Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2009 Jan - DecPLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 9, 2009 A Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on December 9, 2009, at the City Hall Annex, 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Bea McNeely, Chairperson, called the meeting to Order at 7:00 p.m. The Secretary called the roll. MEMBERS PRESENT Bea McNeely Lamar Russell John Fredrickson Donald Dunn Harry Pearson John Johanson MEMBERS ABSENT Ronald Friedman OTHERS PRESENT Barry Brown Kate Latorre Duree Alexander Todd Morley Chairperson Vice Chairperson 1 st Alternate 2nd Alternate Planning & Development Director Assistant City Attorney Recording Secretary Building Official All persons giving testimony were sworn in by Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney. NEW BUSINESS Approval of Meeting Minutes: November 18, 2009. The Board members held discussion regarding agenda item 4 of the minutes. Following discussion, a motion was made by Donald Dunn, seconded by Harry Pearson for the draft minutes to more specifically reflect the recommendations agreed to by consensus of the Board members regarding item 4; and that approval of the minutes be postponed until the next meeting. Vote on the motion carried by majority, with members voting as follows: Donald Dunn, for; John Fredrickson, for; Bea McNeely, against; Harry Pearson, for; Lamar Russell, for. 2. Recommendation to the Citv Council Re: Proposed Ordinance Amendin Chapter 98, Subdivisions, Relating to Plats; Amending and Clarifying the Criteria Required for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plat Review and Approval; Providing a Procedure for Review and Consideration of Lot Splits; Providing for the Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Ordinances and Resolutions - Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes December 9, 2009 Page 2 Barry Brown, Planning & Development Director, advised that the first item on the agenda was additional revisions to the platting ordinance No. 04-2009. He explained that the proposed revisions were brought to the Planning & Zoning Board on February 11, 2009. With modifications, the Board recommended approval of the proposed revisions, and the ordinance went to the City Council for first reading on March 3, 2009. The Council approved the ordinance at the first reading, with the stipulation that the staff creates flowcharts of the platting and lot split procedures. He commented that it became clear that additional revisions to the ordinance were necessary. He further advised that the new version of the ordinance adds back the pre -application meeting and makes it mandatory for preliminary plat and lot splits, unless determined it is not necessary by the Planning Official. Mr. Brown proposed adding back the pre - application meeting, because it was at this stage that access management issues, including driveway locations and cross -access can be addressed, as well as easement and right-of-way dedications. He further explained that the current code did not delineate between the submittal of plat copies for review by city staff and the submittal of copies for the Planning & Zoning Board and the City Council and explained same. He noted that the number of copies to be submitted was removed from the code, as it may change over time and would, therefore require an amendment to the ordinance. He also advised that the code did not have staff review procedures for lot splits; therefore, the review procedures for preliminary plat were incorporated into procedures for lot split. Mr. Brown outlined the platting and lot split processes. The Board members reviewed the proposed revisions to Ordinance No. 04-2009, dated December 4, 2009; and corresponding flow charts. Mr. Brown clarified that the Board members were reviewing changes to the ordinance since the Planning & Zoning Board reviewed it last. Discussion followed. During discussion, Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney advised that City Council had made some changes to the draft ordinance after the Planning & Zoning had made its recommendation. Barry Brown verified that changes had been made to Section 98-47, General criteria for approval. He noted that some of the items would be subjective. Discussion continued. Barry Brown advise the Board members that there were two letters received, one from Mr. McMillin and one from Mr. Hartley, which contained a lot of good points and issues. He advised that they were both at the meeting to address the Board. He noted that they had worked from the version of the plat ordinance after it went to the City Council for first reading. They did not have the benefit of the latest version that the Board members had. He noted that some of the issues were already addressed (i.e. the pre -application meeting, and staff review for lot splits). Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes December 9, 2009 Page 3 Earl McMillin, 397 Holman Road, addressed the Board. He questioned where the burning need for a lot split ordinance was. He commented that the City was heavily developed. He voiced his opinion that if property owners were dividing pieces of property and the city did not know about it, the answer was not for the city to create a lot split ordinance, because the city already had laws that say they can't do that. The answer was to get a means of communication from Brevard County to tell the city every time there is a deed filed that affects property within the city. He advised, as he said in his letter, that there were many reasons why the southwest corner of the city should be excluded from the lot split ordinance, if that is what the City Council was going to approve. He advised that his letter stated reasons why that area is unique. He noted that the city adopted the Florida Building Code and a person can apply for a permit with the application being valid for 180 days, and then the application can be extended by the Building Official. Under the Florida Growth Management Act, anybody who has a problem with an action by the city that is not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan only has 30 days to raise that issue. He did not want to see the special neighborhood in the southwest corner of the city impacted unnecessarily. He advised that the city's 1990 Comprehensive Plan said that there shouldn't be any development in that area. He noted that the current Comprehensive Plan talks about wetlands. There are no wetlands, because everything has been filled-in. All they have now is a very low density neighborhood that has a special wildlife habitat, as he pointed out in his letter. He advised that the City of Cocoa Beach's code states that lot splits are not allowed, and he questioned why the residents of Cape Canaveral don't have the same protections. Mr. McMillin reviewed the city's flow chart for lot split. He pointed out that anyone that wanted to make a claim that the City has not acted in accordance with its Comprehensive Plan, because 30 days is long gone even before notice of the City Council meeting. He -viewed this as a major lot split. He advised that the expertise of the Planning & Zoning Board being taken out of the process may save the city time and money, but with all the Board members experience, that removing them from the process was not a good idea, particularly for the properties in the southwest corner of the City. Mr. McMillin clarified that there would be a lot more experienced and intelligent people reviewing a plat, than a lot split going to the City Council. Charles Hartley, 399 Holman Road, addressed the Board and voiced his concerns. He noted that in reviewing the ordinance revisions that the Board members were considering this evening, he was not convinced that the new draft ordinance eliminated their concerns. He believed that there was nothing in the code that prevented two people from buying two parcels of property and each of them would still have the right to do a lot split. He pointed out that Chapter 98 is for subdivisions, and plats are covered by Article. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes December 9, 2009 Page 4 Mr. Hartley voiced his opinion that the problem with the way the lot split ordinance is written is its approach to the planned land use development; the implementation of the proposed ordinance, as written, runs into a collision course with the city's Comprehensive Plan and would appear to violate the requirements of Chapter 177, regarding subdivision platting; the confusion begins with combined usage of survey and plats. He explained that a survey is a conveyance of ownership or entitlement to property rights; it pertains to a single lot or parcel, and shows the graphic physical dimensions of the property; it is often referred to as the metes and bounds boundary survey. On the other hand, a plat is a survey of more than one lot or parcel of land; it includes all dimensions and features of the tract, such as: parcel size, streets, roads, and dimensions. A plat from the city's own definition of requirements has easements, street and road dimensions, easement widths and purpose, utility right-of-ways, historical monuments, and control points, river(s), stream(s), wetlands, minimum setbacks, and other conditions on adjacent property. He advised that for example, a subdivision requires a plat map, which tells the city and the county how the tract is to be developed, and meet all the code and ordinance requirements for planned community development, and that it complies with the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map, and is compatible and harmonious with the surrounding community. He advised that the lot split ordinance focuses on surveys, not plats. Mr. Hartley gave examples of same. He advised that it grants waivers from the platting process, and says that the lot is to be previously platted or have a legal description of record. He noted that a legal description is nothing but a description from a boundary survey. He further advised that the code states that it must meet the criteria elsewhere in the Article. He noted that the Article refers to plats, but it is already stated that its purpose is to grant waivers from the platting process; therefore, it waives the platting process and then complies with that waiver. He clarified that the only thing that is required to create a subdivision of any parcel, anywhere in the city, is a survey and a set of construction plans. He noted that the number of required copies and review by the department was at the discretion of the Planning & Development Director. If a subdivision is created there are no provisions for referral to the Planning & Zoning Board. That denies notice to the property owners, which prevents their right to be heard. As the code is written, the city would be waiving its entire responsibility for review and approval of the planning process for subdivision development, therefore the city would be creating subdivisions by lot splits without having conducted a formal plat review for a platted subdivision in violation of Chapter 177. He advised that it would promote a bad practice of unplanned development and permit denial of the constitutional rights of the property owner. That is why they were urging the city to look more deeply and carefully into the language of the ordinance. The language needs to be clear and ambiguous. He commented that when you are writing something into law you don't leave areas open for judgment; and things that are not clear only create dispute, strife, and lawsuits. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes December 9, 2009 Page 5 Mr. Hartley voiced his opinion that the city did not want a procedure that bypasses the city's responsibility for plat review process for the creation of subdivisions. The city should want to ensure compliance with its Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 177, and all codes, laws and ordinances. Most importantly, the city should have a procedure that affords protection to the interest and rights of the citizens. Mr. Hartley highlighted the main issues when applying such an ordinance to a community like Holman Road. He advised that every single parcel from when it was created is on some plat somewhere. He explained that the Holman Road community was platted before the city became a city. The Hartley's have been living there for 30 yrs.; the community is an established community; it has an historical nature, including the oldest school house sifting on Holman Road in Brevard County. He commented that to come in 50 years after this community was developed, to come in and say we are suddenly going to create subdivisions simply by lot split does not make any sense. He advised that the creation of a subdivision increases all of the levels of services provided by the city, which should be taken in consideration. Discussion was held regarding lot splits of commercial property; the possibility of excluding certain areas from the abbreviated lot split process; recommending approval of the proposed ordinance, minus the lot split section; applying the criteria of Section 98-61, General Criteria for Approval into Section 98-6, Lot splits. Following discussion, the Board agreed by consensus, that language be added to the flow chart as to what happens after a preliminary plat is approved; page 16 of the proposed ordinance under lot splits, that the language regarding "The City Council may, by resolution at a public hearing, grant waivers from the platting requirements...." be worded to clarify that the City Council may waiver "some" of the platting requirements; add criteria to the lot split section similar to plat criteria; add criteria for notification requirement for a lot split; and include review of lot split by the Planning & Zoning Board. Motion by Lamar Russell, seconded by Donald Dunn that the City Attorney make additional changes to the draft ordinance as discussed at this meeting for consideration at the next meeting. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 3. Review of Final Visioning Report. Bary Brown, Planning Director, advised this agenda item was the Board's review of the Final Visioning Report. He explained that the City Council requested that all advisory boards review the Visioning Report and provide their thoughts and comments. He announced that the Visioning Report can be downloaded from the City website or a CD of the report could be picked up in the Community Development office. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes December 9, 2009 Page 6 Barry Brown, Planning Director, advised that the City had a very successful visioning process, which included six workshops, with great citizen participation. A few weeks ago the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) presented the City with a draft of the Final Visioning Report. The Citizens Visioning Committee held a meeting with Phil Laurien, Director of the ECFRPC, who facilitated the workshops. At that meeting, the Visioning Committee adopted the report, with revisions, and approved forwarding the report to the City Council. On January 19, 2010, at a regularly scheduled City Council meeting, the Visioning Committee, as a group, will present the report. Additionally, Phil Laurien will attend that meeting to discuss the report with the City Council. Subsequently, City Council will schedule a workshop that will solely be about the visioning. At that workshop, it will be decided which of the recommendations and outcomes the City wants to implement, in what order to achieve them, and how much money the City is willing to spend. Staff will provide City Council with an action plan for each recommendation that will include: processes, timelines, and estimated costs associated with implementing the various action items. Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by Bea McNeely, to adjourn the meeting at 9:41 p.m. (ORR!\ '/�� ve, XAA " Bea McN Chairper on Susan L. Chapman, Secretary PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 2009 A Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on November 18, 2009, at the City Hall Annex, 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Bea McNeely, Chairperson, called the meeting to Order at 7:00 p.m. The Secretary called the roll. MEMBERS PRESENT Bea McNeely Lamar Russell John Fredrickson Donald Dunn Harry Pearson John Johanson Ronald Friedman OTHERS PRESENT Barry Brown Kate Latorre Duree Alexander Todd Morley Chairperson Vice Chairperson 1 st Alternate 2nd Alternate Planning & Development Director Assistant City Attorney Recording Secretary Building Official All persons giving testimony were sworn in by Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney. NEW BUSINESS 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes: August 12, 2009. Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by John Fredrickson, to approve the meeting minutes of August 12, 2009, with minor corrections. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. Bary Brown, Planning & Development Director, addressed the Board. He advised that the Board would be considering three agenda items at this meeting. The first was a request for five variances to accommodate a pool screen enclosure, privacy fence, accessory structure (shed), and a pool accessory (pump) at 201 Tyler Avenue. The other two items were proposed ordinance revisions to amend Chapter 102 - Vegetation, to remedy a number of tree code related complaints; and Chapter 110, Section 110-482 - Underground Utilities, to extend the requirement for undergrounding utilities to include: redevelopment, and renovations of existing buildings. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 18, 2009 Page 2 2. Recommendation to the Board of Adjustment Re: Variance Request No. 09-02 to Allow a Screen Enclosure Side Setback of 10 ft,; a Screen Enclosure Rear Setback of 4 ft.; a Side Yard Setback of 9 ft. from a Public Street Right -of -Way for a 6 ft. High Fence; a Rear Setback of 3.3 ft. for a Shed; and a Side Yard Setback of 4 ft. 8 in. for Pool Accessories - Section 23, Township 24 South, Range 37 East, Block 42, Lot 1.01, Avon by the Sea Subdivision, (201 Tyler Avenue) - David D. Jones, MD and Heather Parker -Jones, PHD, Petitioners. Barry Brown, Planning & Development Director, addressed the Board. He advised that the request was for variances, from various city codes, to allow: a screen enclosure side yard setback of 10 ft., rather than 15 ft.; a screen enclosure rear setback of 4 ft., rather than 5 ft.; a side yard setback of 9 ft. from a public right-of-way for a six ft. high fence, rather than 25 ft.; a rear setback of 3.3 ft. for an accessory structure (shed), rather than 5 ft.; and a side yard setback of 4 ft. 8 in. for an accessory (pool pump), rather than 15 ft. Barry Brown stated what the .future land uses and zoning designations were of the surrounding properties. He testified that the Petitioners purchased the property in June 2008 for weekend use; the townhouse was constructed in 1983 and the pool was constructed in 1986, without a screen enclosure; the family is highly allergic to mosquito bites; and Cabbage Palms and a Banyan tree located adjacent to the pool drop leaves, berries, and blooms into the pool, creating a maintenance issue. The Petitioners decided to have a screen enclosure constructed over the pool, and earlier this year retained Coastal Craftsman; the contractor failed to obtain the required building permit, which resulted in the screen enclosure being constructed illegally, not being properly engineered, and side and rear setbacks not meeting requirements of the city code. The Petitioners did not realize that the screen enclosure was not properly permitted and that it did not meet the city's code, and when it was brought to their attention, they wanted to file for the proper permit(s) and follow the provisions of the city's code(s). He advised that in evaluating their application for a screen enclosure, staff discovered that there were several nonconformities with the recently constructed screen enclosure, as well as an existing privacy fence, shed, and pool pump. Barry Brown explained that the current city code allowed a 15 ft. side yard setback for a pool, enclosure, and accessories; the pool was 15 ft. from the side yard property line and met the current code; however, without a variance, the screen enclosure would have to be built on the lip of the pool, and therefore one could not walk around 'the perimeter of the pool. In order to allow for a reasonable use of the pool, and the ability to walk around the pool perimeter, the applicant was requesting a variance for a side setback of 10 ft. for the screen enclosure, rather than the required 15 ft. per the city code. He pointed out the pertinent sections of the city code. He summarized the variance evaluation criteria, per city code (Section 110-37); and staffs analysis of the request. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 18, 2009 Page 3 Barry Brown gave staffs recommendation. He testified that staff supported necessary variances to reasonably accommodate a pool screen enclosure, privacy fence, and pool accessories, but did not support rear setback variances for a pool enclosure and shed. Specifically, staff supported a side yard of 10 ft. for the pool screen enclosure and 9 ft. for the fence, as this would allow for reasonable use of the pool, while minimizing the encroachment and variance requested. Staff also supported a variance for the pool accessory (pump), as the applicant inherited the pool pump where it was. Additionally, the pool pump was not causing a problem, and there was no place else to locate it to meet the city code. He advised that staff did not support a variance from the rear setback for the screen enclosure and shed. He explained that the screen enclosure could be easily relocated to meet the existing city code requirement; and the shed was in disrepair, deteriorating, and not suitable as a host structure for support of the enclosure. He advised that staff recommended that the shed be demolished and replaced with a new shed which would be placed on the property to meet the current city code. The Board members viewed photographs and a survey of the subject property. He advised that the pool was constructed in 1979. Discussion followed. Dr. Parker -Jones, Petitioner, addressed the Board and answered various questions from the allergic to mosquito Board members. bites; and that She affirmed Cabbage that her family was highly Palms and a Banyan tree drop leaves, blooms, and berries into the pool. Todd Morley, Building Official, addressed the Board regarding encroachment of pads for emergency generators. Lamar Russell and John Fredrickson commented that they supported staff recommendation. Miles Komura, 211 Taylor Avenue, citizen, commented that he supported the request. Donald Dunn commented that the screen enclosure should be closer to the pool to allow three feet around the pool. Discussion followed regarding staff recommendation. Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by John Fredrickson, to recommend approval of Variance Request No. 09-02, to the Board of Adjustment, as per staffs recommendation. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 3. Recommendation to the Citv Council Re: Amendinq Section 110-482, Underground Utilities. Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney, gave the Board an overview of proposed amendments to city code Section 110-482, Underground Utilities. Brief discussion followed. Motion by Donald Dunn, seconded by Harry Pearson, to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Section 110-482. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 18, 2009 Page 4 4. Recommendation to the City Council Re: Amending Chapter 102 Vegetation. Todd Morley, Building Official, gave the Board an overview of the proposed revisions to Chapter 102, Vegetation and background of how they came to be. Discussion followed. Motion by Donald Dunn, seconded by Lamar Russell, to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Section 102, Vegetation. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. OPEN DISCUSSION Donald Dunn discussed building heights. He suggested having changes made in the city code to eliminate floor heights and building heights. Barry Brown advised that a draft of the final visioning report would be available next week. A copy of the report would be provided to all board members. Joyce Hamilton commented that each Board has special input in the visioning process. Discussion was held regarding the proposed plat ordinance and when it would be presented to City Council. Discussion was held regarding tree mitigation and storm water issues regarding the Cape Caribe project. Barry Brown advised that the issues must be resolved before presenting the site plan to the Planning & Zoning Board for recommendation to City Council. Discussion was held regarding establishing a time limit for expiration of site plans, (city code Section 110-224). Motion by Lamar Russell, seconded by Donald Dunn, to direct city staff to create an ordinance establishing a time limit on site plans and present it to the Board for recommendation to City Council. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. Barry Brown advised that there were Board meetings scheduled on November 25th and December 23rd. Motion by Lamar Russell, seconded by Bea McNeely to cancel the meetings scheduled on November 25th and December 23rd. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. Barry Brown announced that the next Board meeting would be held on December 9th. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 18, 2009 Page 5 The Board members requested a report from city staff regarding special exceptions. Motion by Lamar Russell, seconded by Bea McNeely, to adjourn the meeting at 10 p.m. - Bea McN I air erson Susan L. Chapman, Secretary PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 12, 2009 A Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on August 12, 2009, at the City Hall Annex, 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Bea McNeely, Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The Secretary called the roll. MEMBERS PRESENT Bea, McNeely Chairperson Lamar Russell Vice Chairperson --- John Fredrickson -- Donald Dunn Harry Pearson John Johanson 1 st Alternate Ronald Friedman 2nd Alternate OTHERS PRESENT Dennis Clements Building Department Representative Barry Brown Planning & Development Director Kate Latorre Assistant City Attorney Susan Chapman Board Secretary All persons giving testimony were sworn in by Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney. NEW BUSINESS 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes: May 27, 2009. Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by Bea McNeely, to approve the meeting minutes of May 27, 2009. Vote on the carried unanimously. 2. Recommendation to the Board of Adiustment Re: Variance Request No. 09-03 to Allow a Six -Foot High Chain Link Fence Within 25 Feet of a Public Right -of -Way in the C-1 Zoning District, (8801 Astronaut Boulevard), Section 15, Township 24 South, Range 37 East, Parcel 817.0 - David Gal, Applicant for Xtreme Fun, LLC. Petitioner. Barry Brown, Planning & Developmeri't Director, advised that this request was for a Variance to allow a six ft. high fence within 25 ft. of a public right-of-way. The applicant was David Gal; property owner of Traxx Family Fun Center, located at the northwest comer of A1A and Central Blvd. The property was located in the C-1 zoning district. Thd-surrounding zonings were to the north and south C-1, to the east C-2, and R-3 to the west. The surrounding uses were RaceTrac gas station to the north, Sheldon Cove professional offices to the east, Zachery's Restaurant to the south,. and Puerto del Rio condominiums to the west. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 12, 2009 Page 2 Mr. Brown described the property as The Traxx Family Fun Center, an amusement center that included: go-carts, miniature golf, arcade games, batting cages, and laser tag. He advised that Traxx currently had a 6 ft. high chain link fence located along the west, north, and portions of the east side of the property along A1A and the south side of the property along W. Central Blvd. A 4 ft. high, multi -colored, wood fence was currently erected along the remaining portions on the east and south sides of the property. The applicant was requesting to extend the 6 ft. high chain link fence, along the remainder of the east and south boundaries,to_completely_enclose and -secure the property, because -of theft and - — vandalism. Mr. Brown referred the Board members to the reports from the Brevard County Sheriffs Department contained in their Board packet. He pointed out that according to Section 110-470 (3) of the City code, the maximum height of a fence within 25 ft. of the right-of-way was 4 ft.; therefore, the applicant would need a Variance to install a 6 ft. high fence within 25 ft. of the right-of-way. He voiced his opinion that the City code was appropriate in most cases, but he could understand where this type of business had special security needs, that were not anticipated in the code. Mr. Brown advised that because of the way that the property was developed, they could not move a 6 ft high fence back 25 ft. to meet City code, so they wanted to place it on the property line. He explained that other businesses in town had equipment that might be a target for thieves, but this type of use probably had more equipment (i.e. go carts) and machines, with cash and coins, that would be targeted by thieves. Mr. Brown advised that the business was not open and did not have on-site security 24 hrs/day. He brought to the Board's attention that there was another similar type of business to this one, Funntasia Fantasy Golf, at the comer of N. Atlantic Avenue and Holman Road, which currently had a 6 ft. high chain link fence around the boundary of the property. Mr. Brown pointed out that a 6 ft. high chain link fence would not only add security from intruders, but would also add security from a child safety standpoint. He believed that their were unique circumstances to this type of business that would support the Variance, therfore he recommended approval of the Variance, with the condition thet when the new vinyl coated 6 ft. high chain link fence is installed, the existing: multi -color d 4 ft. high wood fence that paralleled the new chain link fence be removed. Moshe Gal, representative for David Gal, petiti ner, distributed a sketch of the property to the Board members, which highlight d the area where the 6 ft. high fence would be located. The sketch was entere into the record as Exhibit B. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 12, 2009 Page 3 Mr. Gal explained that there was an existing 6 ft. high chain link fence around the perimeter of the property with the exception of where the 4 ft. high wood fence was located. The property has 1,375 ft. of chain link fence, and 433 ft. of 4 ft. high wood fence. He advised that he would remove the 4 ft. wood fence when the new fence is erected. Mr -Gal -testified -that -they- were -not requesting -t -he Variance -for -the -reason- of-------- Visibility, f - --- visibility, but for security, due to vandalism and theft. He advised that over the past three years they have had 10 incidents of break-ins, with no convictions. The Sheriffs department was doing everything they could, but the property was so big and so dark at night. He advised that two months ago a go-cart was stolen and lifted over the 4 ft. high fence and that was why they were requesting a Variance to allow the 6 ft. fence link fence in order to make it harder for vandals to lift equipment off of the property. He pointed out that they could not move the fence back to 25 ft. in order to meet the City code, because along the front there was a waterfall with a pond area that abutted the property line; and on the side along Central Blvd. was a retention area, so the only place they could erect the 6 ft. high chain link fence was where the existing 4 ft. wooden fence was located. He pointed out that the area requested for the Variance was only 23% of the total property frontage. The new 6 ft. high chain link fence would be vinyl coated. Hart' Pearson advised that there were other security devices available. Mr. Gal advised that they were considering other security measure, such as a better surveillance system. He explained that there was not only theft, but vandalism, because it was easy for the kids to jump over the 4 ft. fence at night, a 6 ft. high chain link fence would be harder for them to jump over. Chairperson McNeely asked legal counsel if this was an appropriate request for a Variance. Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney, answered yes, the height of a structure including a fence was appropriate for seeking a Variance. The Board members reviewed the application worksheet, in accordance with Section 110-62 (A -F) of the City code and verified that: (A) Special conditions and circumstances exist which are unique to the land, structure or building involved and is not applicable to other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. Mr. Gal testified that they have had over 10 burglaries, break-ins, and thefts over the past three years with no captures or prosecutions, even with the use of Sheriff Department K -9s. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 12, 2009 Page 4 Mr. Gal explained that when the perpetrators enter the building is when the alarm is tripped and the police are called. He advised that one of the go-carts was stolen from the shop and it was lifted over the 4 ft. fence. David Gal testified that they have spent thousands of dollars upgrading the cameras, but they keep getting robbed. The Sheriffs Department had suggested that they install a taller fence and upgrade the surveillance cameras. (B) The literal interpretation of the provisions of the zoning ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. Mr. Gal testified that other properties were not as appealing as his property as far as theft and vandalism; and the property is large and dark with obstacles, including the miniature golf area where it was easy to hide from law enforcement and' by the time law enforcement responds, open the gates and searches the property the vandals are long gone. Mr. Gal advised that the hardship was that the use of the property was an attractive nuisance and a 6 ft. high chain link fence was needed for added security and safety, which could not be moved back 25 ft. to meet the City code, because there were unique circumstances and obstacles, such as: a water fall that was located on the property line, and a retention area that was always wet. He added that when they purchased the property they were unaware that they would have problems with break-ins. Mr. Friedman asked the petitioner if he could move the new fence a minimum of 2 1/2 ft. from the existing sidewalk and on the property. Mr. Gal agreed to move the new fence back 2 112 ft. so it would be located on the property and not in the right-of-way. (C) Special conditions and circumstances referred to in item (A) do not result from the actions of the applicant. Mr. Gal testified that it was not the actions of the applicant that were causing the vandalism and break-ins; the security issue was a result of trespassers; and the property owners are trying to keep the property safe from intrusion. Other businesses do not need such security measures, because they do not have attractive nuisances, such as go-carts and cash machines, and if they did they could move them inside, where most of attractive nuisances at this location are located outside. He added that he needed to secure his property and a 4 ft. high fence was not sufficient. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 12, 2009 Page 5 (D) Granting the Variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privileges that are denied by the ordinance to other lands, structures or building in the same district. Mr. Russell advised that it was not a special privilege to allow a property owner, with attractive nuisances, to secure his property. The property owner testified t-hat-he—already-installed various---security--devices—to- assist---in—protecting—his-- property. The property owner was trying to install one more measure of protection and was asking for relief from the City to allow him to do that. Donald Dunn questioned the petitioner if he could install a 6 ft. fence elsewhere on the property where the attractive nuisances existed and still meet the code. Mr. Gal answered that everything was getting vandalized on the property, not just in one specific area. It was impossible to erect a fence around the miniature golf area because there were so many obstacles in that area. There were other options he was considering such as solar motion lights to light the interior of the property, but the residents behind them would not like that; using K -9s was also considered, but they can get loose and possibly hurt someone, so that was no longer an option. (E) The reasons set forth in the application justify the granting of the Variance, and the Variance, if granted, is the minimum that would make possible use of the land, building or structure. Mr. Gal testified that they were also considering upgrading the existing surveillance system, but if he couldn't eliminate people from stealing and lifting items over a 4 ft. fence, the added surveillance system would not be very helpful. He further testified that go-carts were scattered throughout the property and not confined to just one area, because he had three go-cart tracks. (F) The granting of the Variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the zoning code; will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Mr. Gal answered that the request was strictly for the purpose of security, which would not endanger the community. Mr. Dunn added that another consideration was that the property was already enclosed with a 6 ft. chain link fence, and he was requesting just for a little bit more fencing. Mr. Russell added that the expansion of the existing 6 ft. high chain link fence would add to the security to deter vandals and therefore, would save the Sheriffs department from responding to so many calls at that location. rN Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 12, 2009 Page 6 Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by John Fredrickson, to recommend approval of Variance Request No. 