. The total area is 18.3 acres. How much R-1 property is there? Answer: About 163.4 acres. What Percentaiie of the City is R-1 Property? Dividing the total R-1 acreage, 163.4, by the total acreage in the City, 1216, gives the answer. What percentage of the City is R-1 property? Answer: About 13.4°/x. How accurate are the above numbers? No allowance was made for the fact that roads cover a portion of the City nor was allowance made for property that cannot be used such as that along the "Canaveral River" and other drainage ditches. -1- F� I City of Cape Canaveral R-1 Low Density Residential Property The numbers were generated using a letter size printout of the Zoning Map. However, care was exercised in using a scale and accounting for the irregular shape of some properties. How accurate are the above numbers? Answer: All errors were made on the side of overstating the amount of R-1 Low Density Residential property. How many "Lot Sulitable" R-1 Prouerties are there? Harbor Heights: Four vacant properties exist in Harbor Heights. (1) a wedge-shaped lot on Coral Drive between #381 and #389, (2) a lot near the east corner of Coral Drive and Harbor Heights Drive next to #389, (3) a lot near the end of Harbor Heights Drive between #1596 and the Pat Lee mansion, and, (4) a lot next to #203 Coral Drive near the west corner of Harbor Heights Drive and Coral Drive. No property in Harbor Heights is large enough for a "lot split". Ocean Woods: This is a gated, PUD development that has existed for many years to which lawful access could not be gained. It is highly unlikely that any property within Ocean Woods could be subdivided. Central Boulevard/Circle Drive/ Surf Drive Area: Surf Drive & Ridgewood Intersection. There are two vacant properties on either side of Surf Drive; one next to #317 and one next to #318. One is 0.8 acres and one is 0.9 acres.* However, the Zoning Map shows these properties as both comprising several lots. Evidently these two areas have already been divided and are not considered "lot splitable". -2- City of Cape Canaveral R-1 Low Density Residential Property Surf Drive South Side. Between #308 and #315 there appear to be two vacant properties. The one abutting #307 has a for sale sign that advises, "Call Norm" and gives a telephone number. It has about 170 feet along Surf Drive and is about 150 feet deep which makes it about 0.58 acres. It appears to be "lot splitable". The adjacent property abutting #315 has 100 feet on Surf Drive and is thus about 0.33 acres and probably is not "lot splitable". Surf Drive North Side. Between #302 and #308 there is a vacant property that has about 60 feet of frontage on Surf Drive. It is offered for sale by Kennan Realty. Rosalind & Lindsey Court. Both these streets are built out. Circle Drive. At the intersection of Circle Drive and Canaveral Boulevard there is an empty corner property that has 160 feet of frontage on the Boulevard and 100 on Circle Drive. It is 0.37 acres. The Zoning Map shows this property as comprising two lots. Evidently this property has already been divided and is probably not "lot splitable". It is offered for sale by Kennan Realty. Central Boulevard East. There is a vacant property on the north side of Central between #250 and a large, white building of undetermined use. This has 150 feet of frontage on Central. It might be "lot splitable". Beyond the large, white building there are two homes at # 112. Each has 100 feet of frontage on Central and there is a 20 -foot drive between them. Because they are positioned well back from Central both may be "lot splitable". -3- a1 City of Cape Canaveral R-1 Low Density Residential Property On the south side of Central, between #173 and a home the address of which is #8590 Canaveral Boulevard, is a vacant property with 100 feet of frontage on Central. It is too small to be "lot splitable". Long Point Road. There is a vacant property at on the south. side of the road at #213 that is clearly not "lot splitable". A new home is being constructed at #223. At the end of the road at #227 there is vacant property that has about 70 feet of frontage on the road and is about 155 feet deep. It is adjacent to what appears to be a swamp and it does not appear to be "lot splitable". Southwest Corner. There are six properties that are "lot splitable". How many "Lot Splitable" R-1 Properties are there? Answer: 10 Harbor Heights 0 Ocean Woods 0 Surf Drive & Ridgewood 0 Surf Drive South Side 1 Surf Drive North Side 0 Circle Drive 0 Central Boulevard East 3 Southwest Corner (Holman Road) 6 TOTAL: 10 SA City of Cape Canaveral R-1 Low Density Residential Property Conclusions Only 10 properties zoned R-1 Low Density Residential in the entire City appear to be capable of further division. Of these 10 there are 6 ---that is 60% of the possible properties ---abutting the 20 -foot wide, dirt right-of-way known as Holman Road. The other 4 possibilities all have direct access to paved streets that have gutters, sewers and sidewalks. No easements are necessary to access the public rights-of-way. The City has failed to demonstrate a public need for the application of a "streamlined, lot split" ordinance to R-1 property. It has the burden of doing SO. Recommendation The Planning & Zoning Board should recommend to the City Council that Ordinance No. 04-2009, Sec. 98-63, contain a provision along the following lines: "No property zoned R-1 Low Density Residential shall be subdivided under this Section. All property zoned R-1 Low Density Residential shall be subject to all the laws governing subdivisions. " Earl McMillin 397 Holman Road Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920 (321) 783-8834 13 January 2010 * NOTE: The property dimensions were determined by pacing off the distances; 2.5 feet to a pace. The dimensions were taken from the landside of the curb/gutter. No allowances were made for sidewalks, setbacks from adjacent property, etc. -S- Earl McMillin P.O. Box i �8 e 086 Cape Canaveral, FL 32920-1086.321-7 �8834 • 8 r Master, Oceans, Unlimited SFCW--95 Certified Port Canaveral Pilot (Retired) 21 December 2009 Katherine W. Latorre, Esq. Brown, Garganese, Weiss & D'agresta, P.A. 111 North Orange Avenue Suite 2000 Orlando, Florida 32801-2327 Re: City of Cape Canaveral, Ordinance No. 04-2009 Dear Ms. Latorre: WO Attorney -At -Law Pennsylvania, Admitted 1969 Florida, Admitted 1974 As you know I have a keen interest, as do my Holman Road neighbors, in the subject Ordinance No. 04 2009 that I believe you are in the process of revising in preparation for the January meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board. Would you kindly advise me when the revision that will be Iaid before Plug & Zoning is ready so that we can review it in advance of th meeting. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. e Cc: City Manager /City Clerk Planning Official ling Official Board Secretary Holiday best wishes, Earl McMillin P�9 Ind ' Ci of Cape Canaveral,lov ` City p Planning & Zoning Boar Y1,1J� Relevant Item Before The Board Ordinance No. 04-2009, amending Chapter 98, "Subdivisions" is the item before the Board to which this document is addressed in general. In particular it is addressed to a wholly new addition to Chapter 98 i.e. Section 98-63 Lot Splits. Orrin Of This Document This document was prepared by, and presented to the Board by, Earl McMillin, who is, and has been for the past 15 years, a resident of 397 Holman Road, Cape Canaveral, 32920, telephone (321) 783-8834. Sunshine Law Both Earl McMillin and his wife, Nancy, are uncertain about whether all members of the Planning and Zoning Board are familiar with Florida's Sunshine Law. We are compelled to mention this because we are aware of an e-mail from one Board member to all other Board members dated November 30th that said in effect, "I cannot attend the meeting, but here are my thoughts." That certainly seems a harmless step to take, but it seems to be a violation. The Sunshine Law bars any Board member from communicating with any fellow Board member about any matter that may come before the Board outside of a properly noticed public meeting. A suggested way to avoid violation of the Sunshine Law ---and legal counsel to the Board can advise you ---is to send any "I cannot attend, but here are my thoughts" communication to the Board Secretary and ask the Secretary to deliver copies to the other Board members during the public meeting. The law also forbids third parties from acting as communication conduits between you and any other member of the Board. Be assured that neither Earl nor Nancy would ever violate the law. This document may speak to what is perceived as a problem that in actual fact is not a problem. That is probably because the writer is not as familiar with the Florida Statutes, Comprehensive Plan, City Code and planning, construction and engineering as some others may be and because of the brief time that the writer has been able to devote to this matter. -r- fo is Focus The focus of this document is the Comprehensive Plan. That is because the Plan is intended to set goals and policies. Ordinances and procedures are intended to achieve the goals and policies set by the Plan. Does the proposed Section 98-63 do this? Section 98-63, Lot Splits The proposed