Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 Jan - DecLOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 10, 2008 A Local Planning Agency Meeting was held on December 10, 2008, at the City Hall Annex, 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Chairperson Bea McNeely called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Bea McNeely Chairperson John Fredrickson Donald Dunn Harry Pearson John Johanson 1 st Alternate MEMBERS ABSENT Lamar Russell Vice Chairperson Ron Friedman 2nd Alternate OTHERS PRESENT Susan Chapman Board Secretary Barry Brown City Planner NEW BUSINESS: Approval of Meeting Minutes: February 27 2008. Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by Donald Dunn to approve the meeting minutes of February 27, 2008. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 2. Review and Recommendation to City Council Re: Ordinance NO 12-2008 Adopting the 5 -Year Schedule of Capital Improvements Barry Brown, Planning & Zoning Director, advised that the Planning & Zoning Board was convening as the Local Planning Agency. He explained that the sole purpose of the meeting was to review and recommend for adoption the 5 -Year Schedule of Capital Improvements. He noted that Florida Statutes mandates that every year local governments update their Capital Improvements Element, including the 5 -Year Schedule of Capital Improvements. He advised that next year the Board would be updating the Capital Improvements Element, as part of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) based amendment process. However, at this time, the City needed to update the 5 -Year Schedule of Capital Improvements so that the City could continue to amend the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that this agenda item was merely an administrative exercise and no policy direction was being proposed with this update. He explained that the Comprehensive Plan establishes minimum level of service standards for certain public facilities and services; the adopted levels of service must be maintained into the future; population projections are prepared and basic public facilities capacity analysis performed to determine the future capacity of the facilities. Local Planning Agency Meeting Minutes December 10, 2008 Page 2 Mr. Brown advised that an actual 5 -Year Schedule of Capital Improvements was not included in the agenda packet, but it would be available the following Wednesday. He noted that he used the public facilities capacity analysis provided in the EAR in the preparation of the following analysis: The City is directly responsible for the provision of sanitary sewer, stormwater/drainage, parks and recreation. No facilities for which the City is responsible will experience a deficit in Level of Service Standards (LOS) during the 5 -year time frame of the Schedule. The City of Cocoa supplies potable water and Brevard County provides solid waste disposal. Both have capacity beyond the planning period. Public Schools are the responsibility of Brevard County Public Schools and their Capital Improvements Plan has been approved by the State. None of the roadways in the City are projected to exceed capacity. As per the Public Works Director, Sanitary Sewer has an adopted LOS of 118 gallons, per person, per day, the capacity is 1,800,000 gallons per day, and therefore, there is no capacity issues projected. Stormwater and Drainage: All projects are required to meet St. Johns River Water Management Districts (SJRWMD) standards for on-site water retention and treatment. Parks and Recreation: Adopted LOS for parks is 2 acres/2000 population. Currently, the City has 34 acres in parks, and therefore, there is no capacity issues projected for parks. Population Projections to 2013: The City is projected to only have modest gains in population over the next 5 -Years. Given the economic recession, credit crunch, over built condo market, and the number of units in foreclosure, residential construction has come to a halt. The economy is not predicted to start turning around until 2010 and even then, it will grow slowly and the demand for new housing will likely grow slowly as well. In addition, our area will be affected by the retirement of the space shuttle and the lack of space activity before the Constellation program is started. Therefore, the City is projecting a 1.5% annual growth rate (the same rate as the last two years.) Discussion was held regarding: roadway improvement projects; the County would include most of the improvements on N. Atlantic Avenue before the City would take it over; in the future, the City plans to widen, realign and repave Ridgewood Avenue; the realignment of AIA and Astronaut Boulevard is not in the Department of Transportations 5 -Year plan; adding turn and decel lanes at Portside Villas, Villages of Seaport, and Shorewood Condominiums; future water shortages, and Brevard County already obtains water from Orange County; future water options such as: raising rates, growing only Bahia grass, treat water from SJRWMD, treat ocean water by taking out the salt to make it drinkable, and reverse osmosis. Mr. Brown advised that he would get back to the Board regarding how commercial uses were factored into the gallons per day analysis for the sanitary sewer LOS. Mr. Brown also advised that a definition of open space would be added to the EAR. Mr. Brown reiterated that this agenda item was an administrative exercise required by the State of Florida. He respectfully requested that the Board make its recommendation to City Council this evening, because he was trying to schedule the first reading of the ordinance on the City Council's agenda for December 16th. Local Planning Agency Meeting Minutes December 10, 2008 Page 3 Chairperson McNeely announced that since the Board did not have a copy of the proposed ordinance, she felt she was being asked to sign a blank check. At 7:50 p.m. Chairperson McNeely advised that the Board was taking a five minute break so that Mr. Brown could go to his office and return with a copy of the proposed ordinance that he was asking the Board to recommend approval of for the Board's review. Mr. Brown returned with the proposed ordinance. Chairperson McNeely called the meeting back to order. The Board members reviewed the proposed ordinance. Discussion followed. Motion by John Fredrickson, seconded by Harry Pearson, to recommend approval of proposed Ordinance No. 12-2008, adopting the 5 -Year Schedule of Capital Improvements. Vote on the motion carried by majority with Bea McNeely voting against. Chairperson McNeely explained why she voted against the motion. She stated that she did not think the ordinance included enough information to show the State what the City was planning to do over the next five years. The Board members held a discussion regarding ongoing roadway improvements on AIA and Central Boulevard. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Bea McNeely, Chairp rson d Susan L. apman, Board Secretary PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 22, 2008 A Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on October 22, 2008, at the City Hall Annex, 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Chairperson Bea McNeely 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 Kate Latorre Susan Chapman Barry Brown NEW BUSINESS Chairperson Vice Chairperson 1 st Alternate 2nd Alternate Assistant City Attorney Board Secretary Planning & Development Director 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes: September 24, 2008. Chairperson McNeely announced that the draft meeting minutes were revised. The Board members reviewed the revision. Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by Bea McNeely, to approve the meeting minutes of September 24, 2008, with the noted change. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 2: Recommendation to Board of Adiustment Re: Special Exception Request No. 08-06 to Construct a Single Family Residence in the C-1 Zoning District, Section 14, Township 24 South, Range 37 East, Lot A.02, Oak Lane - Bernard M. Lennon, Petitioner. Barry Brown, Planning & Development Director, advised that this request was a Special Exception to allow for a single family residence in the C-1 zoning district; the property was located on Oak Lane; the parcel was just under one acre; and currently vacant; property to the north was multi -family, west and south vacant, and to the east was a single family residence; the surrounding area was predominately residential; the request for residential use is with keeping in nature with the surrounding area. He advised that the only concern staff had was the Oak Street right-of-way. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 22, 2008 Page 2 He explained that the right-of-way was currently unimproved. Evidentially, over the years they have been dumping asphalt millings to build the roadway up. In the short-term, the existing roadway should be acceptable for Mr. Lennon's request. He noted that in the near future there may be another request for a single family across the street from Mr. Lennon's property. He advised that at some point, Oak Lane would need to be constructed to City standards; according to Public Works there was currently a 50 ft. wide right of way; if Mr. Haynes approaches the City again to construct a townhome development that will been a good time to bring the road up to City standards; on the south side of Oak Lane, there were several single family lots that at one time were replatted into townhome lots, but the project did not proceed and the preliminary plat expired; if the property owner decides to develop the property into townhome lots, that may also be the time that the City would decide to require Oak Lane to be brought up to City standards; Mr. Lennon was happy to use the roadway as it existed; water and sewer were available; and therefore, staff recommended approval of the Special Exception request. Dr. John Fredrickson questioned that at the recent workshops with City Council, at least two of the City Council members, and two or three members of the Planning & Zoning Board, swore off accepting special exceptions. He questioned why the City was still accepting applications. Barry Brown responded that an ordinance was passed that ended Special Exceptions, for residential use, in the C-1 zoning district, only on the properties along A1A. He advised that Mr. Lennon's property was not affected by that ordinance. Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney, verified that Mr. Lennon's request was valid. Ron Friedman referred to page #6 of the Board packet. He noted that what was referenced as Oak Lane, did not extend all the way to N. Atlantic Avenue. There was another parcel (Part of Parcel B and part of Parcel A.07) that would have normally been the right of way or the road. He questioned if Oak Lane was an official City road? And if Parcel B and A.07 were owned by two other people, then Mr. Lennon's lot was a landlocked piece of property, without legal access to the road. He questioned if the City wanted to have that traveled way upgraded to a City street, who would pay for it? Barry Brown responded that he spoke with Public Works and was informed that there was a 50 ft. right of way but, it did appear that it did not extend all the way to N. Atlantic Avenue. He would research the City records to verify if the City has some type of agreement across those properties. He advised that Circle K and LaCantina Restaurant may have been required to dedicate right of way, at some point, that may not be reflected on the parcel maps. Ron Friedman pointed out that even though tax maps are informative; they were not legal in terms of property lines. He recommended that if the Board recommends approving the Special Exception request that the approval be contingent upon the City Attorney confirming that there was an existing legal right of way owned by the City to the property. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 22, 2008 Page 3 Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by Donald Dunn, to recommend approval of Special Exception Request No. 08-06, contingent upon verification that there was an existing legal right of way that was owned by the City to the property. The Board held discussion regarding the motion. Donald Dunn thought that the motion was to only add the condition, not for recommendation of the Special Exception. Barry Brown advised that he checked with Public Works and verified that Oak Lane was a City right of way, but he could not confirm that the right of way extended to N. Atlantic Avenue. Discussion continued. For clarification, Assistant City Attorney, Kate Latorre, repeated the motion. Harry Pearson verified that the motion, as stated, was correct. Chairperson McNeely asked for a second to the motion. There being none the motion died. Discussion continued. Kate Latorre researched the County's web site to see if she could verify the right of way, but was unsuccessful in doing so. Harry Pearson agreed to withdraw his motion. Donald Dunn withdrew his second to the motion. Chairperson McNeely announced that the motion was withdrawn. Donald Dunn questioned if there was any special stormwater runoff, which he believed there was, because the road was not paved. Barry Brown responded that at the time Mr. Lennon submitted his site plan he would need to deal with the drainage, however there was right of way for stormwater to flow in too. John Johanson advised that Mr. Lennon was responsible for his stormwater retention. Donald Dunn voiced his opinion that, because there were no curbs or sidewalks, and the street was not paved, it was not safe. Barry Brown responded that at some point when there was more development along that road, that could be a concern, but right now there were no pedestrian issues. He explained that there were no residences west of Mr. Lennon's proposed residence. Donald Dunn stated that he still had a problem with it. John Johanson pointed out that Harbor Heights only had one sidewalk and that was a developed subdivision. The Board members reviewed the Special Exception application checklist. Mr. Lennon verified that he had answered the questions on the application checklist. Discussion was held regarding storm water runoff; traffic flow and control; compatibility of surrounding uses; verification that Oak Lane was a public road; verification of availability for water and sewer; refuse service disposal; surrounding zoning; and uses. Bernard Lennon, Petitioner, testified that approximately eight years ago, his title company held up his title, because they had the same concern, as the Board, regarding the right of way. His title company had contacted the city attorney, at that time. After the city attorney researched the issue, he verified that the City owned the right of way. He noted that the entrance of Oak Lane had a City street sign; and for a distance of approximately 100 feet, the entrance to Oak Lane appeared to be built to City standards. He advised that he purchased the property in 1999. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 22, 2008 Page 4 Donald Dunn questioned at what point the road would be paved. Barry Brown responded that probably at the time a property owner requested replatting a property into townhouse lots, or perhaps a condominium development. He advised that the City did not have a specific code that stated when a road was required to be brought up to City specifications. He added that the City did not have any funds available to pave the road. Motion by Donald Dunn, seconded by Dr. John Fredrickson, to recommend approval of Special Exception Request No. 08-06, contingent upon the condition that the City verify access to N. Atlantic Avenue. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 3. Recommendation to City Council Re: Section 110-171(a)(2) - Chanaina the Requirements for a Restaurant to Serve Liquor from a Minimum Seating of 200 to 150 Persons - Brigitte Krause. Owner of Izzv's Bistro. Applicant. Barry Brown, Planning & Development Director, advised that this was a request to amend the City code for the amount of seating that's required for a restaurant to have a liquor license. This would change the minimum amount of seats to 150 seats. He explained that the City code currently read that the required separation be 2,000 feet between establishments that were licensed by the State for on -premise consumption of alcoholic beverages, with the exception of restaurants seating 200 or more persons. The Florida Statutes only require a restaurant to have only 150 seats in order to serve liquor. He noted that this was a request to bring the City code in line with the Florida Statute on the minimum number of seats required. He explained in comparing the Florida Statutes with the City code, the Florida Statute addressed the number of liquor licenses that could be handed -out in a County, and the City code addressed a distance requirement. Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney, explained that Florida Statute, 561.20, regulated the number of licenses that the State will issue for serving alcoholic beverages, and it was based on the County population. One of the exceptions that the Florida Statute provided was an establishment with a minimum of 2,500 sq. ft. and could serve 150 people at the same time. She explained that the City code was a distance requirement that limited two establishments within 2,000 feet of each other from receiving an alcoholic beverage license. The City code exception from that requirement was if a restaurant could seat 200 persons. She advised that the applicant's request was to reduce the number of required seats to 150 seats, in order to be exempt from the 2,000 feet distance requirement. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 22, 2008 Page 5 Lamar Russell gave a brief history of when the original City code was written. He explained that the original code was written back in the Apollo times, when there was a bar or nightclub at almost every corner, from the Port to the split at Patrick Air Force Base. After that time, the City changed the code to impose a distance requirement between like establishments that sold alcoholic beverages, in an effort to cleanup the town. Later, the code was updated to add an exception from the distance requirement, which was for restaurants that had a minimum of 200 seats, (which seemed reasonable at the time, because of average restaurant sizes). He voiced his opinion that he did not have a problem with reducing that number to 150 seats. Discussion followed regarding restaurants with indoor and outdoor seating. John Johanson advised that if they were trying to upgrade the City right now, the City could bring in some nice restaurants, and a liquor license may help do that. And, changing the code may help with mixed-use as well. He stated that the way that the economy is right now, these restaurants need all the help they can get. He voiced his opinion that changing the code was a good idea for existing restaurants and for the City's future restaurants. Barry Brown noted that Izzy's Bistro was only licensed by the State for 75 persons, and if they were going to increase their seating, then that would bring in the parking issue. So if the code is changed, it does not necessarily make it work for Izzy's. However, there may be other restaurants throughout the City where the code change could apply. Chairperson McNeely questioned if establishments outside the City boundaries had anything to do with the 2,000 feet requirement? Kate Latorre answered that the measurements includes any establishment within 2,000 feet, whether inside or outside the City boundaries. Harry Pearson referred to page 22 of the Board packet, which stated that the Florida Statute was amended. He asked when and what was amended? He advised that no such amendment had taken place; in June of 2006, was when Section 110-171(a)(2) was established into an ordinance. He did not believe that the State law had changed since that time. Discussion was held regarding minimum service area. Lamar Russell advised that the code did not address a minimum service area. Donald Dunn commented that maybe they should consider establishing one. Lamar Russell gave a history on that. He explained that if a restaurant had seating for 200 people that would pretty well define space for a service area, so the City left that open to the creativity of the restaurants. Discussion continued. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 2, 2008 Page 6 Dr. John Fredrickson voiced his opinion that he did not have a problem with reducing the required number of seats, but he did not know how the code change would help Izzy's Restaurant. He advised that Izzy's currently had 75 seats, and there was no way they could increase the seating another 75 seats with the room they had or have enough parking to accommodate another 75 seats. Ron Friedman noted that non -chain restaurants have one of the highest failure rates in the Country; and selling alcoholic beverages is a good part of any profit that they may have, by lowering the seating requirement from 200 to 150 seats, regardless of what Izzy's may have, may be enough to attract another independent restaurant that would only want to have 150 seats. He voiced his opinion that the reduction of 100 or 150 seats could be good to attract non -chain, non -fast food restaurants into the City. Discussion followed. Kate Latorre explained that the Board would be making a recommendation to the City Council. Motion by Dr. John Fredrickson, seconded by Lamar Russell to recommend to City Council that the request to change Section 110-171 (a)(2) be granted to reduce the minimum number of required seats from 200 to 150 for a restaurant to serve liquor to be exempt from the 2,000 ft. distance requirement. Discussion followed. Brigitte Krause, applicant, stated her name and address for the record. Donald Dunn questioned why she brought this request if it did not apply to her. She responded that, because it was not fair with the business relationship in the City compared to Cocoa Beach, where she has owned Gregory's Steak and Seafood Grille for 15 years and has had no problem with serving liquor at all, because most people usually just have an after dinner drink, or a glass of wine or martini. She explained that most of the time, patrons don't want to dine at a place that they only have a choice of beer and wine to drink with dinner. Gary Kirkland, helping Ms. Krause with this matter, advised that the 75 seats that Izzy's had now was only a carry-over from the previous restaurant which was called Mangroves. Since it was taken over, the inside of the restaurant was remodeled. He advised that the booths and the stage that were taken a lot of space were removed. They understood that this was only an ordinance change and that a Special Exception was still required, they would apply for the Special Exception and business license for 150 seats, if the code is changed. They also understood that there would be permits required and additional sewer impact fees. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 22, 2008 Page 7 Mr. Kirkland advised that they already tried to make application for a Special Exception, but were told that they were within 2,000 feet of Charlotte's Web. They currently had a 2COP license, which was for beer and wine consumption, and wanted to upgrade that to a 4COP license under the State Statute. He noted that the State required 51 % of sales to be for food consumption for a restaurant with a 4COP license, so the restaurant could never be turned into a bar. Currently, the restaurant sales were 80% from food and 20% from beer and wine. The restaurant was approximately 2,900 sq. feet, which exceeded the State requirement of 2,500 sq. feet. Mr. Kirkland stated that he was not able to locate the date that the Florida Statute was revised, however the request was based on the current Florida Statute. Harry Pearson advised that his research revealed that the Statute was revised in the year 2000. He noted that the City changed the ordinance about two years ago, but could not recall what was changed, however 200 seats was the number that was voted on. He suggested if they were going to look at changing the code, they should look at the entire Section 110-171, instead of just picking -out one little place and changing it. John Johanson questioned what other part of the code he wanted to change? Harry Pearson voiced his opinion that paragraph (a)(2) was not the only paragraph in Section 110-171, and that the entire section should be reviewed. Kate Latorre advised that in 2006, the code Section was thoroughly evaluated and was rewritten after several workshops and discussions. Chairperson McNeely commented that there was nothing glaring in the code section that needed to be changed. Dr. John Fredrickson commented that it was not the applicant's responsibility to know what the City had done two years ago. Irrespectively, the request to reduce the minimum number of seating from 200 to 150 was consistent with the State. Harry Pearson responded that the 150 seats that the State required did not apply to the City. He explained that they were not going to bring the code into compliance with the State law by changing the seating to 150. Kate Latorre agreed that there were some similarities, but they addressed different issues and were unrelated. She stated that the City was not bound to 150 seats. Bea McNeely and John Johanson agreed that 150 seats sounded reasonable. Motion passed by a (4) to (1) majority in favor of the motion, with members voting as follows: Donald Dunn, for; John Fredrickson, for; Bea McNeely, for; Harry Pearson, opposed; and Lamar Russell, for. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 22, 2008 Page 8 OPEN DISCUSSION Dr. John Fredrickson commended the Planning & Development Director for the format of the Project Status Report he provided to the Board, which was readable and easy to understand. Bary Brown gave an overview of the report, which gave the status of current submitted applications for: rezonings, special exceptions, comprehensive plan amendments, site plans, etc. He advised that at the next meeting, he would have a list that showed different projects that staff was working on, such as code amendments. He stated that every couple of months he would provide a status update. Brief discussion followed regarding various projects. Barry Brown, Planning & Development Director, gave the Board members an overview of his job duties. He also reported that he had received a phone call from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), who informed him that in reviewing the Public School Facilities Element, the only comment they had was the maps that the City submitted for proposed school facilities were outdated. The reviewer informed him that if the City provided the most recent map that was approved in Brevard County's submittal, by the end of the week, then DCA would not review the City's element. He advised that the map was e-mailed to DCA this morning. He noted that the City could not move forward with adopting any other elements until the Public Schools Facilities Element was adopted. Discussion followed. John Johanson advised that he spoke to the Board approximately five months ago about the accessory use definition in regards to the Porter project, and it had never been further defined and should be. Barry Brown responded that it was on his high priority list after the Capital Improvements Element; however he would provide some framework to use for Board to discuss. John Johanson commented that if the City prohibited drive -up doors and windows, it would prevent more fast-food restaurants from coming into the City, in hopes to generate nicer restaurants. He asked if the Board members had driven around the City and identified any areas they did or didn't like as discussed at the previous meeting. He commented that no one addresses the special exception areas that people complain about; they don't step-up and talk about trying to change the code to fix the problems. The Planning & Zoning Board should do the homework for the City Council, but that has not happened or initiated. It had always been direction from the City Council. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 22, 2008 Page 9 Barry Brown announced that the City Council scheduled the next sign ordinance workshop on Thursday, November 6th @ 5:30 p.m., after certifying the election results. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Bea rperson Susan L. C apman, �e.ret.=,= �V PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 A Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on September 24, 2008, at the City Hall Annex, 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Chairperson Bea McNeely called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m., immediately following the Sign Code Workshop. The Secretary called the roll. MEMBERS PRESENT Bea McNeely Lamar Russell John Fredrickson Donald Dunn Harry Pearson John Johanson Ronald Friedman OTHERS PRESENT Anthony Garganese Susan Chapman Rocky Randels Robert Hoog Shannon Roberts Barry Brown NEW BUSINESS Chairperson Vice Chairperson 1 st Alternate 2nd Alternate City Attorney Board Secretary Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Council member Planning & Development Director Approval of Meeting Minutes: August 13, 2008. Motion by Donald Dunn, seconded by Harry Pearson, to approve the meeting minutes of August 13, 2008. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 2. Recommendation to City Council Re: Final Replat for Sea Shell Cay North Townhomes - John Johanson, Applicant. John Johanson declared a voting conflict and stated that he submitted the required form to the Board Secretary before the meeting. The Board Secretary confirmed same. Barry Brown, Planning & Development Director, gave a brief overview of the project; and reported that staff reviewed the final replat and recommended approval. He announced that the applicant had made a revision which the applicant would explain to the Board. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes September 24, 2008 Page 2 John Johanson advised that he was part owner of the property; Ron Friedman had called him and advised there was an error on the North side of lot 3 by .01, because the surveyor's computer rounded -up the measurement. Chairperson McNeely commented that the Board normally had more information. She had questioned the acreage of each lot during the preliminary replat review, and verified that the acreage was corrected on the final replat. She questioned why there were variable widths to the ingress/egress easements. John Johanson responded that the variable widths allowed for access to the property and utilities. City Attorney Garganese advised that the Board's only consideration was per Section 98-56. The Planning & Development Director, Barry Brown, reiterated that staff reviewed the final replat and recommended approval. Brief discussion followed. Motion by John Fredrickson, seconded by Donald Dunn, to recommend approval of the Final Replat for Sea Shell Cay North to the City Council. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. OPEN DISCUSSION Note: The following paragraph was chanced from the final draft as per Donald_ Dunn's request, to read as follows: Donald Dunn advised that some people have said that the Planning and Zoning Board is reactive and not proactive. He believed that the Board is reactive by the very nature of the Board. He stated that "We are given work and we react to it by making recommendations. My goal is to continue serving the City as best as I can." He advised that he would like to get rid of building height in the City's building code and only count the number of floors. He explained that one time he made a motion that the City changes the building height from 45 feet to 100 feet. That motion failed to pass. He would also prefer that the building code allow a roof top restaurant that would not be counted as a floor to encourage developers to do so in the commercial area along A1A. He would also prefer to have a large scale developer build a complex that would include a theater for the performing arts, an art museum, professional offices, our library and a parking garage. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes September 24, 2008 Page 3 Barry Brown informed the Board that City Council had requested that he ask the Board members opinions regarding being interviewed for reappointment. Bea McNeely asked how to reconcile having an open mind, like the Board members have been asked, without having a vision. She was still waiting for visioning sessions with the community. She stated that she did not have a problem with being re -interviewed. Lamar Russell advised that he had assisted in building the City code and he defended it. He cautioned that the City needed to careful about changing the codes they already have. He asked the Board to consider planning for change and redevelopment, and be willing to explore new thoughts, debate and swap opinions, then vote and move on. He stated that he did not have any problem with being re -interviewed. Harry Pearson stated that it was perfectly fine with him to be re -interviewed. Chairperson McNeely called for a consensus of the Board regarding being interviewed by City Council for reappointment. By consensus, there was no opposition from the Board members to be interviewed by the City Council for reappointment. Bea McNeely questioned where the City was going to get more Board members? Lamar Russell responded that they get their members from residents of the City. She stated that there should be a real effort to recruit volunteer Board members. John Johanson suggested that City Council give the Board more direction of what they envisioned for the City's future, and keep dialogs open with the City Boards; Cape Canaveral is not the City of choice, because it does not have much to offer; redevelopment is very important, and now was the time to explore the codes and make changes in the best interest of the City's future. Barry Brown advised that Phil Laurien, East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC), was including money in his budget to lead the City's visioning sessions, but he did not know right now how much money he will have for our sessions. Mayor Randels explained where the money comes from to support the ECFRPC. He noted that some cities decided not to fund the ECFRPC in this year's budget. Motion by Lamar Russell, seconded by Donald Dunn, to add an item onto the agenda. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. Motion by Donald Dunn, seconded by Lamar Russell, to recommend that the City aggressively pursues the visioning process. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes September 24, 2008 Page 4 John Fredrickson asked for a status report of existing and upcoming projects. Barry Brown advised that he would bring a status report of the projects to the next meeting. Barry Brown advised that the Board meeting scheduled for October 8th would be cancelled; therefore, the next Board meeting would be held on October 22nd. Mayor Randels applauded the Board's efforts to pursue visioning. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Bea McNeel a.rperson is Cr Susan L. Chapman, S cretary PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 13, 2008 A Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on August 13, 2008, at the City Hall Annex, 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Chairperson Bea McNeely called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. The Secretary called the roll. MEMBERS PRESENT Bea McNeely John Fredrickson Donald Dunn Harry Pearson John Johanson Ronald Friedman MEMBERS ABSENT Lamar Russell OTHERS PRESENT Kate Latorre Barry Brown Susan Chapman Chairperson 1 st Alternate 2nd Alternate Vice Chairperson Assistant City Attorney Planning & Development Director Board Secretary The Board members and audience congratulated and applauded Kate Latorre for her success in being Board Certified by the Florida Bar in City, County, and Local Government Law. NEW BUSINESS Approval of Meeting Minutes: July 9, 2008. Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by Bea McNeely, to approve the meeting minutes of July 9, 2008. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 2. Recommendation to City Council Re: Resolution No. 2008-01 - Establishing a New Meeting Time of 7:00 p.m. for Regularly Scheduled Planning & Zoning Board Meetings. Motion by Donald Dunn, seconded by Harry Pearson, to recommend approval of Resolution 2008-01, changing the meeting time from 7:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 13, 2008 Page 2 3. Discussion Re: Hotels. John Johanson advised that the City's Business and Cultural Development Board performed a survey, with the University of Central Florida, in 2006. One of the survey questions asked what the citizens would like to see less of. The results indicated that those uses were: porn shops, tattoo parlors, adult entertainment, hotels, and condominiums. He noted that the number of hotels had substantially increased over the past few years; the growth of the Port and increase of tourism at the Port was protruding into the City; since residents who participated in the survey did not support more hotels, maybe it was time to support the citizens and encourage types of businesses that they need and want; otherwise, the City is just going to continue supporting the Port and ignoring its citizens. He asked the Board to consider not allowing any more hotels to be built in Cape Canaveral. He asked the members to be realistic and open minded in considering this issue. He explained that if an existing hotel has the room to expand or if a new hotel project was already in the works, then those would be reasonable. He stated that the hotels did not serve the citizens; to continue allowing more and more hotels to be built would be a disservice to the citizens of Cape Canaveral. Chairperson McNeely stated that it would be very drastic if the Board recommended that the City not allow any more hotels. She advised that two hotels were built since the new hotel ordinance, and she believed that the proposed hotel that was presented by Mr. Porter met the requirements of that code. She suggested that the members consider how if they wanted the hotel ordinance to be changed, or if they wanted to ban hotels. She explained that the City has certain zones, within those zones were certain allowable uses; there may be problems when the City does not allow a certain use that has been allowed before, which may be consider a taking. She voiced her concern that there may be a property owner that has held onto their property planning to build a hotel on it when it was economically feasible, and for the City to say no they can't have a hotel would not be very fair. She advised that the City worked very hard and long hours, with a lot of thought and discussions, to write the ordinance and she was going to defend it because, there was nothing wrong with the hotels that have already been built. She disagreed that the hotels did not support local businesses. She noted that the City was becoming a tourist City and over 50% of residential units were rentals. Harry Pearson disagreed that the hotels did not support the City. He explained that office type businesses only supported themselves, hotels benefited the other businesses. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 13, 2008 Page 3 Ron Friedman advised that there was another hotel project in the works at Puerto Del Rio. He advised that they will be proposing a zoning change for a 150 unit hotel on five acres, including a stand alone building on an out parcel for a restaurant. He commented that before the Board even considers changing the codes, he would like to see a detailed report as to what impact more hotels or not having more hotels would have. He agreed that the guests of the hotels did support local businesses. Harry Pearson requested to see statistics, rather than consider someone's idea. He did not agree that hotels do not support local businesses, because some of the citizens who live in the City are employed by the hotels and local businesses that the hotels support. He agreed with Ron Friedman that there should be a survey performed to find out what the impact is and see how much business the hotels were providing. He further requested that the Board be provided an overall plan for the entire City, including: condominiums, hotels, office buildings, etc. Barry Brown, Planning & Development Director, advised that he and his staff, Susan Chapman, were not in the position to perform hotel economic impact studies. He suggested that as a group, the members may want to talk to a local economic development council or a tourist development council that could provide them certain numbers that may be germane to their discussion. He commented that when they go through their visioning sessions, which should start sometime in October, they could look at some of the issues, in total, at that time. Donald Dunn advised that the City has a lot of rental units and condominiums which the citizens who participated in the survey did not want any more of those either. He questioned if the Board should consider not allowing any more of them being built. He voiced his opinion that he did not see a reason to change the codes, unless there was a problem they were trying to resolve. Chairperson McNeely asked John Johanson if he could find out what the economic impact is for a hotel. Donald Dunn suggested that the next hotel project provide an economic impact study, since they may have already performed one or they wouldn't build it. Ron Friedman suggested asking the Business and Cultural Development Board if they have any information. Barry Brown offered that staff could provide the members with a list of various agencies that may have the information. He informed the members that the Business and Cultural Development Board would be meeting on August 20th. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 13, 2008 Page 4 John Fredrickson inquired if the Board could recommend a moratorium on hotels for the City to perform a study on this issue. Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney, advised that a moratorium would be appropriate for the City to perform a formal study on this issue. Chairperson McNeely gave a recap of the discussion. She advised that the City needed to have a visioning session regarding what the City wants. Joyce Hamilton, citizen, stated that it is important for the City to provide family oriented businesses to bring families into the City. Ray Osborne, citizen, commented that if the City looks at what it already has, identified which uses support it, then it may give the Board a vision of its future. OPEN DISCUSSION No discussion was held. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:36 p.m. Bea Susan L. Chapman, Secretary PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES -JULY 9, 2008 A Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on July 9, 2008, at the City Hall Annex, 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Chairperson Bea McNeely called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The Secretary called the roll. MEMBERS PRESENT Bea McNeely Lamar Russell John Fredrickson Donald Dunn Hart' Pearson John Johanson Ron Friedman OTHERS PRESENT Susan Chapman Bennett Boucher Barry Brown Todd Peetz Todd Morley Kate Latorre Shannon Roberts Chairperson Vice Chairperson 1 st Altemate 2nd Alternate Board Secretary City, Manager Director of Planning & Development City Planner Building Official Assistant City Attorney Council Member Todd Peetz, City Planner, introduced Barry Brown, the City's new Director of Planning & Development. Mr. Brown greeted the Board members and highlighted his professional work history. All persons giving testimony were sworn in by Assistant City Attorney, Kate Latorre. NEW BUSINESS 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes June 11, 2008. Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by Lamar Russell, to approve the meeting minutes of June 11, 2008, with a few minor corrections. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 2. Motion and Recommendation to the Board of Adjustment Re: Special Exception Request No. 08-02. to Allow a Carwash in the C-1 Zonina District (104 Monroe Avenue) - Victor M. Watson Esq Petitioner. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2008 Page 2 Todd Peetz, City Planner, gave an overview of the request. He advised that the property was located at the northeast comer of Monroe and N. Atlantic Avenues. He explained that since 1986, the use of the property was a car wash. In July of 2005, the City posted the mobile home on top of the concrete structure as unsafe, and the operation of the facility ceased. Since the use of the property was abandoned, the granted special exception expired. The Petitioner, Victor M. Watson, Esq., has applied for a new special exception. He further advised that the applicant planned to eliminate the residential use by removing the mobile home, make improvements to the site, and beautify the building facade. In reviewing the conceptual plan submitted with the request for special exception, he noted that there were no significant changes to the proposed site. Mr. Peetz highlighted listed City staffs comments and recommended conditions: The conceptual plan showed a sidewalk around the site, this should be provided; a green space should be provided between the sidewalk and roadway; the chain link fence will be removed; the east wall will be painted consistent with the building colors (west wall face only); the structure should be brought into building code compliance; the building facade should be consistent with the elevation presented; the pavement needed to be repaired or resurfaced; a stormwater permit determination from St. Johns River Water Management District should be provided, as part of the repair/resurfacing; the City landscaping codes, Sections 110-566 and 110-567 should be met; residential use should not be permitted; and a water recycling system should be used, as requested by the Assistant Public Works Director. Victor M. Watson, Esq., Petitioner testified that the property was used as a car wash since 1968. According to the City, the original Special Exception expired for lack of an occupational license. The property was presently under contract to be purchased by James and Tara Kappemaros. He advised that the sale of the property was contingent on obtaining a Special Exception, and obtaining all necessary approvals to rehabilitate and improve the property. The proposed appearance of the property was approved by the Community Appearance Board, and would greatly enhance the property by the work to be done. The mobile home on top of the concrete structure would be removed and a complete new roof constructed. He further testified that the .Special Exception would allow a use which was compatible with surrounding uses; meet minimum requirements and performance standards; and allow substantial improvement to the property; the existing sign would be used; his client agreed to use reclaimed water; the first two recommendations from city staff (a sidewalk around the site; and green space be provided between the sidewalk and roadway); non -glare lighting would be installed; the east bay was an automatic carwash, and the others were coin operated. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2008 Page 3 Mr. Watson advised that 960 sq. ft. of the building was going to be a deli, with a drive -up window at the west end. The use is allowed by the C-1 code, as a principal use. The Board members reviewed the submitted conceptual plan. Discussion was held regarding vehicles being stacked at the drive -up deli window which may affect the designated parking spaces and back-up into N. Atlantic Avenue. Todd Peetz advised that the applicant would need to demonstrate how they would deal with the traffic conflict. Mr. Peetz noted that there was no site plan required, because the structure was not changing. Two adjacent residential property owners voiced concerns regarding noise and additional traffic. Discussion followed regarding: noise from the automatic car wash and vacuums; and hours of operation as a condition of recommended approval. Mr. Watson advised that he would speak to his client regarding hours of operation. Todd Morley, Building Official, advised that the concrete structure was structurally sound, however prior to a building permit being issued they would need to submit certification from a licensed structural engineer. Discussion was held regarding an existing block wall on the east side of the property. Mr. Peetz verified that the wall met the required buffering. He noted that both properties were located in the C-1 zoning district. Mr. Johanson commented that perhaps the applicant could add buffering to reduce noise with trees, in addition to the wall. Mr. Russell advised that there was an existing code enforcement case. Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney, responded that conditions of a granted special exception could assist both the Petitioner and the City to bring the property in compliance with the cited code enforcement violations. Discussion was held regarding recommended conditions of approval. Motion by Donald Dunn, seconded by John Fredrickson, to recommend approval of Special Exception Request No. 08-02, with the following conditions: 1. A sidewalk shall be constructed along the south side of the property, per city code. 2. Green space shall be provided between the sidewalk and roadway, along the south side of the property. 3. The chain link fence shall be removed. 4. The east buffer wall shall be painted consistent with the building color(s). Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2008 Page 4 5. The building shall be brought into compliance with applicable City codes. 6. The building facade shall be consistent with the elevation, as shown on the submitted conceptual plan. 7. The pavement shall be repaired or replaced. 8. A stormwater permit determination from St. Johns River Water Management District shall be provided, as part of the pavement repair/resurfacing. 9. The property shall be brought into compliance with the City's Landscaping code. 10. Residential use shall be prohibited. 11. The hours of operation for the auto wash and vacuums shall be restricted to 7:30 a.m. - 9:30 p.m. 12. The City's Building Official shall determine adequate lighting hoods to mitigate any spillover lighting. 13. Trees shall be planted and maintained, along the west side of the east buffer wall. The City's Director of Planning & Development shall work with the property owner in determining adequate tree type(s) and placement. 14. The water recycling system plan that was submitted to the City's Assistant Public Works Director or an equivalent plan shall be used at the new car wash facility. Note: No wash water from the proposed system shall be discharged to the sanitary sewer. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2008 Page 5 3. Discussion Re: Public Schools Facilities Element - Todd Peetz, Citv Planner. Todd Peetz, City Planner, advised that the intent of this agenda item was to bring the Board up to speed on adopting a Public School Facilities Element (PSFE). He advised that pursuant to Florida Statutes 163, all cities and counties shall adopt a PSFE by December 1, 2008. Mr. Peetz introduced his associate, Matt Boerger, who would speak to the Board regarding the proposed PSFE contained in the Board packet. Mr. Boerger referenced the data and analysis provided by the Brevard County School Board (BCSB). He noted that Goals, Objectives and Policies were strongly recommended by the BCSB. He noted that the City has one school (Capeview Elementary) within the City's limits. He stated that the City was nearing build -out, with the potential for redevelopment. He further explained that in the future, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Rezonings, and residential Site Plans would be reviewed by the BCSB for Concurrency related issues. He reviewed the proposed Goals, Objectives, and Policies. Discussion followed. Board members pointed -out some numeric discrepancies in the data analysis contained in the documents. Mr. Boerger advised that he would contact the BCSB regarding those discrepancies. Mr. Peetz noted that the data analysis was a living document, which was constantly updated. Mr. Peetz advised that there would also be an Interlocal Agreement between the City and BCSB. The draft agreement would go directly to City Council. He explained that the purpose of the agreement was to direct each municipality to supply population data to the BCSB through Concurrency, annually. Mr. Peetz advised that the PSFE would be placed on the next meeting agenda for recommendation by the Board to the City Council. 4. Discussion Re: Meeting Protocol. Vice Chairperson, Lamar Russell, explained that in the past, the Chairperson always had control of the agenda. Now, it appeared that City staff controlled the agenda. He asked how the Board wanted to proceed. Mr. Russell advised that anyone could ask for an agenda item. Barry Brown, Director of Planning & Development, advised that an applicant should start with City staff, and then City staff could work with the applicant for scheduling the item on an agenda. Staff could notify the Board Chairperson to formulate the agenda. Discussion followed regarding the way Mr. Porter's request to speak to the Board was handled. He agreed that it could have been handled differently, however it was okay the way it worked -out. Dr. Fredrickson commented that a time limit should be established for open discussion. Chairperson McNeely advised that she would like an agenda item called "Reports", because the Board members are not allowed to speak to each other outside the public meeting. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2008 Page 6 Chairperson McNeely advised that she would also like an agenda item called "Audience to be Heard" and place a time limit similar to the City Council agenda. She also requested that under an item called "General Discussion", the Chairperson could acknowledge the Board members, then the audience, with an established time limit to speak. Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney, responded that she could amend the Board's Procedures. Ron Friedman advised that he had a problem with the existing procedure. He voiced his opinion that the Board should see a Conceptual Plan before formal submittal to assist with planning and advising. OPEN DISCUSSION: Ray Osborne, citizen, stated that if the "general audience discussion" agenda item was placed at the beginning of the agenda, it would encourage more citizens to attend the meeting and speak to the Board. Vice Chairperson Russell rebutted that paying customers should be heard first on an agenda. Ray Osborne, citizen, encouraged the City to consider green building practices, in an effort to play its part in the global community, by considering solar energy and water recycling. John Johanson requested an agenda item be placed on the next meeting agenda regarding stopping more hotels. He commented that the hotels support the Port, not the town's citizens. He urged the Board members to consider what the City's citizens needs and wants are, not the Port and tourism industries. Discussion followed. The Board members agreed to have a discussion item at the next meeting regarding hotels. Bennett Boucher, City Manager, advised that Bary Brown, Director of Planning & Development, was hired full-time and is available to the Board members. He encouraged the Board members to contact Mr. Brown regarding any planning and zoning issues, comments, or questions. Bennett Boucher, City Manager, advised that the Planning & Zoning Board was the only City Board that did not meet at 7:00 p.m. He encouraged the Board to change the meeting time to 7:00 p.m., starting at the next meeting. Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney, advised that she would have a Resolution prepared for approval. By a unanimous voice vote, the Board members agreed to change the meeting time to 7:00 p.m., starting at the next meeting. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 10:12 p.m. McNee Susan L. C afi pman, Secretary PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES JUNE 11, 2008 A Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on June 11, 2008, at the City Hall Annex, 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Chairperson Bea McNeely called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The Secretary called the roll. MEMBERS PRESENT Bea McNeely Chairperson Lamar Russell Vice Chairperson John Fredrickson City Manager Donald Dunn City Planner Harry Pearson Board Secretary John Johanson 1 st Alternate Ron Friedman 2nd Alternate OTHERS PRESENT Robert Hoog Mayor Pro Tem Shannon Roberts Councilmember Bennett Boucher City Manager Todd Peetz City Planner Susan Chapman Board Secretary NEW BUSINESS 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes May 28, 2008. Motion by Lamar Russell, seconded by Donald Dunn, to approve the meeting minutes of May 28, 2008. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION Presentation: Guest Speaker - Laura Canady, J.D., Community Development Director, City of Satellite Beach. Todd Peetz, City Planner, introduced guest speaker Laura Canady, Community Development Director for the City of Satellite Beach. Ms. Canady introduced her staff. She advised that she would be speaking to the Board regarding: lessons learned with the creation of Satellite Beach's Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA); the process involved with the creation of a CRA; and how the City of Satellite Beach operates their CRA; along with discussions about mixed use districts and the potential for redevelopment in Cape Canaveral. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes June 11, 2008 Page 2 Ms. Canady advised that Satellite Beach and Cape Canaveral had similarities as follows: The A1A corridor; postage stamp lots; beach; populations; Vision Statements; old style buildings that were constructed in the 1960s, 70s, 80s, & 90s. She advised that one difference was that the City of Satellite Beach did not allow hotels. Ms. Canady suggested Ms. Canady offered the following suggestions and considerations: • That the City should first perform a market study to determine what types of businesses the city wanted to support. She noted that restaurants with a water view would attract patrons to come over the bridges onto the barrier island. She advised that the City should establish what kind of restaurants they wanted, while considering which types would also attract tourists. • Consider aggregate properties for mixed use. Alleviate hodge-podge. • Consider more modern style buildings and colors. • Create an economically viable plan. • The model for hotels is now to contract -out detached restaurants, businesses, convention space, and small shops. • Amend the Comprehensive Plan. • Choose consultants carefully. • Consider redeveloping dilapidated properties along the City's main corridor. • Have a vision. • Create attributes to attract investors. • Create a theme. • Obtain grant money for redevelopment. • Consider redeveloping beach accesses and add covered seating areas and extend walkways. (This could be funded by TIFF). • Discourage large condominiums that block the waterway views. • Encourage property owners to rebuild structures with a new modern style and color(s). • One developer in Satellite Beach has a minimum of 10 acres and wants to demolish an old Cash n' Carry and build a new 200,000 sq. ft. building with shopping, retail, and professional offices on the first floor, and residential above. The City should encourage such redevelopment. • Add economic development tools to entice developments the City wants and needs. • Purchase property with CRA money for a main downtown. • Exclude undesirable uses such as: dry cleaning facilities, laundry mats, gas stations, and drive-thru fast food. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes June 11, 2008 Page 3 • Height limits in Satellite Beach are 65 ft. along the beach, 35 ft. along AIA. Uses: No commercial east of A1A, only residential is allowed. • Create a "life town" for people. • Stand your ground with architects. • Satellite Beach allows digital signs, no flashing. • City should choose a vision team leader "a go getter" to make the redevelopment concept work and "hit the ground running". • Create a Citizen Awareness Participation Plan (CAPP) by taking lots of pictures of what the community visions for the city's future, hold town meetings and invite the community; educate the community; encourage input and suggestions from the community. • Work with the business community to entice them to improve their properties. • Try creating a commercial corridor for tourists and one for residents. • Satellite Beach's town center consists of 20 acres, with a height limit of 35 ft. • Need to think "outside the box" with Land Development Regulations. • CRA takes approximately 2 - 2 112 years to start the projects. • Satellite Beach has a Citizen Advisory Committee. Cape Canaveral has its City Council. • Break-out uses: High Intensity Medium Intensity ------ Low Intensity. • Keep looking "outside the box". • Consider shared parking and parking areas within walking distance to downtown areas. • CRA funds could be used to pay the salaries of employees that are involved in planning. • The City of Satellite Beach added fifteen (15) new restaurants since 2002. Ms. Canady answered various questions for the Board members and audience. Bennett Boucher, City Manager, asked the Board if there was anything that staff could do to help. Vice Chairperson, Lamar Russell asked that staff continue telling the Board what the next steps were. Mr. Boucher advised that Phil Laurien, Executive Director of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, would assist the City with the Department of Community Affairs. Mr. Boucher asked Ms. Canady what type of tools the City of Satellite Beach put in the toolbox to entice developers. Ms. Canady answered that they didn't do any of that. She stated that "The biggest incentive you can give to developers is mixed use." Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes June 11, 2008 Page 4 OPEN DISCUSSION John Johanson stated that John Porter had requested his proposed project be on the last agenda and was told that they couldn't be on the agenda ahead of time. He advised that Mr. Porter and the potential new property owner left with a thumbs -up decision, by the jesters made by some of the Board members. Lamar Russell commented that the Board members gave them the benefit of how they felt about the proposed project. John Fredrickson question if a proposed project had ever been presented to the Board, with a full dog & pony show, under open discussion. Dr. Fredrickson advised that he was uneasy as too the way it was handled, because the presentation was not casual, it was structured. He questioned if now precedence was set. He voiced his opinion that he would rather have had the presentation on the agenda. John Johanson voiced his opinion that had it been an agended item, the Board members would have had the opportunity to review the proposed project before the meeting. Chairperson McNeely advised that she would extend the same courtesy to anyone. Due to the time, Chairperson McNeely requested the Secretary to add a discussion item on the next meeting agenda regarding: limiting time to speak under open discussion. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 10:12 p.m. i j Bea McNeely, Chairperson Susan L. Chapman, Sec etary PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 28, 2008 A Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on May 28, 2008, at the City Hall Annex, 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Chairperson Bea McNeely called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The Secretary called the roll. MEMBERS PRESENT Bea McNeely Chairperson Lamar Russell Vice Chairperson John Fredrickson Donald Dunn Hart' Pearson John Johanson 1st Alternate MEMBERS ABSENT Ronald Friedman 2nd Alternate OTHERS PRESENT Rocky Randels Mayor Robert Hoog Mayor Pro Tem Shannon Roberts Councilmember Bennett Boucher City Manager Todd Morley Building Official Todd Peetz City Planner Susan Chapman Board Secretary NEW BUSINESS 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes May 14, 2008. Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by Donald Dunn, to approve the meeting minutes of May 14, 2008, as written. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION Presentation: Guest Speaker - Phil Laurien Executive Director of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council Todd Peetz, City Planner, introduced guest speaker Phil Laurien, Executive Director of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council. Mr. Peetz announced that Mr. Laurien had a broad knowledge and extensive expertise in planning, and he was at the meeting to assist the Board by giving guidance for redevelopment and mixed-use. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 28, 2008 Page 2 Phil Laurien, Executive Director of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, advised that many communities were currently considering redevelopment. He began by presenting a PowerPoint presentation which highlighted ways of how to promote more growth and redevelopment by creating town center(s) to avoid urban sprawl. He used the City of Tavares as an example of this. Mr. Laurien requested that the members ask themselves how the City should grow and to think about the following: • History of Visioning • Intensity of neighborhoods within a Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) • Preference survey for architecture and use within neighborhoods • Refine the meaning of intensity • How tall was too tall • Should tall buildings belong along the water frontage The Board members viewed photographs of various down -town areas and were asked: • How tall were the buildings? How tall should they be? What were they used for? Could water be scene or did the buildings block the water? What could be changed? What should stay the same? • What did they like about the scene? • What did they not like? • What could be changed? • What should stay the same? • What elements of the old neighborhood did they like? • Did they like the picture of the old courthouse, and if so, what did they like. The Board members were asked to consider identifying the City's strengths, weaknesses and opportunities. Mr. Laurien pointed -out the strengths, weaknesses and opportunities of the City of Tavares by obtaining community input as follows: Strengths - 100% of 28 votes said that they had unique opportunities, a great grid street system and downtown parks; 96% of 27 votes said that they lived within 1 1/2 blocks away from downtown and could walk to everything except the grocery store, and most of their children walked to school. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 28, 2008 Page 3 Weaknesses - 93% of 26 votes said the City was reactive, not proactive; 78% of 22 votes said the City was losing its history; and 61% of 17 votes said that the black community felt left out and not a part of the City anymore. Opportunities - 100% of 28 votes said that their could be a town center like it once was in the old town; 100% of 28 votes said that economics was pushing people back to live/work neighborhoods; 96% of 27 votes said that the City had the basic elements of an old neighborhood and needed the return of the butcher, baker, and grocery to the downtown; 89% of 25 votes said that the City needed to identify which laws needed to be changed to enhance redevelopment of downtown; 82% of 23 votes said that the City had assets and infrastructure other places did not and could be redeveloped more easily as a transportation hub; 100% of 28 votes said that investment came to small towns with better plans; 100% of 28 votes said the City had to have a vision; 93% of 26 votes said that they had a great city park on the lake; 86% of 24 votes agreed that codes were in place to redevelop; and 71 % of 20 votes said that successful communities had rail, jobs and schools downtown and that the base core was still there. Threats - Hear talk like visioning before. Example: We saved a 10 year old agenda - nothing got done. Mr. Laurien advised that there was a movie called "Save our Lands, Save our Town" which teaches the difference between old and new neighborhoods; and identified historic development patterns that: 1) supported regular interaction of neighbors; fostered a pedestrian friendly environment; 3) provided for open space; and creation of a city's identity by visible boundaries. The movie also taught that history would play an important role in the future. Mr. Laurien advised that in considering redevelopment, the City of Tavares viewed a PowerPoint titled `The Scale of Great Places", which explained how Savannah, Georgia and Miami Beach, Florida reinvented themselves around the theme of their historic core. They had defined "human scale" as architectural elements built to human proportions (steps, doorways, railings, columns, eaves, niches, medallions, and moldings). They learned how human scale is deliberately ignored, by modernist architects to achieve a larger than life monument effect. Mr. Laurien explained that even as taller buildings rose above the more typical 3-4 stories, their architecture, landscaping, and detail remained human in scale. He showed an example of a taller building and asked the Board if the building looked appropriate. He advised that the building was six stories surrounded by three stories. The Board looked at photos of the Savannah College of Art and Design building that was six stories; and a plain office building to the rear of the college that was seven stories tall which looked out of place. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 28, 2008 Page 4 The Board looked at an example of two large buildings along a waterway that were considered out of scale and not in harmony with the architecture of other buildings in Savannah. The next step that the City of Tavares did was to discuss how to capitalize on strengths and overcome weaknesses by turning them into opportunities. The attendees of the meeting were asked to participate in an exercise. The participants were given disposable cameras and were asked to photograph beautiful or ugly attributes of a City (architectural styles, densities, signage, colors, etc.) A month later, the participants brought in photographs which were randomly clustered and placed onto display boards. Each participant received red, blue, green & yellow stickers. The red stickers were placed next to the type/style of buildings preferred as next most intense type of development. Green dots were placed next to the type/style buildings for the next most intense type of redevelopment. Yellow dots were placed next to building pictures that typified the least intense development. Attendees also place colored dots onto the CRA map. Red dots were placed where the highest intensity development was preferred, followed by blue, green, and yellow for the least intense. The conclusion was that there were neighborhoods within the CRA District. The Board members looked at several photographs from the PowerPoint that showed the results of the exercise. Mr. Laurien recapped that the red votes included: buildings not exceeding five stories high; mixed use buildings (i.e. retail, offices, residential); awnings; tables with umbrellas; street trees; nice lighting; wide sidewalks; streetscape; human friendly; on -street parking; people friendly streets; encourage tourism downtown; detailed architecture and various styles; retail on the 1st floor, residential above. Mr. Laurien advised that the City Council's CRA Goals for the City of Tavares included: • Promoting the CRA as a focal point of the community by providing and encouraging designed spaces for a wide range of offices/studios, businesses, retail shops/eateries, public gathering areas, and cultural activities. • Create short term and long term plans. • Create an economic development strategic plan (downtown job creation). • Provide for the implementation of design standards and guidelines to promote development and redevelopment that is sensitive to architectural resources and quality design, preserves visual quality, enhances visual unity and accommodates pedestrians. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 28, 2008 Page 5 • Promote the integration of pedestrian traffic with vehicle traffic. • Promote the efficient use of land and sensitivity to the environment and water bodies. • Provide for a mixed-use of housing with commercial that is compatible with the development in areas of similar intensity. • Encourage quality facades along streets, sidewalks, and pedestrian ways which will contribute to the City's overall character and charm. • Promote projects which will encourage private, public, and civic partnerships in order to bring patrons to the downtown area (Festivals, block parties, entertainment, events, etc.) Mr. Laurien shared the following suggestions and considerations to help the City: • Complete a downtown development assessment. • Evaluate the needs and opportunities for the community. • Create a vision. What does the City want and where do they want it located? • Analyze existing land use. • Define a downtown center. • Refine the meaning of intensity in the various districts you create. • Establish a vision for the CRA neighborhoods. • Write form -based codes that incorporate the vision and the CRA Goals. • Change the Comprehensive- Plan by adding incentives to stimulate redevelopment. • Good investors do not want to come and fight with a City for years and years. They will bring their money somewhere else. • Increase intensity and demand amenities from developers. • Consider extending existing sidewalks, walkways and bike paths. • Try to create a town center to live, work and play. • Refine the meaning of intensity. • Set buildings back for angled parking vs. parallel parking. • Maximize number of parking spaces. • Create short-term and long-term plans. • Create sub -zones to better develop the City's vision - where image and reality align. • Create a Vision Statement. • Start with one good City block or area that would be enticing to developers. • Define a place (location, location, location). • Create a theme. • Adequate intensity can change from block to block. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 28, 2008 Page 6 • Consider what's the most viable economic use of property is. • Transportation element is important. Consider expanding bus routes. • Show visual preferences and get comments from the public. • For retail, include: general stores, spas, coffee shops, downtown restaurants, sidewalk vendors, ice cream parlors, drug stores, bakeries, and flower shops. • Revise existing codes for specific mixed use overlays, in defined areas, so existing uses would not become non -conforming. • Begin the thought process by contacting everyone that is located within an overlaid area. Invite them to a meeting when you will be talking about redevelopment within their area. Suggest that they work together with the City. Take them on a bus tour to look at existing properties and ask what their future desires would be if the overlaid areas were redeveloped. In an effort to keep the City's momentum going, Mr. Laurien offered to comeback, (if the Board would be patient on scheduling) and bring a 50 minute movie titled: Save our Land, Save our Town for the Board and audience to watch and then open the meeting to discussion. Mr. Laurien gave two web -site addresses: www.flickr.com to look at photographs of various mixed-use developments; and www.myregion.orQ to review an article called "How Should We Grow?" The Mayor and City Council members in attendance, Board members, City staff and the audience thanked Mr. Laurien for his time and excellent presentation. 2. Discussion Re: Mixed Use Districts Chairperson McNeely announced that the Board had already had enough discussion about mixed use districts for the evening. OPEN DISCUSSION John Porter, resident, property owner, and business owner, asked to address the Board to discuss a potential project on his family's 5.8 acres of commercial property along N. Atlantic Avenue. Chairperson McNeely allowed Mr. Porter to speak. He thanked the Chairperson and advised that he had a potential buyer for the property who wanted to construct a two flag hotel, with 171 rooms; and four accessory structures. Nikesh Shah, potential buyer, provided the Board members a hand-out showing a proposed architectural rendering and site layout of the property. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 28, 2008 Page 7 Laura Minton Young, Esquire, spoke regarding the proposed hotel project. She advised that Manzill, LLC was proposing to develop a hotel to be located on an approximately 5.8 acre lot, with a detached restaurant. The question to the Board was whether the proposed hotel project satisfied the City's density requirement, which was calculated as rental units per acre, mandated by the City code. Ms. Young explained that C-1 is the only zoning classification that permitted hotels. Such permitted hotels must have a minimum of 150 rental units with no more than 30 rental units per net acre. She voiced her opinion that based on Section 110-332, the only hotel projects permitted in the City were those with at least 150 rental units necessitating at least five net acres. Unfortunately, the City's Land Development Code failed to provide a definition of what constituted a net acre. The only place where density could be calculated per the City's code was in Section 110-1, where the term "net residential acre" is defined. Ms. Young explained that restaurants are customarily accessory uses for hotel projects providing service to its hotel guests and others. Accordingly, net acreage for purposes under City Code Section 110-332 should include the horizontal acreage of a lot devoted exclusively to hotel uses and accessory restaurant uses. She voiced her opinion that clearly, that was how Section 110- 332 would be applied if the restaurant was inside the hotel. She advised that nothing in the City's code indicated a different standard should be applicable because the restaurant is located outside of the hotel, as a free standing facility. Ms. Young read the City's definition of accessory use. She stated that accessory use meant a use or structure on the same lot with and of a nature customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use or structure. She voiced her opinion that the definition indicated that an accessory use could be a separate structure on a lot. She noted that restaurants do not provide lodging of any kind, and therefore, did not contribute rental units to a hotel's density requirements. Ms. Young explained that the City promulgated Section 110-253 to prevent the reuse of area used for density calculation in certain instances. It provided that the area used in either a site plan or plot plan to determine the number of living units allowed in that area shall not be reused in computing the number of living units for that area or for any subsequent area used within that area. The Section dealt with the use of an area to compute the number of living units for a project or area more than once to allow more living units than would normally be permitted under the Code. Ms. Young used the following example: two hotels could not utilize the same area to permit 150 units for each hotel. This development project did not fall into the jurisdiction of this prohibition because it included only one use or structure that had a density requirement, the hotel, and one structure or use that did not, the restaurant. The developer is not attempting to gain more density, rental units per acre, than would normally be permitted on the lot in the C-1 zone. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 28, 2008 Page 8 Ms. Young explained that the proposed project did not entail subdividing the lot to provide an out parcel for the eating establishment. Both the hotel and the eating establishment would be located within the boundaries of the one lot and would be under common ownership. The project should be considered one development project. The hotel project would be immensely beneficial for the surrounding area and the overall commercial district because it would increase the productivity and raise the quality of the current use of the property. The Board held discussion regarding if they could have two flags in one building. The consensus of the Board was that they could have two flags in one building only under one owner and operation. The Board held discussion regarding the proposed accessory structures. The definition of an accessory structure and a hotel was read by the City &i fenumerous times. The Board's discussion was based on the number of units for the hotel included acreage from the accessory structures could not be sold off. Chairperson McNeely asked Todd Peetz, City Planner, if the proposed project met the Code. He responded that everything on the site had to be one owner and one operator; and a binding development agreement should be submitted stating that it would remain in that manner of ownership and operation in perpetuity of the uses being on site. Secondly, they would need to provide a listing of the accessory uses so that if the uses changed in the future, there would be no question if the changed use was an accessory use. He noted that the City has not received any submittal for the proposed project and the plans presented were only conceptual, however the developer would need to demonstrate that the accessory uses would be customarily incidental and subordinate to the primary use. Mr. Porter, property owner, advised that the buyer wanted to make sure the City was viable to the proposed project and had support from the City before moving forward. Discussion followed. Chairperson McNeely asked Todd Morley, Building Official, his opinion on the issue. Mr. Morley answered that the City code had been enforced historically that five acres would have to be only for the hotel use. Following discussion, the Board concluded to request the City Attorney to give a ruling on incidental uses, and if two hotel chains being in one building met the intent of the City code. Mr. Porter thanked the Board. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 14, 2008 A Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on May 14, 2008, at the City Hall Annex, 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Chairperson Bea McNeely called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The Secretary called the roll. MEMBERS PRESENT Bea McNeely Chairperson Lamar Russell Vice Chairperson John Fredrickson Donald Dunn Hart' Pearson John Johanson 1 st Alternate Ronald Friedman 2nd Alternate OTHERS PRESENT Susan Chapman Board Secretary Shannon Roberts Council Member Leo Nicholas Council Member Anthony Garganese City Attorney Todd Peetz City Planner NEW BUSINESS 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes: April 23, 2008. Motion by Donald Dunn, seconded by Harry Pearson, to approve the meeting minutes of April 23, 2008, as written. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. . 2. Recommendation to City Council Re: Preliminary Replat for Sea Shell Cay Townhomes — John Johanson, Applicant. John Johanson, Applicant, announced that he had a voting conflict, because he was an ownership partner of the property. Mr. Johanson submitted the required voting conflict form to the Board Secretary. Todd Peetz, City Planner, advised that the agenda item was for a preliminary replat for three lots. He explained that the property was located on the northwest side of Sea Shell Lane and north of Harbor Drive. The zoning was C-1 with a granted special exception for residential use. He noted that city staff reviewed the preliminary replat, and all comments had been satisfied. However, the city engineer's chief surveyor, had commented that an Opinion Title be attached to any further reviews. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 14, 2008 Page 2 John Fredrickson asked why it took so long to submit the preliminary replat. City Attorney, Anthony Garganese, responded that the Board of Adjustment had denied the special exception request. A lawsuit was filed by the Petitioner. Upon remand from the Brevard County Circuit Court overturning the Board's decision, the Board of Adjustment held another meeting and granted the special exception. The Board members reviewed the preliminary replat. Discussion followed regarding: minor typos, the north property line being off 100th of a ft., setback requirements, City code definition of lot width, minimum lot widths, required site data, and waste management pick-up. Motion by John Fredrickson, seconded by Bea McNeely, to recommend approval of the Preliminary Replat for Sea Shell Cay North Townhomes, with inclusion that the replat show the areas of each lot. Donald Dunn announced that he would not vote, because the applicant was a Planning & Zoning Board member who has a lawsuit against the City. City Attorney, Anthony Garganese, informed Mr. Dunn that unless he had a vested interest in the property, he was required to vote. The Secretary called the question. Vote on the motion was as follows: Donald Dunn, against; John Fredrickson, for; Bea McNeely, for; Harry Pearson, for; and Lamar Russell, for. The motion carried by a (4) to (1) majority vote. DISCUSSION 1. Discussion Re: Mixed Use Districts. Todd Peetz, City Planner, recapped that at the last meeting staff had prepared a presentation of already existing mixed use districts that portrayed the various elements that were important to the P & Z Board and the City of Cape Canaveral. After much discussion, it was decided that the Board would like to evaluate seven potential mixed use districts within the City. He advised that a brief was provided in the Board packet of each area, which he would be giving an overview on. He announced that the desired goal was to identify key areas that would most benefit from the mixed use concept. Mr. Peetz gave his analysis on mixed use. He explained that he and his staff conducted an analysis of seven potential mixed use areas within the City. The potential mixed use area were evaluated in order to determine the pros and cons of each to assist the City in determining which site was more suitable for a mixed use development. He advised that the Board packet contained maps which provided a graphic depiction of the areas, which included: • Area 1 — Located in the northern portion of the City from Shorewood Drive to the n9a4rn City limits and from west of Solana Lakes to a couple of parcelsteali of Al A. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 14, 2008 Page 3 • Area 2 — Located in the north central portion of the City south of East Central Boulevard and north to Oak Manor Drive, centered at the intersection of East Central Boulevard and N. Atlantic Avenue. • Area 3 — Located west of Area 2, with N. Atlantic Avenue being the boundary to the east and Astronaut Boulevard being the boundary to the west. • Area 4 — Located west of N. Atlantic Avenue, from south of Arno Road to Cocoa Palms Drive. • Area 5 — Located west of Area 3 and Astronaut Boulevard, east of Bayside and Bayport, north of Columbia Drive. • Area 6 — Located south of Church Lane and north of Harrison Avenue. (This is the Al N. Atlantic split.) Area 7 — Located all remaining C-1 and C-2 zoned property in the City. Mr. Peetz advised that according to the adopted 2007 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), there were approximately 1,372 acres of land within the City and of that, 106 acres (or 7.7%) was vacant. The EAR also stated that as vacant land became less available, redevelopment of existing commercial and residential areas would be further considered. Redevelopment trends in the City would require an increase in density in order to accommodate the additional projected population increase and housing demand. One technique discussed in the Future Land Use Element, EAR was the possibility for a mixed use district or districts within the City. The EAR further described proposed mixed use areas likely to occur around the Central Boulevard area between A1A and North Atlantic Avenue. Mr. Peetz broke down the mixed use potential of the seven proposed areas, as follows: • Area 1 — The largest of the six potential mixed use areas. This excluded Area 7, which was spread throughout the City. Area 1 included a mixture of zoning and future land use designations including: R-3, M-1, C-1, and R-2. Area 1 was located at the northernmost City limits. To the south were properties zoned C-1, R-2, and M-1; to the west of was M-1; and to the east was C-1 and R-3. Description: Area 1 included 108.74 acres; 19 total properties (10 vacant, 4 industrial, 4 residential, and 1 commercial); 10 parcels, totaling 36.06 acres were vacant; a 5 minute travel time for pedestrians and bicycles was shown on the map to depict travel times for each; properties within a 5 minute travel time included: 37 vacant, 11 industrial, 10 commercial, 7 recreation/open space, and 350 residential units. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 14, 2008 Page 4 Pros and Cons: Pros — This was the largest of the potential mixed use sites. It was divided by N. Atlantic Avenue, which would provide visibility in marketing the project and provided access to the site. Cons — It was surrounded by and contained some existing industrial uses. It may be necessary to provide a greater environmental analysis to ensure protection of future residential uses. The City could work with the municipality to the north, however it could not control the potential uses abutting Area 1. An extensive screening and buffering plan may be required to ensure maximum comfort of the residents or commercial uses in that area. • Area 2 — This area was almost a visual continuation of Area 3. Area 2 was mainly zoned C-1 and C-2, with a future land use designation of commercial. Properties to the north of Area 2 were also zoned C-1 and had a Commercial Future Land Use designation. To the west of Area 2 was Area 3, which was mainly C-2 and M-1. To the east were properties designated R-1, with a Residential Future Land Use designation. Description: There were 28.75 acres, with a total of 8 properties (3 vacant, 3 industrial, 2 commercial, and 1 residential); 3 parcels totaling 15.79 acres were vacant; a 5 minute travel time for pedestrians and bicycles was shown on the map to depict travel times for each; within a 5 minute travel time, properties included: 49 vacant, 11 industrial, 27 commercial, 2 recreation/open space, and 571 residential. Pros and Cons: Pros - There were not as many total properties as some of the other areas, which could help in the development process. Also, a little more than half of the area was vacant or undeveloped. Cons — This may not be the best area for a mixed use development as it was bounded directly to the east by R-1, Residential properties which may be opposed to a higher density and intensity project near their location. • Area 3 — A majority of this area was zoned C-2 with a Commercial Future Land Use designation. The remaining portion of this area was zoned M-1 with an Industrial Future Land Use designation. To the west of this area was Area 5, which was mainly zoned C-2, to the east and south was C-2 and R-2 Description: Area 3 included 55.77 acres; there were a total of 21 properties (1 vacant, 7 industrial, 2 residential, and 11 commercial); one parcel totaling 3.5 acres was vacant; a 5 minute travel time for pedestrians and bicycles was shown on the map to depict travel times for each; properties within a 5 minute travel time included: 92 vacant, 15 industrial, 47 commercial, 15 recreational/open space, and 310 residential. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 14, 2008 Page 5 Pros and Cons: Pros — This area was near the existing commercial and main transportation network of the City, and may provide good visibility and marketing for a mixed use community. Cons — It had a smaller amount of vacant area and designated industrial lands. • Area 4 — This area was similar in size to some of the other areas and was currently zoned C-2, with a Commercial Future Land Use designation. Across the eastern boundary of N. Atlantic Avenue, and to the north and south, the properties outside this area were zoned C-1 and designated as Commercial on the Future Land Use Map. The properties to the west of this area were zoned R-3, with a Residential Future Land Use designation. Description: Area 4 included 27.98 acres; there were a total of 15 properties (2 vacant, 2 industrial, 1 residential, and 10 commercial). Two parcels totaling 0.94 acres were vacant. A 5 minute travel time for pedestrians and bicycles was shown on the map to depict travel times for each; the number of properties located within a 5 minute travel time included: 20 vacant, 4 industrial, 26 commercial, 8 recreation/open space, and 280 residential. Pros and Cons: Pros — Since it was the southernmost proposed mixed use area in the City, it may function as an attractor to circulate people and uses within the City. Cons — This area has the least amount of vacant, undeveloped land totaling 0.94 acres. • Area 5 — The majority of this area was zoned C-2 with a Commercial Future Land Use designation. Other parcels within this area were zoned R-3, with a Residential Future Land Use designation. To the east of this area was Area 3, which was mostly zoned C-2 with a Commercial Future Land Use designation. The properties north of Area 5 were zoned for Conservation uses. Description: Area 5 included 52.72 acres; there were a total of 19 properties (8 vacant, 1 recreation/open space, 1 residential, and 9 commercial). 