09-03 to the Board of Adjustment. An ensuing discussion followed. Mr. Russell identified the hardship of the request. He stated that the property -----owner- could-not-effectively-secure-his-prope"fthout-the granted -Variance. -- Mr. Johanson commented that chain link fences were ugly. He advised that the City was trying to improve its looks, and suggested that an aluminum fence be installed. Mr. Gal advised that an aluminum fence was four times more expensive than a vinyl coated chain link fence. Joyce Hamilton, citizen, advised the Chairperson that there were comments from the audience. David Schirtzinger, citizen, stated that he was in support of the 6 ft. high fence. He commented that Mr. Johanson had touched on something very important, which was the visual aspect of the type of fencing the applicant was proposing to install at one of the most visible corners of the City. Mr. Schirtzinger voiced his opinion that he had never seen a nice looking chain link fence; however the vinyl chain link would look nicer than uncoated chain link. He commented that although aluminum fencing would be more expensive for the applicant, it would be a much nicer look for the citizens of the community, especially at a time when the City was trying to clean up its look, and therefore it was not unrealistic to impose on the applicant to utilize a different type of fence other than chain link. Donald Dunn commented that the code did not mandate fence types. Mr. Johanson advised that conditions could be placed on Variances. Ms. Latorre gave her legal opinion that it would be considered a reasonable condition of approval, and the Board was authorized to recommend reasonable terms and conditions in granting a Variance or Special Exception, that would benefit the community or mitigate any potential harm caused by the Variance. Mr. Pearson commented that it was ridiculous to impose a condition to replace the existing wood fence with another type of fence that he didn't even know what it looked like. He advised that 80% of his property would still have the chain link. He voiced his opinion that it would be" better to have all the fencing the same. He explained that if this was a brand new facility, that had never been built, and they were asking for this Variance, then' he would agree to consider another type of fencing, but that was not the case with this request. Mr. Gal clarified that the existing fence along A1A was vinyl chain link. Mr. Russell and Mr. Dunn both advised that they did not support an aluminum fence for this application. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 12, 2009 Page 7 Discussion was held regarding if fences were still required to be approved by the Community Appearance Board. Mr. Brown responded that he would check on the question and report back to the Board. Kate Latorre advised that she recalled an administrative directive that the Building Department was not going to require Community Appearance Board review anymore for fences. - Joyce --Hamilton; citizen,—advised-that-M—GaFhad-made-tremendous upgradesto -- the security since he purchased the property, and she was sure that he would plant something very nice and colorful along the fence to make it conducive to looking at it from A1A. Mr. Pearson advised that he would not support the idea as a condition, because 80% of the fence already existed along A1A. He pointed out that the applicant was only asking for completing his encirclement of his property with a fence that will give him added security. Mr. Russell identified the hardship was that the property owner could not effectively secure his property without the granted Variance. The Board held discussion regarding conditions of the recommended approval. Following discussion, the Board members agreed to include two conditions. The new fence shall be located a minimum of 2 1/2 ft. from the existing sidewalk and on the applicants property. 2. The existing wooden fence shall be removed when the new fence is installed. Mr. Russell moved to amend the motion to add the two conditions as stated. * Mr. Pearson seconded the motion to the amendment. Vote on the amendment carried unanimously. Vote on the main motion as amended carried unanimously. 3. Recommendation to City Council Re: Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 110 - Non -Conforming Structures - Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney. Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attoey, advised that staff proposed revisions to clarify the City non -conformities, irnnkregards to what a structural alteration is and when a property owner can structurally modify a non -conforming building to preserve a longer life or to maintain it. She advised that the ordinance provided two new definitions. One was regarding a structural alteration. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 12, 2009 Page 8 Ms. Latorre explained that in short, it was talking about replacement of structural or load bearing materials; as opposed to maintenance, which was just to keep something in good and sound condition without going to the actual load bearing aspect of the building. She advised that the ordinance also clarified other provisions when alterations are permitted and when they are not. Chairperson- Mc' lyadvised-that-the-only corscem- she -had -was -regarding- the------ safety he- --safety of the alteration. Ms. Latorre answered that a building permit would be required for any alteration, which would require inspections and verification that the alteration met code requirements. The code would be interpreted by the Building department, on a case by case basis, depending on what the property owner wanted to do to the structure. She added that the proposed ordinance was fashioned with her working with the Building Official. She advised that the new definition was from the Florida Building Code. Mr. Russell read the definition of an alteration. Ms. Latorre advised that the purpose and intent of the Ordinance was to eventually weed -out existing structures that are non- conforming (i.e. because they are too tall or too close to the property line, etc.). She clarified that what ever was non -conforming they eventually wanted them to be replaced with conforming structures and uses. She explained that if the City was going to continue to allow structural alterations to be made to non- conforming structures to extend their life, it goes against the intent of this part of the code. She added that the Building Official's recommendation was to look to load bearing aspects of a structure. She explained that if the structure needed to be repaired, it had to be done in a way it would make the structure come into conformance with the requirements of the current zoning code. Discussion followed. Mr. Friedman interpreted the ordinance to prevent a property owner from making a repair to a structural component of a structure that was non -conforming. Barry Brown, Planning Director, answered that they would have to do away with the part of the structure that is non -conforming. Mr. Friedman advised that if that was so, then in some cases they would have to tear down and rebuild a whole new structure. That would be causing the property owner a lot of expense, and if he had a vote, he would vote against the ordinance. Mr. Johanson advised that he had ordinance, and he was told that the Building. Official explained to him conforming by two feet, it would n conforming. For residential, there special permit. spoken with the Building Official about the ordinance only effected commercial. The that if a commercial building was non - ed to be moved back two feet to make it was exclusion in Section 110-200, and a Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 