Section 98-63 removes many protections that currently exist in the Cape Canaveral ordinances. The opening language of the "lot split" ordinance says, "The City Council may, by resolution at a public hearing, grant waivers from the platting requirements of this Article ...." That sounds as though only the platting requirements are to be eliminated, but that is not the case. Concurrency: According to the Division of Community Planning, "A key component of [Florida's Growth Management] Act is its concurrency provision that requires facilities and services to be available concurrent with the impacts of development." The concurrency requirement is designed to involve other government agencies in land development, e.g. St. John's River Water Management District and the Department of Environmental Protection. Concurrency addresses 6 "critical" issues: (1) water, (2) sewer, (3) solid waste, (4) drainage, (5) roadways and (6) recreation. The current Comprehensive Plan in CM -11.1 declares that the developer is to finance and install all the items necessary to be consistent with concurrency management. Chapter 86 of the City Code establishes a "Concurrency Management System". The Building Department has a 14 -page Application for Concurrency Evaluation. Apparently, if Section 98-63 is adopted, the concurrency safeguard will not apply to lot Splits. Drainage: The current Comprehensive Plan D-1 states that drainage into the Banana River is to be minimized. D-1.4 and C-2.1 both say that ordinances for the management of stormwater are to be enforced. D-1.7 sets a standard that the first 1" of rainfall is to be retained on the particular property and following a one hour storm in which 3" of rain falls the excess water is to be gone within three hours. When a new home was under construction adjacent to the McMillin home several years ago there was a question of water run-off. The City advised that if drainage adversely impacted their home, the McMillin could sue ---not the City ---their new neighbors. -2- Pa 11 What was done was to avoid the problem by (a) having Allen Engineering do a topographical survey and advise on measures to be taken, (b) communicating with the new neighbors, and (c) cooperating with the new neighbors in carrying out the work to prevent a drainage issue. Catch 22: The Comprehensive Plan and the City Code create a Catch 22 for property west of Holman Road. Developed property is to have proper drainage, but drainage into the Banana River is to be minimized. How can these conflicting goals be achieved? All the land slopes down from Holman Road toward the River. Where is the water to go? Discretion: The proposed lot split ordinance places great reliance on the expertise and discretion of the Planning Official. Apparently, the Building Official, Public Works and the Fire Department may be consulted, but then again, they may not. Is this sound policy? City Code Section 110-223 requires review of site plans ---not plats ---but site plans, by (1) the City Engineer, (3) the Fire Marshal, and --for construction adjacent to the Banana River ---(4) the Department of Environmental Protection. While being chary of leveling unwarranted criticism, it may be that a preview of coming attractions has already occurred. It is believed with some certainty that homeowners informed the City of their desire to place two more homes on the property on which they reside. Apparently, after a simple walk around the property by the Planning Official, the homeowners were informed that as soon as the lot split ordinance was enacted they would be allowed to place one additional home on their property. If this is true, it should serve as a wake-up call. The proposed lot split ordinance seems to place too much authority and discretion in the hands of one City employee. P&Z Review: In addition to the elimination of the safeguards of concurrency and review by all concerned City departments, review by the Planning and Zoning Board is also eliminated. The Board represents a total of about 67 years of experience in land management in the City. At least one member has served for almost 30 years. Is it possible for a city employee, however dedicated or well-intentioned, to match the collective memory of the Board? End Runs: Nothing in Section 98-63 prevents a landowner from using lot splits in a step-by-step process. If adopted as written, it will allow a landowner to slice off pieces of property one by one and make an end run around the rules for creating subdivisions. -3- T9 1a Lot split ordinances are not a recent invention. The City of Cocoa Beach has such an ordinance and evidently it has been part of that city's law for a considerable time. The Cocoa Beach ordinance, unlike the proposed Cape Canaveral ordinance, has the following protections: 1. Compliance with all standards for subdivisions. 2. Review by police and fire departments. 3. Review by the entire development services department. 4. Only lot splits which do not require sidewalk, bikeway, bridge, drainage facilities, screening walls or other required improvements are allowed. 5. End runs are forbidden. Need? According to the Minutes of a Board meeting of February 11, 2009, City staff suggested that the new ordinance was desirable because, in the past, property owners subdivided without review and approval by the City. This resulted in lots that do not have the size and configuration to properly accommodate future development and created access management issues. Since the City ordinances have long required that making two lots out of one is a subdivision and the established procedures are mandatory, how was property subdivided in the past without the City procedures being followed? The answer appears to lie not in the laws, but in the absence of communication. Information Age: No procedure exists whereby Brevard County notifies the City when a deed relating to property in the City is filed. Thus, in the past property owners have simply prepared a deed conveying a portion of their property and filed it with the County without the knowledge of the City. We live in the Information Age. This is the 21" Century. Would it not make better sense to establish a procedure whereby the County automatically notifies the City when a deed is filed? It would seem that computers communicating with computers could do this. Human intervention would only be needed if and when the data indicated to the City there was a need. -4- Wide Open Spaces? Cape Canaveral is almost fully developed. Is there a large inventory of available land that makes a lot split procedure a priority? The one area where it could be used appears to be is Southwest Corner of the City. Southwest Corner-- A Unique Area The Southwest Corner of the City, particularly the area adjacent to the 20 foot wide, unpaved, right-of-way known as "Holman Road", is unique. Southwest Corner ---Flood Plain On August 17, 2008, a wedding took place in the backyard of 397 Holman Road. A few days later Tropical Storm Faye arrived. After Faye departed the newlyweds were able to canoe through the backyard to have photos taken on the spot where they had exchanged their vows. Much of the Southwest Corner is within the Flood Plain. The City Code has an entire article, Article 90, which speaks to the issue of floods and the flood plain. Code Section 90-93(4) says, for example, "Development requiring a building permit shall not cause a net loss in the flood storage area of the flood plain." Southwest Corner ---"Holman Road" Holman Road pre -dates the creation of the City by 7 years. It was created on August 2, 1956 when William and Gladys Chandler executed a deed in favor of Brevard County for a strip of land 20 feet wide from east to west and 564.5 feet long from north to south. The deed included the following proviso: "The above conveyance is made to the Grantee for right of way purposes, and the County by the acceptance of this deed does not obligate itself in any manner to construct, re- construct or maintain a road on, over and across said land. " Over the years this strip of land has been misrepresented on numerous documents. The current Oficial Zoning Map, for example, erroneously depicts it as extending farther south than it actually does. -5- I Over the years Brevard County has maintained it, sought to pave it, refused to maintain it and sought to get rid of it. At a meeting of the County Commission on April 21, 1977, the County Attorney and Public Works Coordinator were directed to transfer all "roads located in municipalities and presently maintained by the County to the appropriate cities". Holman Road fell through the cracks; no transfer ever took place. Over the years the City has maintained it, sought to pave it and refused to maintain it. Not so long ago the City directed a contractor resurfacing streets to deposit the paving material removed from various City streets in preparation for resurfacing onto Holman Road. After complaints by residents the material was removed. An effort made quit a few years ago to obtain the 20' by 565.5' strip and place it in trust for the benefit of all property owners adjacent to it failed. Who has the power to control Holman Road and the responsibility for it? The answer is unclear. At one time some agency of government placed a 25 