8 parcels totaling 22.79 acres were vacant. A 5 minute travel time for pedestrians and bicycles was shown on the map to depict travel times for each; the number of properties located within a 5 minute travel time included: 48 vacant, 13 industrial, 31 commercial, 11 recreation/open space, and 219 residential. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 14, 2008 Page 6 Pros and Cons: Pros — Other than Area 1, Area 5 had the most vacant land and was easily accessible from A1A. Additionally, there were community parks near this proposed mixed use location. Cons — The majority of the City's residents lived on the east side of A1A, making pedestrian or bicycle crossing an issue. • Area 6 — This area was completely comprised of C-1, with a Commercial Future Land Use designation. The properties to the east were currently zoned R-2, with a Residential Future Land Use designation. The properties to the north and south were also C-1, with a Commercial Future Land Use designation; the property to the west was zoned C-1, with a Commercial Future Land Use designation and R-3 with a Residential Future Land Use designation. Description: Area 6 included a total of 31.18 acres; there were a total of 92 total properties (19 vacant, 2 recreation/open space, 51 residential, 17 commercial, and 3 industrial. There were 19 parcels totaling 3.58 acres vacant. A 5 minute travel time for pedestrians and bicycles was shown on the map to depict travel times for each; the number of properties located within a 5 minute travel time included: 44 vacant, 2 industrial, 21 commercial, 11 recreation/open space, and 720 residential. Pros and Cons: Pros — While Area 6 was currently a Commercial corridor, it was near enough to other residentially zoned properties which may provide a good location for a true mixed use development. It was bordered on the west by N. Atlantic Avenue, which provided good visibility for a project. Cons — There were many parcels in Area 6, which may prove difficult to combine for development. • Area 7 — This area was comprised of all C-1 and C-2 designated properties throughout the City. This area may overlap Areas 1-6. Following the presentation, discussion was held regarding the areas identified by Mr. Peetz; establishing minimum acreage for a mixed use project; City's goal to create walk able communities; the possible need to widen N. Atlantic Avenue to four lanes; selection of a theme; types of mixed uses; how to control a mixed use development; creating ways to decrease traffic within mixed use areas; how to implement mixed use in the Comprehensive Plan. The Board requested that City staff provide them a copy of the Business & Cultural Development Board's draft of there redevelopment plan. The Board also requested that the City Planner show them an existing overlay ordinance of mixed use. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 14, 2008 Page 7 OPEN DISCUSSION There was no open discussion. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. 4f'i? %Zd) Bba M N ' erson Susan L. Chapman, cretary PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 23, 2008 A Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on April 23, 2008, at the City Hall Annex, 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Chairperson Bea McNeely called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The Secretary called the roll. MEMBERS PRESENT Bea McNeely Chairperson John Fredrickson Donald Dunn Harry Pearson John Johanson 1 st Alternate Ronald Friedman 2nd Alternate MEMBERS ABSENT Lamar Russell Vice Chairperson OTHERS PRESENT Susan Chapman Board Secretary Robert Hoog Mayor Pro Tem Shannon Roberts Council Member Todd Peetz City Planner NEW BUSINESS 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes: April 23, 2008. Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by Donald Dunn, to approve the meeting minutes of April 23, 2008, with a minor correction. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS 1. Discussion Re: Mixed Use Districts. Todd Peetz, City Planner, gave a brief overview of the issues discussed at the last meeting regarding mixed use. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes April 23, 2008 Page 2 Mr. Peetz gave a PowerPoint Presentation regarding a variety of mixed use concepts, which included: a village center that included office, retail, and residential; gathering places and civic spaces; open spaces, parks, and recreation; architectural standards, including: windows, awnings, doors, walkways, breezeways, roofs & roof peaks, facades, walls, arches, railings, signs, balconies, front walks; landscape standards, screening, vegetation placement; shared parking, on -street parking, permeable parking lots, paralleled parking; bike racks; connecting walkways, bicycle and pedestrian paths; lighting features; pedestrian friendly streetscape/hardscape, benches, street furniture; traffic calming, pavers, textured pavements, narrowed and pinched roads, raised intersections, crosswalks; on -street parking, landscaping, speed bumps, tables & chairs, and traffic circles. Discussion followed regarding identifying potential mixed use properties. Further discussion will be held at a forthcoming meeting. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. > I belirMcNeel Chairperson Susan n, S cretary PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 9, 2008 A Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on April 9, 2008, at the City Hall Annex, 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Chairperson Bea McNeely called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The Secretary called the roll. MEMBERS PRESENT Bea McNeely Chairperson John Fredrickson Donald Dunn Harry Pearson John Johanson 1 st Alternate Ronald Friedman 2nd Alternate MEMBERS ABSENT Lamar Russell Vice Chairperson OTHERS PRESENT Susan Chapman Robert Hoog Shannon Roberts Kate Latorre Todd Morley Todd Peetz NEW BUSINESS Board Secretary Mayor Pro Tem Council Member Assistant City Attorney Building Official City Planner 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes: March 26, 2008. Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by Donald Dunn, to approve the meeting minutes of March 26, 2008. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS 1. Discussion Re: Mixed Use Districts. Todd Peetz, City Planner, gave a brief overview of the articles contained in the Board packet. The City Planner pointed the Board members to a map highlighted with proposed mixed-use locations within the City as follows: Central Boulevard, Center Street, northern North Atlantic Avenue, and the McDonalds area. More specifically, at the corner of N. Atlantic Avenue and Central Boulevard; the West side of Center Street (where the old Chrysler building is located); the West side of the canal and the United Space Alliance property all the way north of the AJT property; and the Jungle Village property continuing South past Martin Greene's property. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes April 9, 2008 Page 2 The City Planner spoke regarding types of proposed uses in a mixed use development as follows: Mixed use development refers to the practice of containing more than one type of use in a building or set of buildings. In zoning terms, this could mean a combination of residential, commercial, industrial, office, institutional or other uses. The City Planner explained the key components of mixed use development. He stated that mixed use development refers to the practice of containing more than one type of use in a building or set of buildings. In zoning terms, this can mean some combination of residential, commercial, industrial, office, institutional or other issues. The City Planner outlined elements of mixed use development as follows: • Architectural design standards (facade, color, theme) • Village style mix of uses (retail, office, restaurant, civic, residential) • Flexible setbacks • Plazas, fountains, and public spaces • Parking type (rear, on/off street) • Pedestrian and bicycle oriented (bike racks, benches, bus stop) • Traffic calming devices • Landscaping The City Planner advised that he would present photos of mixed-use, at the next meeting, which will include the following examples: • Architectural Standards — windows, doors, roof peaks, walls, facades, arches, railings, signs, balconies, front walks, and awnings. • Walls — clapboard, bricks, and stucco. • Landscape Standards — screening; and vegetation placement • Focus on Village Center — office, retail, residential, including: relationship of buildings to public spaces; building orientation; gathering spaces, civic spaces; open spaces, parks, and recreation. • Parking — shared parking, on -street parking, permeable parking lots if available, paralleled parking, shade trees, and bike racks. • Sidewalks — connecting walkways, breezeway, bicycle path, pedestrian path, and transit stops. • Lighting features. • Pedestrian friendly streetscape/hardscape — benches, and street furniture. • Markers/Signs — things that provide direction. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes April 9, 2008 Page 3 Traffic calming devices - pavers, textured pavements, pinch in the road (chokers), narrow roads, winding roads, raised intersections, crosswalks, on -street parking, landscaping (sides/center of the roads), speed humps, bumps, tables, cushions, etc.; and traffic circles. Discussion was held regarding: traffic, parking, walking distances, bike riders and bike paths, transit stops, lighting, street furniture, markers and directional signs, traffic calming, climatic weather, landscaping, potential properties that would be a good location for mixed use; impact to existing infrastructure; incentives for the City's tax base to grow; providing services to the residents; tools to make property viable for redevelopment; growth; the City being 93% built -out, and building has stopped; the City is heading towards a $600,000 deficit by the beginning of the next budget year; the Board's challenge is to move f^^ .yard-with-whais-besfor-#het- developmen#; brtrigi ng back into the City from County tax dollars by defining Community Redevelopment Agency's (CRA) areas to improve that area(s) infrastructure; redevelopment; create and provide new incentives and flexibility for investors to want to come into the City, which would help grow the City's tax base. Todd Peetz advised that last year, the Business and Cultural Development Board performed a redevelopment study. He noted that he has seen mixed developments work in other communities, and believed it would be a great asset to the City. The Board reviewed a table showing the eight CFA's in the County, and how much tax money the County and Cities have to pay into each CRA. Bennett Boucher, City Manager, stated that if Cape Canaveral were to implement a CRA, funds can be used to improve roadways, bury power lines, street scape and other CRA related projects. He advised that it is a funding source that the City should consider for redevelopment. Discussion followed. Mr. Peetz added that the City should create a concept of product for potential redevelopment areas that the City is looking for to achieve. He stated that the zoning map would need to include a mixed-use overlay referencing the locations and the City would also need to do a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Discussion continued. Joyce Hamilton, citizen & business owner, stated that the City has a problem now, not 20 years down the road. She further stated that redevelopment is a good idea for the City; and the City has an investor that is willing to spend a lot of money to bring needed services into the City, which will strengthen the City's tax base. She encouraged the Board to seriously consider creating incentives for developers to want to build in this City. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes April 9, 2008 Page 4 Chairperson, Bea McNeely, advised that she wanted the Board to be provided a map of potential CRA properties; wanted the Board to see a CRA presentation; and a PowerPoint presentation of how they did the CRA in Satellite Beach. Bennett Boucher, City Manager, congratulated Dr. John Fredrickson for being reappointed as our Brevard County School Board liaison. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Bea Vee y, tperson PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES MARCH 12, 2008 A Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on March 12, 2008, at the City Hall Annex, 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Chairperson Bea McNeely called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The Secretary called the roll. MEMBERS PRESENT Bea McNeely Chairperson Lamar Russell Vice Chairperson Donald Dunn Council Member Harry Pearson Assistant City Attorney John Johanson 1 st Alternate Ronald Friedman 2nd Alternate MEMBERS ABSENT John Fredrickson OTHERS PRESENT Susan Chapman Board Secretary Robert Hoog Mayor Pro Tem Shannon Roberts Council Member Kate Latorre Assistant City Attorney Todd Morley Building Official Todd Peetz City Planner NEW BUSINESS Approval of Meeting Minutes: February 27, 2008. Motion by Donald Dunn, seconded by Lamar Russell, to approve the meeting minutes of February 27, 2008. Brief discussion followed. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 2. Review and Recommendation to City Council Re: Proposed Ordinance Amending Section 22-40, Clarifying which Properties are Subiect to Community Appearance Board Review. FORM 813 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS �WSTBWjj�� RST NAME -MIDDLE NAMjE- NAME OF 80AR0. COUNCIL. CO WASSION. AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE d Ul OC 1/Z s a i/L �� !/l cit. J. ✓L � Wt GY .r"' MAILING ADDR SS THE BOARD. COUNCIL. COMMISSION. AUTHORITY OR ON 1 p a" �1 wH I SERVE IS A UNIT OR [OAT. ITY / COUNTY cm O COUNTY O OTHER LOCAL AGENCY a G .,a I f 'r o4 -?rev a NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: �� G ✓LartJ lit O WHICH VOTE OCCURRED -j MY POSITION M' p J2 T/ O ELECTIVE Jd APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 813 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non -advisory bodies who are presented with a voting confilct of Interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay dose attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other focal public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which iures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed kraal officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- -sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the. arent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or toss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one -acre, one -vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" Includes only the officer's father, mother. son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father4n-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughterin-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly staling to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should Incorporate the form In the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting In the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to Influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction_ C YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE AKEN: "You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) :;E FORM 813 - EFF. 112000 ?AGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST 1, . -J %� e -- o YA lU -,`"o JU , hereby disclose that on 1 �1 .20 (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; Inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, — inured to the special gain or toss of by whom I am retained; or — inured to the special gain or loss of , which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: v a LJ ZA4 Q r CV4Aet- b�' � L�- o'r �/ l Ll Date Filed 4 L-.Wvt e J` NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. FORM 813 - EFF. 112000 PAGE 2 Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes March 12, 2008 Page 2 Todd Morley, Building Official, explained that when Ordinance No. 04-2003 was written, the intent was to require Community Appearance Board approval for any change to the exterior of a building or roof color in the commercial zoning district. When the change of color issue was discussed and codified in 2003, the codification had the unintended effect of appearing to remove all residential development from the scope of the Community Appearance Board. Mr. Morley advised that the solution was to insert the words "in all zoning districts" in the first sentence of Section 22-40(a). Mr. Morley read the code section for the record. Discussion followed. Chairperson McNeely asked if the Community Appearance Board had been informed of the proposed code clarification. Mr. Morley responded that the Community Appearance Board was not made aware of the proposed code amendment, because the purpose was to preserve the original intent; however, he could inform the Board before the change is presented to the City Council. Assistant City Attorney, Kate Latorre, advised that she would present the proposed code clarification to the Community Appearance Board at their meeting Monday evening. Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by Lamar Russell, to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amending Section 22-40, clarifying which properties were subject to Community Appearance Board review. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 3. Review and Recommendation to City Council Re: Proposed Code Amendment, Section 110-28, Courtesy Notices. Todd Morley, Building Official, advised that city staff performed a survey on how other municipalities send zoning related notices to affected property owners. He summarized the results of the survey as follows: 12 municipalities responded; 2 of 12 send postcards; 7 or 12 send regular mail; 2 of 12 send by certified mail; and 1 of 12 send the notices by regular or certified mail depending on the issue. Mr. Morley advised that City staff also reviewed the history of undelivered certified courtesy notices from the last four special exception requests. He summarized that approximately 22% of the notices did not make it into the hands of the property owner. The Board members reviewed the survey. Brief discussion followed. Mr. Morley explained that if the City mailed bright orange postcards, it is likely that more property owners would receive them, which would result in increased owner/citizen participation. Mr. Morley read the existing definition of a courtesy notice from the City code. He explained the benefits of sending the courtesy notices via regular mail as follows: the notices would be less of an expense to the applicant; less staff time monitoring return receipts; and there may be a greater likelihood that the courtesy notice would end up in the owner's hands with little effort on their part. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes March 12, 2008 Page 3 He read the proposed change to the ordinance allowing courtesy notices to be processed by regular mail or post cards. Brief discussion followed. Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney, encouraged the Board to consider the Building Official's recommendation, because the notice was simply a courtesy notification to affected property owners, not a requirement. The Board members reviewed Mr. Morley's proposed code amendment. Brief discussion followed. Motion by Lamar Russell, seconded by Donald Dunn, to recommend approval of the proposed code amendment, with the City Manager deciding if the notices would be sent certified or regular mail depending on the issue. Following discussion, Mr. Russell withdrew his motion. Discussion followed. Motion by Lamar Russell, seconded by Harry Pearson, to recommend approval of the proposed code amendment as drafted by the Building Official. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS Discussion Re: Mixed Use Districts. Todd Peetz, City Planner, explained that the Florida Redevelopment Association may be attending the Board's meeting on April 9th or May 14th to educate the Board on community redevelopment. Lamar Russell noted that the Board would also be educated on lessons learned. Following discussion, Mr. Peetz advised that the first meeting with an associate from the Florida Redevelopment Association would educate the Board on mixed -uses and lessons learned; and then the associate would come back at another meeting to discuss how the City could benefit from the Community Redevelopment Agency. Todd Peetz. advised that he performed research as requested by Mr. Dunn at the last meeting on failed mixed use districts. He explained that he performed a Google computer research and he found only one article about a mixed use development that was not developed because of the economy. Mr. Peetz pointed out and highlighted some of the articles contained in the Board packet. During discussion, the Board looked forward to a speaker coming in and educating them on mixed uses. Mr. Russell commented that the City could add pictures in the City code of expectations of mixed uses the City favored and show illustrations of do this, not this. Mr. Russell suggested that the Board members review the existing residential planned unit development code to familiarize themselves on types of mixed uses. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes March 12, 2008 Page 4 OPEN DISCUSSION Donald Dunn thanked City staff for providing the most recent traffic study. Todd Peetz, City Planner, advised that a representative from Luke Transportation could come and speak to the Board to explain the traffic study and make suggestions on what the City could do when the traffic counts meet their maximum. Ron Friedman noted that most of the City's traffic comes from Orlando and Cocoa Beach and travels through the City bringing the count up. He explained that traffic counts were subjective, not objective. He pointed out a mistake on the report, in Appendix C, that Bayside townhomes should not be listed in the vested category, because the project was built -out in 2006/2007. He also pointed out that since 2001 the traffic has been stable and in most areas, has even decreased. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m. Bea M ers n Susan L. Chapman, Se retary PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 2008 A Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on February 27, 2008, at the City Hall Annex, 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Chairperson Bea McNeely called the meeting to order at 8:21 p.m. The Secretary called the roll. MEMBERS PRESENT Bea McNeely John Fredrickson Donald Dunn Harry Pearson John Johanson Ronald Friedman MEMBERS ABSENT Lamar Russell OTHERS PRESENT Robert Hoog Shannon Roberts Kate Latorre Todd Peetz Susan Chapman NEW BUSINESS Chairperson 1 st Alternate 2nd Alternate Vice Chairperson Mayor Pro Tem Council Member Assistant City Attorney City Planner Board Secretary Approval of Meeting Minutes: February 13, 2008. Donald Dunn asked that a sentence be added to page 4, paragraph 4 of the minutes. Motion by Chairperson McNeely, seconded by Harry Pearson to approve the meeting minutes of February 13, 2008, with the minor addition requested by Donald Dunn. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 2. Review and Recommendation to City Council Re: Ordinance #03-2008, Changing the Zoning Map Designation of Certain Real Property Totaling 6.24 Acres More or Less, Generally Located along the North side of Shorewood Drive at the Southwest Corner of Jetty Park, from R-3 Medium Density Residential to C-1 Low Density Commercial — Petitioner is Cape Caribe, Inc., Kohn Bennett, Applicant. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes February 27, 2008 Page 2 Motion by John Johanson, seconded by John Fredrickson, to recommend approval of Ordinance #03-2008, with the condition that the use of the property be limited to parking and recreation amenities that already exist at Cape Caribe; and the Assistant City Attorney to update the proposed ordinance with the correct acreage. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 3. Discussion & Recommendation to City Council Re: Suggestions on how to Implement Increasing Building Height. Todd Peetz, City Planner, presented an exhibit of a shadow study, he created, for the area around Astronaut Boulevard and West Central Boulevard. The exhibit showed shadows of various building heights at different time intervals. Brief discussion followed. Mr. Peetz recommended a distance separation be' established between commercial and residential uses. He showed exhibits of separation distances. He suggested that the distance separation should be greater than 200 ft. from the residential zone to allow height higher than 45 ft., and a separation distance of 500 ft. for 65 ft. height. Discussion followed regarding concerns of heavy traffic on A1A. Todd Peetz presented an example of a code amendment, to amend Sections 110-336 and 110-385, regarding properties directly abutting the A1A corridor increasing their building height with separation from existing residential use. The Board members voiced there frustration that they were not expected to vote on whether greater heights was appropriate and/or if they should recommend to the City Council that a referendum should be done. Discussion was held regarding traffic impact of the proposed Sheldon Cove project. Todd Peetz advised that the project would need to go through the site plan process, which would include Traffic Concurrency. The Board members requested that they be provided a copy of the most recent traffic reconciliation. Chairperson McNeely spoke regarding special exceptions for residential use in the commercial zoning district. She stated that if the City was going to change something, then just change it. She advised that she was against special exceptions. Harry Pearson agreed that it should be done by an ordinance change. He advised that 65 ft. may not be high enough. He noted that the City had a previous proposed project that requested 75 -ft. He requested that the City Attorney make the change in the ordinance. He stated that the City go back to the residents with a referendum. Todd Peetz responded that it was the City Council's decision as to how it should be done. Donald Dunn reiterated that the City Council wants to handle the referendum issue. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes February 27, 2008 Page 3 Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney, explained that a special exception would allow certain criteria and the City could impose limitations on a case by case basis. John Johanson commented that he liked what Todd Peetz suggested on what he had presented to change the code allowing increased height. Todd Peetz added that they could add supplemental design criteria. Kate Latorre suggested that they could create an overlay. Donald Dunn voiced his concerns regarding ingress, egress, and traffic impact that would be created with the proposed Sheldon Cove project. He questioned how the project would impact other future developments. Todd Peetz explained that height should be limited to keep within the harmony of what was existing. He explained that the higher the building the more intensive impact the project creates. Todd Morley, Building Official, explained the Concurrency Management process. He explained that there are technical requirements, and traffic count can be mitigated. He announced that in the year 2030, A1A would be widened to six lanes. He explained to the Board members that this agenda item was not about whether the Board was for or against increasing height, it was about if height was increased, how it would be implemented. A resident voiced his opinion that Todd Peetz had the right idea. He commented that maybe the City could purchase Carver's Cove Trailer Village to build a passive park to decrease the traffic counts. Chairperson McNeely stated that the City Council can make up there own minds. Harry Pearson strongly recommended the issue go to the voters as a referendum. Chairperson McNeely and Donald Dunn agreed with Harry Pearson. Motion made by Donald Dunn, seconded by John Fredrickson, to have the City Attorney prepare a code amendment to allow building height to be increased to 65 ft. or more. Discussion followed. Todd Peetz explained floor to air ratios. He explained that if height is limited, the City can manage it. Harry Pearson asked why they were only focusing on distance from residential. He questioned why they were not considering distance requirements from commercial, because a higher building would easily overshadow another building. Todd Peetz advised that the agenda item was only to discuss property along the A1A corridor. Motion failed by a (3) to (2) vote against the motion, with members voting as follows: Donald Dunn, for; John Fredrickson, for; John Johanson, against; Bea McNeely, against; Harry Pearson, against. Motion by Bea McNeely, seconded by Harry Pearson, to hold a referendum and ask the voters if they wanted to maintain the maximum allowable height at 45 ft. A lengthy discussion followed. Following discussion, Bea McNeely withdrew her motion, Harry Pearson agreed. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes February 27, 2008 Page 4 Motion by John Johanson to recommend Todd Peetz' presented suggestions, with the change that the 65 ft. height be limited to five stories. There being no second, the motion failed. A lengthy discussion followed. Ronald Friedman reiterated his statement from the last meeting that the City Council was voted in by the residents to handle tough decisions. Discussion continued. Councilwoman Shannon Roberts advised that City Council was looking for professional research advice and options from the Board. Harry Pearson rebutted that the City Council should make a decision on whether or not they want to increase height before sending the issue to the Planning & Zoning Board. Motion by Donald Dunn, seconded by John Fredrickson, that the Board recommend to City Council that building height in C-1 and C-2 zoning districts, be increased to 65 ft., limited to five stories, by changing the City code. Vote on the motion carried by a (3) to (2) majority vote, with members voting as follows: Donald Dunn, for; John Fredrickson, for; John Johanson, for; Bea McNeely, against; and Harry Pearson, against. Mr. Mays thanked the Planning & Zoning Board and City Council for all their discussions. OLD BUSINESS 1. Discussion Re: Mixed Use Districts. Todd Peetz, City Planner, advised that he may have someone available to speak to the Board from the Florida Redevelopment Peer to Peer Assistance Program at the next meeting. The Board members requested that this agenda item be placed on the next meeting agenda. 2. Discussion Re: Section 98, Article II Platting Todd Peetz, City Planner, explained that this discussion item was a result of questions arising from the Residence Inn out parcels. He advised that research of the code has revealed that the preliminary and final plat processes were inconsistent. He stated that staff was working on an ordinance and it would be ready to be presented to the Board at the next meeting. The Board members requested that this agenda item be placed on the next meeting agenda. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes February 27, 2008 Page 5 OPEN DISCUSSION Councilwoman Shannon Roberts advised that the City purchasing Carvers Cove to mitigate traffic may be an option. John Johanson requested that the Board members receive a copy of the most recent traffic report. Todd Morley, Building Official, responded that the Building department would get a copy of the City's most recent traffic report, and would forward a copy of it to the Board for their next meeting. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:58 p.m. Bea McNeely, Chairperson L . Susan L. apman, Secretary PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2008 A Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on February 13, 2008, at the City Hall Annex, 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Chairperson Bea McNeely called the meeting to order at 7:30 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 Shannon Roberts Kate Latorre Todd Peetz Susan Chapman NEW BUSINESS Chairperson Vice Chairperson 1 st Alternate 2nd Alternate Council Member Assistant City Attorney City Planner Board Secretary 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes: January 23, 2008. A few of the Board members requested a couple of minor changes to the January 23, 2008 minutes. Motion by Mr. Pearson, seconded by Ms. McNeely, to approve the meeting minutes of January 23, 2008, with the noted changes. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 2. Review Re: Consideration of a Citizen Awareness and Participation Plan (CAPP) Process — Todd Peetz, City Planner. Todd Peetz, City Planner, gave an overview of the previous discussion held by the Board regarding this agenda item. He noted that at the last meeting, staff was tasked with creating a process for when a CAPP would be required. It was also recommended that the process include some form of notification for the smaller projects. Mr. Peetz briefly reviewed Section 110-28, Due Process; Special Notice Requirements of the Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances. He read two additional paragraphs he proposed to add to the existing City Code Section that addressed a Citizen Awareness and Participation Plan (CAPP) notification process. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes February 13, 2008 Page 2 Discussion followed. Ms. McNeely stated that the two paragraphs proposed by Mr. Peetz should be codified and placed in the code. Mr. Dunn voiced his opinion that the notification to residents should extend further than properties within 500 ft., and the notification should be sent by certified mail to everyone in the City. Mr. Russell rebutted to Mr. Dunn's suggestion. He stated that no one would build in the City. Mr. Russell pointed out that notification could be made utilizing the City's web page. He commented that citizens do not need to be spoon-fed. He did not believe that the CAPP was necessary. Councilmember Ms. Roberts advised that Councilmember Petsos recommended the Board look at the City of Longwood's CAPP ordinance. She voiced City Council's concern regarding inadequate notice to the residents and commented that Mr. May's project was a good example for citizen awareness. She advised that the Council was trying to get a sense from the residents, by having them more involved through awareness. She commented that the citizens do not have enough information in the beginning stages of proposed projects. Mr. May's commented that a developer says lets do it in the dark and don't tell anyone. As a citizen, he wants to know when something is being proposed. Mr. Dunn questioned if the CAPP process would delay a project. Mr. Disler, DCWS, Outsource Media & Research Group, advised that he developed a 6X9 notification card. Mrs. Dawn May's distributed a sample mail -out and a web -page layout. She advised that the goal was to create interest from the residents. She did not believe that a 6X9 card was the proper format to discuss a 65' height; media releases and public meetings would be more appropriate. Mr. Russell commented that there was nothing in the City code to stop any one from notifying the public of a proposed project. Dr. Fredrickson stated that the property owner was snowballed and now the Board didn't want the CAPP. Mr. Pearson advised that Mr. Mays offered to do it. Mr. Berger, project contractor, stated that there are so many hoops to go through already. If City Council wants to advise the citizens, then they should do it on a case by case basis. He noted other regulatory agencies that require hoops to go through such as: Department of Community Affairs, Florida Department of Transportation, and St. Johns River Water Management District, etc. Mr. Peetz commented that when Brevard County sees that there is a lot of controversy, they table the request until the developer meets and works out concerns with the residents. Mr. Johanson voiced his opinion that the CAPP would be an encumbrance. Chairperson McNeely asked how the CAPP would be enforced. Assistant City Attorney Latorre responded that what the code or policy said would determine when it applied. She commented that it would be difficult to make someone follow the code and not someone else. She added that certain criteria would need to be established to be enforceable. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes February 13, 2008 Page 3 Motion by Lamar Russell, seconded by Harry Pearson, to not have a Citizen Awareness and Participation Plan. Motion carried by majority, with Mr. Fredrickson voting against the motion. 