mph speed limit sign on the road. The sign is no longer there. Presently the City is maintaining Holman Road. Southwest Corner—Subdivision As stated above, the City of Cocoa Beach has a lot split ordinance. The lot split ordinances of Cocoa Beach and other jurisdictions seem to aim at permitting lot splits to take place in existing subdivisions. That is to say in areas that have already been platted. They are not aimed at areas outside subdivisions. After exploring the Brevard County Property Appraiser's website, visiting Titusville and the City Building Department, the only "plat" of the Holman Road area that was found is dated November 27, 1959, a half century ago and before the City became a city. The area around Holman Road is not a subdivision. The area is like Topsy in Uncle Tom's Cabin; it "just growed". Southwest Corner—Cul-de-Sac Some provisions of the City Code that illustrate that the area has been allowed to simply evolve with little planning relates to cul-de-sacs. Code Section 98-1, defines "cul-de-sac" as "a street having one open end and being permanently terminated by a vehicular turnaround." -6- Va ir-) Since an unpaved, 20 foot wide strip of dirt hardly merits the title "street" perhaps Section 98-110(d) dealing with alleys is more apt. Section 98-110(d) declares, "Dead- end alleys shall be avoided where possible, but if unavoidable shall be provided with adequate turnaround facilities at the dead end ...." Holman Road terminates at a manhole marked by two posts. Vehicles such as garbage trucks have to either back down or back out of Holman Road. One of the FP&L power poles on Holman Road is heavily damaged. It is believed a garbage truck attempting to negotiate the road did this. FP&L representatives visit the pole from time to time and once sprayed it with fluorescent paint. Perhaps they do this in the hope that the pole will be miraculously healed. The point is a 20' wide "road" is not something designed to support a subdivision. When a fire broke out on the property next to the McMillin, Earl McMillin had to run up to U.S. Highway AIA to direct the fire department to Holman Road. Once on the road, the Fire Department could not access the fire. On another occasion, when an ambulance was called to assist someone living next to the McMillin, the EMT personnel had to cut through the McMillins fence to access the adjacent property and render aid. Southwest Corner ---Sewers Because a number of homes west of Holman Road are lower than the sewer line, they are equipped with lift stations. On a number of occasions raw sewage has erupted from the manhole at the south end of Holman Road. Section SS -1 of the Plan says that access to a state -approved, properly functioning sewer is to be assured. Southwest Corner—Environment Past Recognition ---1990: The 1990 Comprehensive Plan stated: "Wetlands within the City are limited in number and size. * * * * On shore, across from Hall Island, exist several more acres of wetlands bounded by trees which is basically a wildlife habitat. These wetlands are good wildlife habitats. They should be preserved as such and no development should be allowed there." Comp. Plan, P.9-10, [Emphasis supplied.] This was recognition of the uniqueness of the Southwest Corner. Current Comprehensive Plan: Wetlands are mentioned several times in the current Comprehensive Plan, for instance: LU -4.1: "The City shall continue to enforce regulations which protect environmentally sensitive land (e.g. wetlands, beaches and dunes)." -7- CM -1: "The City shall protect, conserve or enhance the two remaining coastal wetlands ... [and] wildlife habitat...." CM -1.1: "The City shall develop guidelines to protect, conserve and, where possible, seek restoration of... wetlands ... [and] wildlife habitat ...." CM -2.1: "The City shall work toward limiting the specific and cumulative impacts of development ... upon wetlands ... {and) wildlife habitat...." C-4.6: "The City shall enact an ordinance which provides for adequate upland buffering of the only shoreside wetlands in Cape Canaveral." Southwest Corner—Wetlands? The location of the wetlands about which the current Comprehensive Plan speaks is unknown. So far as is known, the wetlands in the Southwest Corner of the City have all been filled in. This is an example of how the area has been mismanaged and allowed to change over time without planning and oversight by responsible government agencies. But, the past does not have to be prologue. Even though the wetlands have been destroyed the area remains unique and that uniqueness can be preserved with proper land management. Southwest Corner—Wildlife Habitat The Southwest Corner remains an environmentally sensitive area because (1) it has the lowest housing density in the City, (2) it still has a high concentration of trees, and, (3) because it is on the Banana River. All the homes in the Southwest Corner are single-family, stand alone dwellings. Quite a few that adjoin Holman Road are on lots of an acre or more. This is one of the few places in Cape Canaveral that lots of such size exist. These lots support a range of tree types including a variety of palms, bay, live oak, mulberry, avocado, banana, citrus, mango, mangrove, gumbo -limbo, Simpson stoppers, mimosa, poinciana, and chiffilera. Sea grapes also grow in the area. The area is, or has been from time to time, home to ospreys, gulls, pelicans (both brown and the migratory white variety that do not go to sea, but stay on the river), ducks, grebes, anhinga, cormorants, great and little blue herons, red-tailed hawks, great horned owls, woodpeckers. -8- 1� � Raccoons, opossums and moles are also on the list of residents. As for snakes, there are black snakes, red rat snakes and ring neck snakes plus the occasional pygmy rattler and coral snake. Other residents have included alligators, toads, frogs, turtles, land crabs and gopher tortoises. The resident who has lived in the area the longest ---for many decades ---claims the alligator snapping turtle on her property has been around for at least 50 years! The area has hosted visits from bald eagles, wood storks and wood ibis. Earl and Nancy McMillin have attempted to use their property to keep the area critter friendly. Two years ago they removed a reinforced concrete driveway of about 120 feet in length and planted the space with fruit trees, banana plants and plants that attract butterflies and bees. The current Comprehensive Plan states in CM -2.1, "The City shall work toward limiting the specific and cumulative impacts of development ... upon ...wildlife habitat and living marine resources." As for "living marine resources", the current Comprehensive Plan at C-2.8 says, "The City shall maintain an ordinance which prohibits the removal of littoral vegetation from the Banana River." This is to protect creatures living in the river. The current Comprehensive Plan says in CM -1.6, "In cooperation with state and federal agencies and private developers, the City shall monitor development in those areas with overriding environmental limitations to development." His The current Comprehensive Plan also gives a nod to history. CM -10: "The City shall provide for protection, preservation, or sensitive reuse of historic resources ...." CM -10.2: "The City shall maintain a list of historic resource sites to be used to cross- check against proposed development." H-6: "The City shall take steps to identify and preserve all historically -significant housing. Holman Road is home to what was once a one -room school, the first school in Brevard County. One Holman Road property has a 19``' Century grave on it. -9- me Southwest Corner—Vision of the Future The future looks grim for the Southwest Comer if the lot split proposed in Section 98-63 is applied to it. At present there are 11 residences in the Holman Road area. There are 9 that use the dirt right of way to gain access to U.S. Highway AIA. Two vacant lots already exist. If they are built on, the total using Holman Road will rise from 9 to 11. The lot split ordinance opens the door for end runs that could create 15 more lots ---all of which will have to use the unpaved right-of-way. This jump could occur without any concurrency review; platting, advice from the Planning and Zoning Board or any involvement by all relevant City departments. Proposal It is believed that the Board should recommend to City Council that Section 98-63 in its current form needs to be changed to assure that the following protections are afforded throughout the City: 1. Concurrency Review. 2. Review by all relevant City departments. 3. Review by the Planning & Zoning Board. 4. Platting required for any property not within an existing platted subdivision. Additionally, whether or not the above protections become part of any lot split ordinance, it is respectfully submitted that the Board should recommend to City Council that the property in the Southwest Corner of the City be exempt from the operation of any lot split ordinance so that proper, careful monitoring of this unique area can take place. The exemption proposal is not unprecedented. For many years Special Exceptions could be granted for the construction of residences on property zoned for commercial use anywhere within the City. Not long ago the City Council, in recognition of the substantial changes in commercial area in the northwest corner of the City along U.S. Highway AIA, changed the law. Special Exceptions for residential use of commercial property are no longer allowed in that unique area. -10- f� 19 Invitation First time visitors to the Holman Road area are always amazed that such a place exists. Residents who have lived and worked in this locale for decades are surprised to learn about it. Such a unique area needs to be carefully managed, not just for the people and the critters, which live there now, but for generations yet to come. Earl and Nancy McMillin with to extend an invitation to any interested person, whether City staffer, Board member or resident, to call them at (321) 783-8834 and arrange to visit their property and be shown the Southwest Corner area firsthand. Thank You Thank you, not only for taking the time to review the foregoing, but also for your service to the City as a volunteer on the Planning and Zoning Board. 5 December 2009 -11- T� ao - --o- - -- - Susan Chapman From: Barry Brown [brown-cape@cfl.rr.coml Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 11:39 AM To: chapman-cape@cfl.rr.com Subject: FW: 04-2009 Lot Split Ordinance From: Hartley Charles[mailto:Charles.Hartley@xlgroup.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 3:25 PM To: klatorre@orlandolaw.net Cc: beazzycape@cfl.rr.com; famruss376@cfl.rr.com; dsamudrazupta@aol.com; harrymp@cn.rr.com; rfriendman999@bellsouth.net; brown-cape@cfl.rr.com Subject: 04-2009 Lot Split Ordinance Kate, I not only agree with Earl McMillin but I don't see how the City can adopt this Lot Split Ordinance and remain in compliance with Florida's laws and its own Ordinances. No matter how one attempts to turn the definition of subdivision, this is still a division of land and it's still a subdivision. If it is a subdivision, the issue becomes whether a City can waive the platting process for the subdivision of lots or parcels. Under the laws of Florida and the City, it cannot. The question then becomes, whether by giving something a new name (Lot Split), it changes its substance and character (subdivision), namely, by calling the subdivision of a lot or parcel a Lot Split, does it change its substance and character. The City's definition of subdivision is clearer in its reading than the state's and I would presume the forefathers did so intentionally. The City's definition was taken verbatim from The Department of Commence Standard City Planning Enabling Act (SCPEA) of 1928. The SCPEA had this footnote: "Every division of a piece of land into two or more lots, parcels, or parts.is, of course, a subdivision. The intention is to cover all subdivision of land where the immediate or ultimate purpose is that of selling the lots or building on them. The object of inserting a definition in the text of the act is to avoid the inclusion, within the planning commission's control, of such cases as a testator's dividing his property amongst his children, partners' dividing firm property amongst themselves on dissolution or cases of that nature." State - "Subdivision" means the division of land Into three or more lots, parcels, tracts, tiers, blocks, sites, units, or any other division of land; and includes establishment of new streets and alleys, additions, and resubdivisions; and, when appropriate to the context, relates to the Process of subdividina or to the lands or area subdivided. City - "Subdivision means the division of a tract of land into two or more lots or parcels for the purpose of transfer of ownership or building development or, if a new street is involved, any division of a tract of land. The term `subdivision' includes resubdivision. and replattin.g, and when appropriate to the context, shall relate to the process of subdividing or the land subdivided." As I read this, any dividing is a division of land and constitutes a subdivision. It a question of what was the size to begin with? Any subsequent division of land is a subdivision. The issue is really, how does a subdivision change the plat for a lot or parcel and when Is a plat review needed by the governing body. That brings us to the statutory requirements for plats and plat review. FS Chp. 177 states: Chp 177 - "Plat or replat" means a map or delineated representation of the subdivision of lands, being a complete exact representation of the subdivision and other information in compliance with the requirement of all applicable sections of this part and of any local ordinances. FS 177.041, ... when the replat affects any boundary of the previous platted property or 01/08/2010 dal - -a- - _- - when improvements which may affect the boundary of the previously platted property have been made on the lands to be replatted. 177.011 Purpose and scope of part I.—This part shall be deemed to establish consistent minimum requirements, and to create such additional powers in local governing bodies, as herein provided to regulate and control the platting of lands. This part establishes minimum requirements and does not exclude additional provisions or regulations by local ordinance, laws, or regulations. 177.021 Legal status of recorded plats.—The recording of any plats made in compliance with the provisions of this part shall serve to establish the identity of all lands shown on and being a part of such plats, and lands may thenceforth be conveyed by reference to such plat. 177.071 Approval of plat by governing bodies.— (1) Before a plat is offered for recording, it must be approved by the appropriate governing body, and evidence of such approval must be placed on the plat. If not approved, the governing body must return the plat to the professional surveyor and mapper or the legal entity offering the plat for recordation. For the purposes of this part: (a) When the plat to be submitted for approval is located wholly within the boundaries of a municipality, the governing body of the municipality has exclusive jurisdiction to approve the plat. Now, please read the section: 177.091 Plats made for recording. --Every plat of a subdivision offered for recording shall conform to the following: (1) It must be: [Which is too long to insert] If the City waives the platting requirements to allow for subdivisionswithin pre-existing R-1 Low Density Residential Districts, I submit that they are in violation of the requirements of Florida Law for plat review and their own Ordinances, and they run the risk of omitting and overlooking important development issues that would otherwise be reviewed during the platting process. We believe we have vested rights in reliance upon the existing laws and ordinances that were in place and upon which we relied when we purchased our property. The City has not demonstrated any substantial need or reason to make this change. Rather, thereis better logic and significant reason to exempt the City's R-1 Low Density Residential Districts from the Lot Split Ordinance. Thanks, Charlie Charles Hartley 399 Holman Road Cape Canaveral, FL 32920. Res: 321-783-8367 cell: 321-431-5704 Fax 321-783-9073 chartley0_cfl.rr_com -----.--_.--.___.____.----._-._. CONFIDENTIALITY: This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, or distribution or the taking of any action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this communication and destroy all copies. 01/08/2010 M" January 2010 i� �L,, moi' Susan Chapman Secretary, Planning & Zoning Board City of Cape Canaveral P.O. Box 326 Cape Canaveral, Florida. 32920-0326 Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 04-2009 Dear Secretary Chapman: Kindly advise the Planning and Zoning Board at its next meeting, on Wednesday, January 13, 2010, that we strongly suggest that it is in the best interest of all the citizens of Cape Canaveral that the Board recommend to the City Council that all R-1 Low Density Residential property be exempt from the operation of any streamlined, "lot split" ordinance. Only a small portion of the City is zoned R-1 Low Density Residential and most of the City is already developed. Sincerely Vito Caputo. TIS a3 7 January 2010 Mr. Ronald B. Friedman 742 Bayside Drive No. 405 Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920 Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 04-2009 Dear Mr. Friedman: My wife and I hope that you and yours had enjoyable holidays and we wish you and yours the very best in the New Year. On December 28, 2009, the City Attorney completed a new draft of Ordinance No 04-2009. In my view, somewhere in the proposed Sec. 98-63. Lot Splits additional language should be inserted along these lines: "No property zoned R-1 Low Density Residential shall be subdivided under this Section. All property zoned R-1 Low Density Residential shall be subject to all the laws governing subdivisions. " In other words, exclude all R-1 property from the "lot split" procedure. This is in the best interests of the entire City because: 1. R-1 Low Density Residential is scarce in the City. 2. It continues the protections afforded unique areas such as the one in which I live, the Southwest Corner. 3. It allows the City a means of dealing with situations such as occurred with respect to Burger King through the "lot split" mechanism. 