3. Discussion Re: Consideration to Increase Building Height in the Commercial Zoning Districts. Chairperson McNeely announced that the discussion would be limited to 30 minutes, because of the lengthy agenda. Mr. Pearson read a statement into the record. (Statement is marked Exhibit A and attached hereto the Minutes). He commented that once the City breaks the 45 ft. high ceiling, the sky is the limit. The only controlling factors would be traffic and such restrictions as setbacks, signs, and visibility. If the City approves Sheldon Cove by giving them the extra height, the City would be hard pressed to turn others down, and this may be only the first of many such buildings in the City. Mr. Russell spoke regarding compatibility. He read the five options discussed at the previous meeting and announced another option, which was to establish criteria for a 65 ft. height by Special Exception, only in the C-1 Zoning District, and only along the A1A corridor. He advised that City Council asked the Board to look at the issue and the Board needed to do the best they could, whether the members were in favor or not. Mr. Dunn recommended that the City Council bring the issue to the voters by referendum at the next election. He commented that the City should not consider anything that would take all the available traffic count. Mr. Johanson, suggested that the Board should go back to City Council ask where they wanted the height increase considered. Ms. McNeely illustrated a 45 ft. building, and a 65 ft. building. She advised that the increase to 65 ft. was actually a 44% increase of 45 ft. Mr. Berger, Sheldon Cove's contractor, advised that only one section of Mr. May's building would be 65 ft., most of the design was 45 ft. There plan was to build this project in the C-1 zoning district, not close to residential. Mr. Fredrickson commented that the City Council should decide whether it should go to referendum or not. Mr. Pearson announced that he was prepared to recommend that they don't change the height at all. Mr. Dunn questioned what impact this proposed project would have on the existing traffic count. Mr. Peetz responded that it would have a large impact. Mr. Dunn commented that this proposed project would kill mixed-use for any other future projects. Mrs. Dawn May's, commented that some of the jobs would only be part-time; 1,200 employees was a large number and only an estimate; a traffic study would be provided during the site plan review process. Mr. Fredrickson commented that the Board should come up with a recommendation to allow 65 ft. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes February 13, 2008 Page 4 Mr. Russell suggested that the agenda item be tabled. He noted that the Board should assist the City Council by crafting the wording of a referendum. Mr. Friedman did not agree to bring the issue to the voters as a referendum. He commented that the City Council was voted in by the residents to handle tough decisions. He advised that the only delay on Central and AIA was the traffic light. He noted that traffic capacity was subjective and not an exact number. Mr. Peetz commented that 110% design capacity would require a moratorium. He explained that different road designs could move the traffic along. Mr. Dunn requested that Mr. Peetz look into a mixed use project that failed in Palm Beach County and report his findings back to the Board. Mr. May's advised that the Mayor asked the Board to look at this issue. The Mayor has had many requests, but turned them away because of the height restriction. His project did not need 65 ft. He could build a nice big 45 ft. building if he simply threw out the retail, and advised that more retail is what the residents want. He advised that a referendum would kill any future projects. Mr. Pearson told Mr. May's to go ahead and do the CAPP and bring the results back to the Board. Discussion continued. Motion by Mr. Russell, seconded by Mr. Fredrickson, to allow a 65 ft. height by Special Exception, along the A1A corridor, in the C-1 Zoning District, and the Board would create the criteria at a later date. Discussion followed. Vote on the motion was as followed: Mr. Dunn, against; Mr. Fredrickson, for; Ms. McNeely, against; Mr. Pearson, against; Mr. Russell, for. Motion failed by a 3 to 2 vote against the motion. Motion by Ms. McNeely, seconded by Mr. Pearson, not to increase the building height in Cape Canaveral. Vote on the motion was as follows: Mr. Dunn, against; Mr. Fredrickson, against; Ms. McNeely, for; Mr. Pearson, for; Mr. Russell, against. Motion failed by a 3 to 2 vote against the motion. Discussion followed. Motion by Ms. McNeely, seconded by Mr. Russell, to postpone this agenda item until the next meeting. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 4. Discussion Re: Mixed Use Districts. Ms. McNeely reviewed her notes on the Board's previous discussions regarding the mixed use concept. Mr. Russell questioned where the City would want mixed use located? Motion by Mr. Russell, seconded by Mr. Pearson to postpone this agenda item, until the next meeting, due to the time, and the structure of the remaining agenda items. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes February 13, 2008 Page 5 5. Discussion Re: The Florida Redevelopment Peer to Peer Assistance Program. Mr. Peetz explained that The Florida Redevelopment Association was an organization that was geared towards communities facing redevelopment challenges. He explained that often redevelopment included a mixed use component and consistent with the Planning Board's intent to learn as much as possible about other communities' successes and setbacks. He advised that the FRA Peer to Peer Program may provide valuable incite to what the Planning & Zoning Board was struggling with. The cost to the City would be meals and lodging, if necessary. There were no fees for travel, speaking, or consultations. Mr. Peetz explained that this was a voluntary program where the FRA Program, matches appropriate peers with the community who is requesting the assistance. He suggested that this may be a very cost effective program to bring in outside perspective. Discussion followed. The Board supported the idea of having a representatives) from FRA to come and provide some insight to what was happening elsewhere. Motion by Mr. Russell, seconded by Mr. Dunn, to reimburse the program for meals and hotel stay. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 6. Discussion Re: The Florida Department of Community Affairs Draft Legislation. Mr. Peetz, City Planner, gave an overview of the new legislation. He explained that most of the new legislation was not applicable to the City, but there were some very interesting changes which could affect the City. Brief discussion followed. (No action was taken by the Board on the discussion item.) 7. Discussion Re: Planning & Zoning Board's Priorities for the Year 2008. The Board members highlighted their priorities. Two of the first priorities were mixed-use and building height. Other priorities included: density, replats and subdivisions, and the building department budget. Discussion was held regarding green space, and average density being between 10 and 12 units per acre, even though 15 units per acre was allowed by City code. 8. Discussion Re: Section 98, Article Il, Platting. Chairperson McNeely asked if the Board members if they wanted to extend the meeting time past 10:00 to discuss this agenda item. There being no interest, this item will be rescheduled for the next meeting. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes February 13, 2008 Page 6 There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 10:04 p.m. Bea McNeely, Chairperson L . Susan L. Chapman, Secretary PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2008 A Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on January 23, 2008, at the City Hall Annex, 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Chairperson Bea McNeely called the meeting to order at 7:30 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 Robert Hoog Shannon Roberts Kate Latorre Todd Morley Todd Peetz Susan Chapman NEW BUSINESS Chairperson Vice Chairperson 1 st Alternate 2nd Alternate Mayor Pro Tem Council Member Assistant City Attorney Building Official City Planner Board Secretary Approval of Meeting Minutes: December 12 2007. Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by Lamar Russell, to approve the meeting minutes of December 12, 2007. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 2. Election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson. John Fredrickson nominated Bea McNeely for Chairperson. The nomination was seconded by Lamar Russell. Bea McNeely accepted the nomination. By a voice vote all Board members were in favor of Bea McNeely as Chairperson. Bea McNeely nominated Lamar Russell for Vice Chairperson. The nomination was seconded by Donald Dunn. Lamar Russell accepted the nomination. By a voice vote all Board members were in favor of Lamar Russell as Vice Chairperson. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 23, 2008 Page 2 3. Review and Recommendation to City Council Re: Burger King Site Plan - Tracy E. Kirkland, Interplan LLC, Agent for Burger King Corporation. All persons giving testimony were sworn in by the Assistant City Attorney. Todd Peetz, City Planner, gave an overview of the proposed project. He advised that the site was located on an out -parcel of the Residence Inn on the south side of their entrance; and north of the Race Trac Service Station on Astronaut Boulevard. The proposed project included a 2,221 sq. ft. building, 18.25 ft. high, 25 regular parking spaces, and 2 handicap spaces, 1.43 acres, 121 pm peak hour trips would be generated; there was adequate wastewater treatment, water, and solid waste. He stated that city staff had reviewed the proposed site plan and had no additional comments or concerns. The Board members reviewed the submitted site plan. Discussion followed. Tracy Kirkland, representative for Burger King, responded to the Board members questions. Roger Dobson, one of the property owners of the property, verified that he would not be selling any of the required hotel acreage; and there was a Unity of Title Agreement for the hotel property. Assistant City Attorney, Kate Latorre, explained the proper process of subdividing parcels/lots of property, including replatting. Robert Wood, legal counsel representing Burger King Corp., advised that a replat should not be required; the City knew about the anticipated sale of the out -parcel from the beginning when Residence Inn was first presented to the City; all parcels were shown on the 2005 Residence Inn Site Plan; all utilities and access to the proposed Burger King property was already in place. Attorney Wood stated for the record, that a delay in the project would result if the City required the property to be replatted. Todd Peetz replied that a replat was a formality to comply with the City code. Kate Latorre explained that a Lot -Split Resolution would acknowledge the Burger King parcel as a developable lot of record without going through the replatting process. This Resolution would also restrict further property subdivision(s) without prior City approval. Roger Dobson advised that the closing date for the Burger King Property was scheduled to be or about February 23rd. Kate Latorre explained that the Board could recommend conditions of approval of the Burger King Site Plan. She noted that a Resolution would not address everything a replat would address, including easements, but it could restrict the property from ever being subdivided without prior City approval. Discussion followed. Motion by Donald Dunn, seconded by Harry Pearson to recommend approval of the Burger King Site Plan, with the condition that a lot -split Resolution be enacted. Discussion followed. Donald Dunn withdrew his motion, Harry Pearson agreed. Discussion continued. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 23, 2008 Page 3 Motion by Donald Dunn, seconded by Bea McNeely, to recommend approval of the Burger King Site Plan, with the condition that the lot be acknowledged by a lot -split Resolution that recognizes that the Burger King lot would not be subdivided for future development, without prior City approval. Discussion followed. Bea McNeely amended the motion to include a requirement that the lot -split Resolution contains all shared easements. Donald Dunn seconded the amendment. Vote on the amendment to the motion carried unanimously. Vote on the main motion carried unanimously. Lamar Russell requested that the order of Agenda Items #6 and #4 be switched. The Board members agreed. 4. Discussion Re: Building Height in Commercial Districts - Todd Peetz City Planner. Todd Peetz, City Planner, advised that the Board had discussed mixed-use development having greater height than 45 ft. and they had also heard from a property owner requesting that the Board consider height to be greater than 45 ft. He explained that tonight's discussion would be in two parts. First, whether height greater than 45 ft. in the commercial district should be allowed; and second, where, when, and how should the height be determined. Bea McNeely, Chairperson, stated that she wants the City to stick to 45 ft, which they had defended for several years, because that is what the citizens wanted and voted for by referendum back in the 70's. She wanted to also protect the sun and breeze. She explained that taller buildings block both the sun and breeze. She stated that she was going to stick with the 45 ft. height limit. Lamar Russell, Vice Chairperson, suggested that the Board continue to explore the idea. He noted at the last City Council meeting the Council had requested the P & Z Board to explore the idea. He advised that the Board would not be considering raising height along the beach or in residential neighborhoods, but would consider exploring a height increase on defined lots along A1A. He noted that they have received a proposal for consideration. Lamar Russell pointed -out the following options to increase the height limitation for consideration: OPTION #1 Zoning amendment by application. OPTION #2 P & Z recommend zoning change to the City Council. OPTION #3 P & Z recommend 65 feet from defined areas on AIA. OPTION #4 Recommend incorporating 65 feet into M.U.D., with the City Council approving specific sites. OPTION #5 Utilize the RPUD code as a model and negotiate setbacks, green area, etc. on a case be case basis. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 23, 2008 Page 4 Mr. Russell noted that William "Bill" Mays property would be a fore runner for future developments. Todd Peetz suggested that the Board consider separation from residential to allow the increase height. Ron Friedman commented that he liked Lamar Russell's idea on negotiation on a case by case basis, but only considered a height increase in the C-1 zoning district, however, not increase height on a parcel that is located adjacent to a residential use. He commented that citizens want and need services provided within the City. He advised that the higher you go the cheaper it is to build per square foot. Lamar Russell advised that criteria would need to be created and to protect the 45 ft. height; the City Council would need to negotiate on a case by case basis. Donald Dunn suggested sending the idea to the public for a vote. He advised that the City should not be developer driven. He commented that he did not believe 65 ft. was high enough, and perhaps they should consider allowing up to 100 ft. He advised that he could not conceive how a height increase would be manageable with all the traffic in that area. He believed that the C-1 zoning district on A1A was the worst possible place to put it. John Fredrickson agreed that each developer should come in and plead their case. He believed that Mr. Berger's project had merit to increase the height. He agreed only to consider the height increase along A1A. John Johanson voiced his opinion that the increased height should only be considered on north of Central Blvd. along A1A, and each proposed development should be considered on its own merits. Harry Pearson advised that he could not fathom hearing each request case by case; the City wants new services; and he did not agree that a building constructed to a height of 45 ft. to look like a square box. He commented that higher buildings bring higher income. He announced that he has thought about the subject for six weeks, and even surveyed many small groups of citizens and 100% wanted to retain the 45 ft. height. Discussion followed. Bennett Boucher, City Manager, advised that last year a potential developer inquired about constructing a 75 feet high office building that included a parking garage on the North part of the City. He advised that they were turned away because the City has a 45 ft. height restriction. Arthur Berger, representative for Sheldon Cove, commented that the A1A corridor was the only place this could be done; that this corridor has vacant land and old buildings; architecture and traffic was regulated by F.D.O.T., the City needed additional height in the commercial district to attract future developments. Joyce Hamilton, citizen, advised that the citizens want this project and welcome Sheldon Cove. Discussion followed. In conclusion, the Board requested that the City Planner bring back information, at the next meeting regarding: Distance separation from commercial and residential, effects of shadowing, and traffic counts along A1A at peak hours. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 23, 2008 Page 5 5. Presentation & Discussion Re: Ideas for Citizen Awareness Participation Plan (CAPP) — William Mays, Presenter. Todd Peetz, City Planner, advised that the Board had discussed the mixed use development and this agenda item was a continuation of those discussions regarding location, height, density, intensity, open space, traffic, pedestrian access, type of uses, and appearance. Dawn Mays, Representative for Sheldon Cove, presented a proposed CAPP process, which included a mailer, website, media releases to notify the public, and a recommendation to have a community meeting at the Cape Canaveral library to discuss the project and obtain public feedback. Discussion followed. In conclusion, staff was tasked with formulating a process for when a CAPP would be required, to include a notification process for small projects; and a proposed time schedule. 6. Discussion Re: Mixed Use Development — Todd Peetz, City Planner. Todd Peetz, City Planner, advised that the Board had discussed a mixed use development having a greater height than 45 feet and that they recently heard from a property owner requesting a building height increase. He outlined that the discussion should be in two parts the first, whether height greater than 45 feet in a commercial district should be allowed; and second, where, when and how should that height be determined. Lamar Russell, Vice Chairperson, announced that the Board should have had the opportunity to discuss mixed-use two weeks ago, rather than the meeting being cancelled because there was no new business. Due to the time, Harry Pearson suggested that this agenda item be discussed at the next meeting. Lamar Russell requested that all discussion items be placed on every meeting agenda until the item is pounded flat. He requested that the next meeting agenda include a discussion item regarding the plat/replat ordinance. 7. Discussion Re: Planning & Zoning Board's Priorities for the Year. Due to the time this agenda item was not discussed. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 23, 2008 Page 6 OPEN DISCUSSION Mr. Mays asked that the CAPP discussion be the first item on the next meeting agenda. The Board members agreed with his request. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Lam, Bea McNe s n Susan L. n, Sedetary