4. It avoids all concerns that some may have about unequal treatment or taking. -I- After reviewing the work of the City Attorney it is apparent that diligence was exercised in attempting to address concerns voiced by Members of the Planning & Zoning Board and the audience. Still I am uneasy. It is conceivable that in trying to create a list of protections in the revision some important aspects of concern has been overlooked. What they may be I have no idea. But, the hair on the nape of my neck is telling me that there may actually be monsters under the bed. For instance, the proposal says, "(d) No further division of an approved lot split is permitted under this section, unless a plat is prepared and approved in accordance with this Article." That does not say one lot split per parcel. That says after one lot split a plat is necessary. It seems to leave the door open to using lot splits to evade the usual subdivision requirements. So, I hope to see you on January 13, and thank you again for your time and effort. Sincerely, Earl McMillin Cc: Susan Chapman Secretary, Planning & Zoning Board -2- M January 2010 Susan Chapman Secretary, Planning & Zoning Board City of Cape Canaveral P.O. Box 326 Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920-0326 Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 04-2009 Dear Secretary Chapman: Kindly advise the Planning and Zoning Board at its next meeting, on Wednesday, January 13, 2010, that we strongly suggest that it is in the best interest of all the citizens of Cape Canaveral that the Board recommend to the City Council that all R-1 Low Density Residential property be exempt from the operation of any streamlined, "lot split" ordinance. Only a small portion of the City is zoned R-1 Low Density Residential and most of the City is already developed. Charles Hartley Sincerely pP a� January 2010 Susan Chapman Secretary, Planning & Zoning Board City of Cape Canaveral P.O. Box 326 Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920-0326 Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 04-2009 Dear Secretary Chapman: Kindly advise the Planning and Zoning Board at its next meeting, on Wednesday, January 13, 2010, that we strongly suggest that it is in the best interest of all the citizens of Cape Canaveral that the Board recommend to the City Council that all R-1 Low Density Residential property be exempt from the operation of any streamlined, "lot split" ordinance. Only a small portion of the City is zoned R-1 Low Density Residential and most of the City is already developed. Gary Zajack Sincerely Carolyn Zajacl pp,7 January 2010 Susan Chapman Secretary, Planning & Zoning Board City of Cape Canaveral P.O. Box 326 Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920-0326 Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 04-2009 Dear Secretary Chapman: Kindly advise the Planning and Zoning Board at its next meeting, on Wednesday, January 13, 2010, that we strongly suggest that it is in the best interest of all the citizens of Cape Canaveral that the Board recommend to the City Council that all R-1 Low Density Residential property be exempt from the operation of any streamlined, "lot split" ordinance. Only a small portion of the City is zoned R-1 Low Density Residential and most of the City is already developed. Maw Conrad Wilson Sincerely Lindsey Wilson COMPARISON OF CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL'S PROPOSED LOT SPLIT ORDINANCE WITH CITY OF COCOA BEACH'S LOT SPLIT ORDINANCE Cocoa Beach Sec. 5-39 Topic Cape Canaveral Sec. 98-53 Minor Subdivisions and Lot Splits Lot Splits Section covers minor subdivisions and lot Minor Subdivision / Lot Splits Section covers Lot Splits only Section, no Splits provisions for minor subdivisions This article is intended to... to ensure proper Purpose (a) Any subdivision of land into two 2 or identification, monumentation and recording of more parcels shall be subject to the real estate boundaries; to ensure that adequate requirements of this article. and necessary physical improvements of (b) Before such lot or tract is divided, the lasting quality will be installed in subdivision lots or tracts to be divided shall be surveyed and approved by plat or lot by the developers to provide for safe and convenient traffic circulation; to provide an splits... in accordance with the efficient, adequate and economic supply of provisions of this article and Chapter utilities and services to new land 177, Florida Statutes. developments; to prevent periodic or seasonal flooding through provision of protective flood [FL Clip. 177, Municipalities, Land Boundaries control and drainage facilities; to help conserve provides requirements for subdivisions and and protect physical and scenic, resources; to approval and recording of plats. The City is promote the public health, safety, comfort suggesting the creation of subdivisions by lot convenience and general welfare, and to splits for lots within parcels that were surveyed and platted before the creation of the City in implement the city's comprehensive plan. 1965. This creates complex issues regarding conformance.] This will be an informal conference that will Preapplication The preapplication process was deleted in address issues that commonly become entirely. problems during plat submittal as well as any issues the applicant or the department of development services foresees as potential rcblems. COMPARISON OF CITE OF CAPE CANAVERAL'S PROPOSED LOT SPLIT ORDINANCE WITH CITY OF COCOA BEACH'S LOT SPLIT ORDINANCE Each proposed lot must confirm to the Lot Split Purpose Lot Plot purpose is to grant waivers from the provisions of this chapter. [Chapter covers all platting requirements of this Article for requirements as to subdivision and minor divisions of land. subdivision development including platting, surveys, title and public records. The division of a single tract of land into two Definition of Lot Split A division of land or lot of a tract that will (2) lots or parcels, where there are no roadway, result in exactly one (1) add. Lot or tract of land. drainage or other required improvements and where the resultant lots comply with the standards of these regulations. Standards Each proposed lot must confirm to the Conformance The lot to be split is a previously platted lot or provisions of this chapter [Chapter is for legal description of record. Subdivisions]. Each lot shall abut a public or private street Streets & Roads Each lot or tract of land created hereafter shall except as provided in this section for the Policy and Fire Protection abut a public or private street unless perpetual required minimum lot width for the zoning Access cross -access easements exist on the lot to be split or are determined not to be necessary, or, district/category where the lots are located. In districts, however, where single-family if necessary, are provided by separate dwellings are a permitted use, any lot which instrument. cannot conform to the minimum property frontage requirements may be allowed to abut a public or private street for only twenty-five (25) feet, or have access provided at a minimum, with a perpetual access easement containing a road or drive that is deemed passable by the police and fire departments for the purpose of constructing one (1) single - I family dwellinonl . C2 U> COMPARISON OF CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL'S PROPOSED LOT SPLIT ORDINANCE WITH CITY OF COCOA BEACH'S LOT SPLIT ORDINANCE Each proposed lot must confirm to the Compliance The lot split shall in every respect meet the provisions of this chapter [Chapter is for criteria established elsewhere in this article Subdivisions]. Plats and the city code for the category of zoning and other relevant codes under which the property is zoned. [Note: the stated purpose waives the criteria established in this Article If any lot abuts a street right-of-way which Payment A statement indicating whether new street, are does not conform to the design specifications for required off-site to provide sufficient access or provided in these regulations, the owner may Street Improvements municipal services to the subject land be required to dedicate the width necessary to meet the minimum desigg re uirements. Application A statement indicating whether water and/or Utilities A statement indicating whether water, sewer, sanitary sewer service is available to the drainage structures, or other infrastructure are property. required. Land descriptions and acreage of the two (2) Description Legal descriptions and acreage of the two proposed lots and a scaled drawing showing proposed lots or tracts of land and a scaled the intended division shall be prepared by a drawing showing the intended division shall be professional land surveyor registered in the prepared by a duly licensed land surveyor in state. If a lot contains any principal or Florida. If a lot of tract of land contains any accessory structures, a survey showing the principal or accessory structures, a survey structures on the lot shall accompany the showing the structures on the lot or tract of land application. A survey is not required for vacant shall accompany the application. lots. If the drawing is not a survey it shall be clearly indicated and labeled, "this is not a surve ." City Procedures 9 COMPARISON OF CIT'V OF CAPE CANAVERAL'S PROPOSED LOT SPLIT ORDINANCE WITH CITY OF COCOA BEACH'S LOT SPLIT ORDINANCE The development services department shall Review Process [Procedures unclear. It states the application then transmit a copy of the proposed lot split to copies will be provided to the Planning Official the several departments of the city for review and he shall determine the number of copies. The departmental review is not stated and is at and comments. the direction of the Planning Official. The development services department shall Limitations on Approval No Provisions process only those lot splits which do not require any street, sidewalk, bikeway, bridge drainage facility, screening wall, or any other improvement re uired under this code. If the proposed lot split meets the conditions of Approving Department After review and comment by staff, submit this section and otherwise complies with all revised lot split plans for review by the City Council. applicable laws and ordinances the director or designee shall approve the lot split by affixing his/her signature to the application form. [CB's lot split only applies to an parcel in an existing subdivision that was previously Tatted. Upon approval of the lot split, the development Recording Upon approval of the lot split by resolution of services department shall record the split on the City Council, the resolution is duly recorded the gggropriate city ma s and documents. in the public records. Restrictions Lot splits are not permitted in minor Where not Permitted No Provisions subdivisions approved in accordance with the provisions of this article. No further division of an approved lot split is Further Division No further division of an approved lot split is permitted under this section, unless a minor permitted under this section, unless a plat is subdivision or record plat is prepared and approved in accordance with this article rArticle COMPARISON OF CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL'S PROPOSED LOT SPLIT ORDINANCE WITH CITY OF COCOA BEACH'S LOT SPLIT ORDINANCE submitted in accordance with this article pertains to Plats only]. JArticle requires conformance to Chapter, Subdivisionsl PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 13, 2010 A Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on January 13, 2010, at the City Canaveral Public Library, 201 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Bea McNeely, Chairperson, called the meeting to Order at 7:00 p.m. The Secretary called the roll. MEMBERS PRESENT Bea McNeely Lamar Russell John Fredrickson Donald Dunn Harry Pearson John Johanson Ronald Friedman OTHERS PRESENT Barry Brown Todd Morley Susan Chapman Kate Latorre Robert Hoog NEW BUSINESS Chairperson Vice Chairperson 1 st Alternate 2nd Alternate Planning & Development Director Building Official Secretary Assistant City Attorney Council Member 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes: November 18, 2009. Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by John Fredrickson, to approve the meeting minutes of November 18, 2010. Donald Dunn advised that a correction needed to be made on page 5, 1 st paragraph, 2nd sentence to read as follows: "Donald Dunn suggested having changes made in the city code to eliminate floor heights and building heights, and only count the number of floors." Discussion followed. Donald Dunn moved for an amendment to the minutes on page 5. Chairperson McNeely asked. if there was a second. John Fredrickson seconded the motion. Chairperson McNeely asked the Secretary to call the question. The Secretary called the roll. The amendment passed unanimously. Chairperson McNeely asked Donald Dunn to state his amendment. Donald Dunn stated that on page 5, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence, to remove the period after the word height and add the words "and only count the number of floors." Lamar Russell questioned what the Board had just done. Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney, explained that a motion was made to amend the minutes as Donald Dunn previously stated. Unless the Board had questions, she didn't believe it needed to be restated. She clarified that they just passed a motion to amend, and now, if everyone was in agreement, there needed to be a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Lamar Russell questioned why the motion wouldn't be to approve the minutes, as amended. He asked if they needed to make amendments to amend the amendments. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 13, 2010 Page 2 Kate Latorre explained that that is how the motion was stated. She asked that the Board make a motion to approve the minutes, as amended. Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by Donald Dunn, to approve the minutes, as amended. Vote on the motion, as amended, carried unanimously. 2. Approval of Meeting Minutes: December 9, 2009. Susan Chapman, Secretary, advised that she made a change to the draft minutes, as requested by Board member John Johnson; and the changes were highlighted and provided to the board members at this meeting. Motion by Donald Dunn, seconded by Harry Pearson, to accept the minutes, as amended. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 3. Special Exception Request No. 09-04. to Serve Alcoholic Beverages in the C-1 Zoning District. (6615 N. Atlantic Avenue, Unit C) - Section 23 Township 24 South, Range 37 East, Parcel 511.0 - Brigitte Krause Petitioner for Supra Color Enterprises, Inc. Property Owner. Chairperson McNeely read the agenda item for the record. Barry Brown, Planning & Development Director, reported that this was a request for the on -premise consumption of alcoholic beverages; the property currently has a special exception that allows for beer and wine only; the owner would like to serve liquor and upgrade their alcoholic beverages license from 2COP to 4COP; the applicant is Brigitte Krause for Izzy's Bistro; the property owner is .Supra Color Enterprises, Inc., Kurt Tezel, President; the subject property is located at 6615 N. Atlantic Avenue, Suite C; the future land use and zoning designation is C-1; the surrounding zoning to the North C-1, East County Commercial, South C-1, West C-1; Surrounding uses: North - vacant, East - commercial, South vacant, West - condominiums. Mr. Brown reported on the property history and description. He advised that Brigitte Krause, owner of Izzy's, wanted to be able to serve liquor; Izzy's is within 2,000 ft. of another establishment serving alcohol; city code calls for a minimum of 200 seats for a restaurant to be exempt from the requirement of a 2,000 ft. separation from another establishment selling alcohol; Izzy's requested that the city revise the code to require that a restaurant have only 150 seats to be exempted from the distance requirement. City Council adopted the ordinance revision on August 4, 2009; on June 23, 2009 staff met with representatives of Izzy's Bistro regarding the proposed code amendment; in preparation for that meeting, Todd Morley prepared the memo dated June 22, 2009, contained in the Board packet; the memo identified the issues to be addressed once the code was revised, specifically parking and sewer impact fees. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 13, 2010 Page 3 The Planning & Development Director advised that on September 1, 2009, he met with Kurt Tezel, property owner, to discuss the parking situation. He was provided parking calculations and was apprised that if parking cannot be provided on site, the city code allows for parking to be provided off-site within 500 ft. of the establishment; also, a parking agreement signed by each party is required. Staff was not aware of any other option, short of a variance, to provide relief from required parking. City code requires that a special exception be granted by the Board of Adjustment for a restaurant to serve alcohol; Izzy's current special exception allows for beer and wine only. On November 4, 2009, staff met with Brigitte Krause and Gary Kirkland in a special exception pre -application meeting, where requirements of code and the special exception worksheet were discussed, as well as parking. He clarified that the city code allows for parking to be provided off-site parking. He explained that subsequent to the meeting, it was brought to his attention that additional seats {76-150 seats} had been installed. However, the impact fees addressed in Todd Morley's memo of June 22, 2009, had not been paid. Also, at some point, the question was raised as to whether all impact fees had been paid for the existing 75 seats; to this point, staffs research confirms that impact fees for 25 seats were paid, but does not show that impact fees for the expansion from 25 seats to 75 seats were paid. He advised that staff has discussed the possibility of an impact fee payment plan with the applicant. The Planning & Development Director stated that all special exception recommendations and final decisions shall be based on the following criteria to the extent possible. He gave a report regarding the special exception worksheet and staff analysis. Regarding land use and zoning, he advised that the requested special exception was consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, in that C-1 commercial land use classification allows for restaurant uses; the requested special exception would be consistent with the intent of the zoning district in which it is sought, because restaurants are principal uses in C-1 commercial zoning; the requested special exception would meet all the requirements of the zoning district in which the request is to be located, such as: lot requirements, building setbacks, lot coverage, height, buffers, off-street parking, signs, storage, and landscaping, etc., with the exception of off-street parking. The Planning & Development Director reported on special conditions for establishments serving alcoholic beverages. He verified that the establishment was not within 300 ft. of any existing church, school ground, or playground; or within 300 ft. of the mean high water line of the Atlantic Ocean or of the Banana River. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 13, 2010 Page 4 The Planning & Development Director reported on the impact to surrounding properties. He advised that the restaurant is an established use, currently serving beer and wine, and is compatible with the surrounding area; as the establishment is currently, the scale and intensity of the proposed special exception is compatible and harmonious with adjacent land uses. He advised that the request does not change the nature of the current operation, and would not create any adverse impacts to other properties in the surrounding area, through the creation of noise, light, vibration, odor, stormwater runoff, or other offsite impacts that would not have been created had the property been developed as a principle use; there was adequate screening and buffing; off- street parking would need to be addressed per city code, but actual impact of additional seating can be handled on-site, as long as the hours of operation of other uses in the building remained daytime hours; the size and shape of the site, the proposed access, internal circulation, and design enhancements will be adequate to accommodate the proposed scale and intensity of the special exception requested; signs and exterior lighting is designed and located so as to promote traffic safety and to minimize any undue glare or incompatibility with adjoining properties; the hours of operation will be 4:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday; and would have no impact to surrounding properties. The Planning & Development Director gave a report on traffic and parking. He advised that per city code, the site is 35 parking spaces short. He commented that in practice, as long as other users in the building continued to operate during the daytime, there should be adequate parking on site; there is adequate ingress and egress, with particular reference to auto and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow, and emergency access; there would be more traffic, but it was not quantified; and there was adequate loading and unloading areas. The Planning & Development Director reported on public services. He verified that there are adequate utilities available; the proposed special exception would not create any unusual demand for police, fire, or emergency services; the proposed special exception would not have an adverse impact on public service, including: water, sewer, surface water management, parks and recreation, streets, public transportation, marina and waterways, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities; and there was adequate refuse facility for the use. The Planning & Development Director advised the Board on miscellaneous impacts. He verified that the proposed special exception would not have an adverse impact on the natural environment, including: air, water, noise pollution, vegetation, wildlife, open space, noxious and desirable vegetation, and flood hazards; the special exception would not have any adverse impact on historic, scenic, and cultural resources including: views and vistas, and loss or degradation of cultural and historic resources; the proposed special exception would not have any adverse impact on the local economy, including governmental fiscal impact, employment, and property values; and would not have an adverse impact on housing and social conditions, including a variety of housing unity types and prices, and neighborhood quality. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 13, 2010 Page 5 The Planning & Development Director gave staffs recommendation. He advised that city staff recommended approval of the requested special exception with the conditions that parking be provided, per the city code; and that sewer impact fees be paid. Burton Green, Esquire, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He advised that if he Understood staffs report, two issues needed to be addressed. One was the parking issue, and the other was impact fees regarding seating. He advised that the applicant was not denying their liability for the impact of the 75 to 150 seats; the issue was whether or not the applicant was liable for the impact fees that were not paid, by prior occupants of the building, who added the extra seats, from 25 to 75 seats, there position was that they should not be liable for what someone else should have paid and did not. That was an issue that the City should have addressed when the seats were added by previous owners. He asked that the impact fees from 25 to 75 seats not be required of the current owner. The current owner only pay for the 75 to 150 seats that they wished to put in to meet the requirement of the city code to allow them to serve alcoholic beverages. Unless there was case law that says that the current occupant is required to pay what a previous occupant should have paid. If so, the current occupant would ask the city to waive that requirement for Izzy's; and just require that she pay the impact fees for the actual addition that she is putting into the restaurant. Discussion followed. Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney, advised the Board that they have no authority to waive impact fees; it would need to be worked out administratively, and could not be a condition of the special exception. Attorney Green stated his position regarding parking. He believed that they only needed six additional parking spaces. He explained that the city code Section 110-171, states one parking space for every three seats. With 150 seats, they would need a total of 50 parking spaces to meet the requirement of the code. City staff has confirmed that the premises have 44 parking spaces. He submitted a copy of the current Lease between the applicant and property owner (entered as Exhibit A). He advised that there was nothing indicated in the Lease that restricted the applicant from using all 44 parking spaces. He explained that it may have been a problem, realistically, is the restaurant was open during the daytime, competing with the other businesses that were open. However, the restaurant was open from 4 p.m. to 10 p.m.; therefore, not having access to all 44 parking spaces was not an issue. He advised that there was not time to obtain a signed agreement from the adjacent property (Mr. Porter), however, he acknowledged in an e-mail (entered as Exhibit B), that he was giving them permission to use 10 parking spaces, in the foreseeable future. They also obtained a verbal agreement from another property owner (King Fireworks), which is located within 500 ft. of this establishment, permission . to use approximately 15 to 20 parking spaces, after 5:00 p.m. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 13, 2010 Page 6 Attorney Green advised that he understood that the parking agreements must be in writing. He clarified that with Mr. Porter's permission to use 10 parking spaces, and that only 7 additional spaces were required, the requirement of the city code would be met. He assured the Board that in addition to the 10 spaces, they would also obtain a written agreement for an additional 20 spaces from King Fireworks. John Fredrickson asked Mr. Green if he understood that in order to meet the requirements of the city code for parking, that the restaurant would never be able to be open for lunch. Mr. Green acknowledged that that was correct, with the exception that if the current owner who is only interested in a night time business wishes to sell the business to someone who wants to be open for lunch, he presumed that the owner could remove seats in order to meet the parking requirements; however, with agreements for off-site parking, they could meet that requirement. He advised that the current owner had no interest in opening the restaurant prior to 4:00 p.m. Donald Dunn commented that the fireworks property was located outside the city limits. Mr. Green responded that the city code did not restrict them from obtaining off-site parking agreements from establishments outside the city limits. Mr. Dunn asked if they were going to obtain an agreement for indefinite use of the property. Gary Kirkland, on behalf of the applicant, testified that the applicant was speaking directly with the property owner and it was understood that if the agreement was to expire, they would have to go to another property owner and obtain an agreement. Barry Brown clarified that they would always need an agreement from somebody to meet the parking requirements to be in compliance with the special exception. Discussion continued regarding parking agreements. Kate Latorre advised that there needed to be a provision in the agreements that the city would have to be notified in the event that the agreement would be terminated. She noted that if they lost their off-site parking, the special exception may be revoked, because it would no longer meet the requirements, and therefore, the special exception would not be valid. Attorney Green requested that in the approval of the special exception that it be noted that the city acknowledges that all they need is six off-site parking spaces to meet the parking requirement of city code. Mr. Green reiterated that the lease does not restrict them from always having access to 44 parking spaces. He noted that regardless, they would still have over 30 parking spaces available to them off-site. Discussion followed. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 13, 2010 Page 7 Bary Brown clarified that 79 parking spaces were required for the property, as a whole, and only 44 parking spaces were provided, therefore they were short 35 parking spaces. He commented that it appeared the applicant was calculating the parking spaces as if they were the only use on the site. Mr. Green responded that he did not want to get into whether or not the entire building complied with parking requirements. He noted that with the exception of the Co- op, all the other businesses were closed by 4:00 p.m., so they were' not competing with the other uses. Following discussion regarding parking calculations, it was agreed that 35 additional parking spaces were needed to meet the requirements of the city code. Harry Pearson advised that the special exception application did not include a seating plan, which was necessary to show the required minimum of 150 seats. Mr. Green responded that they provided a drawing, but did not know if it met the requirement of the submittal. Mr. Pearson suggested that they find out if it met the requirement, and if not, provide the diagram. Mr. Russell commented that they could provide the drawing to the Board of Adjustment, and staff could simply verify the seating. Mr. Pearson responded that it should have been provided to the Planning & Zoning Board. Barry Brown advised that per the city code, the number of seats were to have been provided, in a tabular form, and they were to provide a floor plan, which they did. He did not believe that the code required an actual seating plan; they would need to provide that when seeking approval from the state, to increase their seating from 75 to 150, but not at this point. Mr. Pearson advised that he must see the seating plan. Todd Morley, Building Official, advised that staff did talk to the applicant about needing a seating plan. He referred to his memo, dated June 22, 2009. He noted that they even asked for it back then. He advised that it still has not been provided. He clarified that the reason staff asked for a seating plan, was to verify that they could fit 150 seats, and be able to fit them in accordance with the egress code, and the handicap accessibility code. However, these were not conditions of the special exception approval, which was a use approval. He clarified that these were more compliance issues that anyone would have to comply with. Kate Latorre inquired if staff has seen any evidence that they could seat 150. Todd Morley and Barry Brown replied that they hadn't seen anything yet. Gary Kirkland advised that they received approval from the State for 150 seats, based on approvals from the city fire department. He noted that all the seats would not be located indoors. They were proposing 120 seats indoors which fits into the fire department's calculation, plus 30 seats outdoors which brings them 150 seats. They did provide a sketch of the floor plan showing 120 seats indoors and 30 outside, but they did not have the specific arrangement of tables. Discussion was held regarding outside seating. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 13, 2010 Page 8 Mr. Kirkland testified that they were fairly confident that they could fit 120 seats inside, based on a floor space calculation. He advised that the occupant load allows for 133 seats inside. He confirmed that 150 seats is a requirement by the State to approve the 4COP license. They were confident that they would meet the seating requirements, and confirmed that if they could not meet that requirement that the special exception would be revoked, and would not qualify - for their alcohol license. Discussion followed. Mr. Green confirmed that they would provide a seating plan. Motion by Lamar Russell, seconded by Bea McNeely, to recommend approval of Special Exception 09-04 to the Board of Adjustment, with the following conditions: • Parking agreements shall be in place to provide parking in accordance with city codes. • Provide a dimensional drawing showing the main assembly area of the restaurant, as well as any exterior seating, with the proposed number of tables and chairs. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. Chairperson McNeely called for a break at 8:18 p.m. She called the meeting back to Order at 8:30 p.m. 3. Recommendation to the City Council Re: Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 98, Subdivisions. Relating to Plats: -Amending and Clarifying the Criteria Required for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plat Review and Approval: Providing a Procedure for Review and Consideration of Lot Splits: Providing for the Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Ordinances and Resolutions - Kate Latorre. Assistant City Attorney. Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney, advised that she made changes to the draft ordinance based on the Board's recommendations at the last meeting. John Johanson made several suggestions for more changes. The Board held discussion as they reviewed and discussed those proposed changes. Earl McMillin and Charles Hartley addressed the Board. They requested that all documents they submitted at the last meeting and this meeting be made part of the official record. Discussion followed regarding Mr. McMillin's letter dated December 21, 2009. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 13, 2010 Page 9 Motion by Donald Dunn, seconded by Lamar Russell that all letters and correspondence received at this meeting, and the previous meeting, from Mr. McMillin, Mr. Hartley, and others are included in the record. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. Mr. McMillin and Mr. Hartley made the following comments: There was not a lot of R-1, low density residential in the city; of the city's 1,112 acres, only 163 acres or 13% of the city is R-1; 93% of the city is built -out; a survey performed by Mr. McMillin revealed that of all the R-1 properties throughout the city there were only ten potential lot splits, and six of them abut Holman Road; certain characteristics of Holman Road made it a unique area; city should exempt R-1 properties if they were going to allow lot splits; there was no public need to include R-1. Mr. McMillin asked that a motion be made to exempt R-1 from any lot split ordinance. The Board Secretary read a letter into the record, dated January 2010, signed by six residents of Holman Road. Discussion was held regarding applying the same criteria for a preliminary and final plat into one application for a lot split. Following the Board's discussion, by unanimous consensus, the Board members agreed to the following additional changes to the draft ordinance, dated January 8, 2010: Pages 1 - 4: No additional changes. • Page 5: Separate the information on the plat from the Topographic requirements. Therefore, (1) through (N) become Topographic information, and are re -lettered (example: (1) becomes (c) and the rest of the factors fall as subsections under (c). • Pages 6 -10:No additional changes. • Page 11: Keep letters (a) (b) (d) and 0). All other letters are eliminated. • Page 12: No additional changes. • Page 13: Remove new sub -section (1); reword new sub -section (2) regarding dedication for public use; and move items (3) & (4) to Section 98-59, on page 14. (3) becomes (c), and (4) becomes (d). Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 13, 2010 Page 10 • Page 15: Remove criteria (3) (4) & (5) • Page 16: Remove criteria (6) (7) (8) & (9); Division 5. Lot Splits remove the first sentence; and combine preliminary and final into one application and approval process. Brief discussion followed on whether or not to review the new revised draft before making recommendation to the City Council. Motion by Bea McNeely, seconded by Donald Dunn to postpone recommendation until the Board reviews the revised draft again at the next meeting. Vote on the motion carried by majority, with members voting as follows: Donald Dunn, for; John Fredrickson, against; Bea McNeely, for; Harry Pearson, for; and Lamar Russell, for. OPEN DISCUSSION There was no open discussion. Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by Donald Dunn, to adjourn the meeting at 9:59 P.M. Bea McNe-eW Chain)er;on Susan L. Chapman,