12, 2009 Page 9 Dennis Clements, Building Department Plans Examiner, stated that the provision in Section 110-200 applied to both commercial and residential. He advised that there was a provision where a special permit could be applied for to possibly get some relief from the City Council. Mr. Brown advised that the City was trying to clear-up some of the contradictions in the existing code so that eventually non- conforming- structures would be extinct. He explained that as the code was currently written, they could just keep repairing and repairing, so the City was never-actually-able-to-get-rid-of--a-non--conforming-structure: T -he proposed - ordinance clearly defined what a structural alteration was, compared to repair and maintenance. He commented that sometimes you have to draw the line and say o.k. the City's intent is to have these structures demolished and move on with some modem development. Discussion followed. Tom Garbowski, citizen, asked if a certificate of occupancy came into question regarding a non -conforming structure. Attorney Latorre answered that the structure complied with the applicable codes at the time when it was built; however, it would be non -conforming under today's code. She clarified that the structure would now be considered legally non -conforming. Discussion followed regarding various existing non -confirming structures within the City. Discussion was held regarding City code Sections 110-191, 110-193, 110-198, and 110-200. The Board members agreed that the Building Official, Todd Morley, should be at the meeting to explain the intent of the proposed ordinance and answer any questions the Board members may have. Motion by Mr. Pearson, seconded by Lamar Russell to postpone this agenda item until the Building Official can attend the meeting to explain the proposed ordinance. - Mr. Russell reviewed his second to the motion for the reason of additional discussion. By unanimous consensus of the Board members the motion was withdrawn. Donald Dunn advised that he had a problem with using the word "alteration", because it implied change, because maintenance of a structure and repairing it was not a change. He voiced his opinion that a change was adding something to the structure, changing its design, or a change from what it was. Dennis Clements, City Plans Reviewer, advised that the building code, by definition, would consider it either an alteration or repair. Discussion followed regarding examples of routine repair and maintenance; and alterations. Harry Pearson advised of a minor correction in paragraph 6 of the draft ordinance. Discussion continued. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 12, 2009 Page 10 Harry Pearson moved to table the agenda item for a recommendation to City Council to amend Chapter 110. Lamar Russell seconded the motion. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION 1. Senate Bill 360 - Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas - Barry -- Brown; Planning -&Development -Director Bary Brown, Planning & Development Director, explained that Senate Bill 360 was signed in law on June 1, 2009; in short, SB 360 removes state mandated transportation concurrency requirements in target areas designated as Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas (TCEAs). The TCEA provisions of SB 360 became effective on July 8, 2009. Under SB 360, a City with an average of 1,000 people, per square mile, and a minimum population of 5,000 is considered a Dense Urban Land Area; a city that meets the criteria of a Dense Urban Land Area is also a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA). Designation as a TCEA gives local governments two options: A local government may continue to apply the Transportation Concurrency provisions of its existing Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations in TCEAs if it desires to do so; or it may opt to no longer comply with state -mandated transportation requirements in TCEAs. If a local government wishes to eliminate state - mandated Transportation Concurrency requirements in TCEAs, the local government must amend its Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations to delete such requirements. Until the local government amends its Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations, existing Transportation Concurrency requirements continue to apply in TCEAs. After a TCEA becomes effective, the Department of Community Affairs no longer has the authority to review Comprehensive Plan amendments for compliance with state mandated Transportation Concurrency requirements. Also, within two years after a TCEA becomes effective, the local government must amend its Comprehensive Plan to include "land use and transportation strategies to support and fund mobility within the exception area, including alternative mode of transportation. Mr. Brown advised that there is a great deal of confusion throughout the State surrounding the interpretation of SB 360. This was due largely to the ambiguity of the language contained in the bill. The confusion was evidenced by the various interpretation of the bill being offered, not only by local governments, private interests, and environmental groups, but also by the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs, Tom Pelham, and the bill's sponsor, Senator Mike Bennett. He stated that a lawsuit has been filed by eight local governments challenging the constitutionality of SB 360. According to the Orange County Attomey, the lawsuit raises some viable points and has at least an even chance of succeeding. 4 Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 12, 2009 Page 11 Mr. Brown advised that if the lawsuit is successful, it is likely that the Court would declare that the enactment of SB 360 violated the Florida Constitution, and enjoin the enforcement of the bill. Regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit, the Legislature may come back in their next regular session or a special session and attempt to remedy the problems outlined in the lawsuit. Mr. Brown advised that he has asked the City's Transportation Planner, Joe -RoviaroTof-Luke—Transportation,,-to-think-about-the options ire the bill- and-the— ramifications to the City. Some factors to consider included that Cape Canaveral is a barrier island City that is 93% built out; the City is projected to have capacity on its roadways through 2020, with little opportunity to increase capacity on A1A; and the greatest impact to the City's roadways is from surrounding communities, including Port Canaveral. He advised that in addition, a mobility fee may replace the current Transportation Concurrency System. The Legislature finds that Transportation Concurrency has not adequately addressed the State transportation needs and has determined that the State should consider implementation of a Mobility Fee. SB 360 directs DCA and FDOT to submit to the Legislature, by December 1, 2009, a report on their Mobility Study, recommended legislation, and a plan of implementation. The Legislature could enact a Mobility Fee System to replace Transportation Concurrency in the 2010 Session. He concluded that at this time, we do not have enough information to make a decision; we don't understand what mobility planning will entail and we don't know the result of the lawsuit. Mr. Brown recommended that the City keep its current Transportation Concurrency requirements as it follows the evolution of the bill, its interpretation, and lawsuit. He advised that staff would keep Council apprised of the situation -as it unfolded. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. Bea Mc airp on Susan L. Chapman, Secretary Id PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 27, 2009 A Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on May 27, 2009, at the City Hall Annex, 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Bea McNeely, Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The Secretary called the roll. MEMBERS PRESENT Bea McNeely Lamar Russell John Fredrickson Donald Dunn Harry Pearson John Johanson Ronald Friedman OTHERS PRESENT Barry Brown Kate Latorre Susan Chapman NEW BUSINESS Chairperson Vice Chairperson 1 st Alternate 2nd Alternate Planning Director Assistant City Attorney Board Secretary 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes: March 25, 2009. Ron Friedman requested that a statement he made at the meeting be added to the bottom of Page 3 to read as follows: "Ron Friedman stated that by prohibiting pole signs, the City would be doing a disservice to the business community. He noted and objected to the section on temporary signs that would allow an unlimited number and unlimited size of any kind of sign starting thirty (30) days prior to Election Day." Discussion followed. Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by Donald Dunn, to approve the meeting minutes of March 25, 2009, with the added statement by Ron Friedman. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 2. Recommendation to the Board of Adjustment Re: Special Exception Request No. 09-01 to Allow On -Premise Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages in the C-1 Zoning District, (6395 N. Atlantic Avenue), Section 26, Township 24 South, Range 37 East, Parcel 253.1 - John Porter for Banana River LP, Petitioner. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 27, 2009 Page 2 Chairperson McNeely read the agenda item for the record. Barry Brown, Planning Director, reported that this request was for a special exception to allow for the on premise consumption of alcoholic beverages; the property was the former Azteca Restaurant located at 6395 N. Atlantic Avenue; the property was located on the west side of A1A just North of Funntasia Golf and Games, between Holman Avenue to the South and Cape Shores Drive to the North; the property was zoned C-1; the surrounding zoning included: C-1 to the North, commercial in unincorporated Brevard County to the East, C-1 to the South, and R-3 to the West; surrounding uses included: Residential to the North, Lido Cabaret and Sky King Fireworks to the East, Fantasia Golf and Games to the South, and undeveloped property to the West. Mr. Brown advised that the applicant owned the restaurant property and surrounding properties to the north, south and west; the applicant was currently renovating the building; this would be the new location for Boston Beef and Seafood; the property formerly had a special exception for the consumption of alcoholic beverages, but it had expired 18 months after the Azteca restaurant ceased operations. Mr. Brown explained that the City code calls for a restaurant to have a minimum of 200 seats in order to be exempt from the minimum 2,000 feet distance from another establishment serving alcoholic beverages; plans for the new restaurant called for 245 seats; the operator of Boston Beef and Seafood intends to utilize the front portion of the building for beef and seafood, and the rear of the building will be utilized for traditional full service dining. Mr. Brown stated that staff reviewed the special exception request and recommended approval, without conditions, based on the following facts: The proposed restaurant use, with alcohol service, was compatible and harmonious with the surrounding uses; this was simply regenerating a use that was compatible at the location for many years; the property is properly sized and shaped to handle traffic circulation; the local economy would be improved; as a property that had been in disrepair, would be renovated and brought up to code; it would create new employment; and increase the value of the property on the tax rolls; the proposed use would not have an adverse impact on the natural environment, public infrastructure, or services. The Board members viewed a photograph of the property. Discussion followed regarding the submitted special exception request application. Mr. Friedman questioned the parking calculations. Mr. Brown advised that as far as he was concerned, since this property was already a restaurant with a special exception to serve alcoholic beverages, and still was a restaurant, and they were not increasing the size of the facility, this use was grandfathered -in. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 27, 2009 Page 3 John Johanson advised that the issue was that the City code needed to be followed. Mr. Johanson commented that it would be embarrassing to the applicant if he was perceived as getting special treatment. Mr. Brown verified that there was certainly none of that going -on. He explained that as a planner, that was the way he looked at something like this. Mr. Johanson commented that it was very important that the City Planner read the City code. Mr. Johanson cited certain code sections that applied to this request regarding parking and the number of seating. Mr. Brown advised that he would go back and look at those requirements. The Board members held discussion regarding the requirements in the code for a special exception submittal not being met. The Board reviewed the special exception checklist, item by item, and verified whether or not the required criteria, information, and answers met the requirements of the code. Mr. Brown advised that he had met with the applicant previously over another issue that was broader and more encompassing. It was then decided that the applicant would move forward at this time with the special exception to serve alcohol only. He explained that they were not performing a site plan review, merely going back and granting a special exception for alcoholic beverages that had been there in the past. Review of the application checklist continued. A lengthy discussion was held regarding parking and seating. Mr. Brown advised that if the previous special exception was granted for more than 200 seats then that was what was grandfathered -in. Discussion continued regarding whether or not the property was grandfathered. Mr. Russell advised that the use had stopped for a lengthy period of time and now it was coming back -in to be a restaurant again, but it could be argued that it has to meet the most recent code. Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney, clarified that this was not a non -conforming use; the use was allowed in the C-1 zoning district, with a granted special exception. What may be grandfathered was the parking, how many seats vs. square footage calculation. She was satisfied that the Building department would review and enforce the current parking requirement, and the Board should not worry about the technical numbers. She clarified that they absolutely had to have a minimum of 200 seats in order to be entitled to the special exception, otherwise there were distance requirements from like establishments that would come into play, along with the possibility of other requirements. Mr. Porter, Applicant, advised that next door at the miniature golf course, they have 75 parking spaces which in 20 yrs. they had never used all 75 at any one time; in fact they only use half of those spaces, therefore there was another 35-37 spaces that go unused 100% of the time which could be used for the restaurant if need be. He testified that if they wanted to go over 200 seats he would go to the building department and make sure they do the proper paperwork to cover that. There were also grass areas on either side of the restaurant. Lamar Russell pointed -out that the restaurant and parking was existing, and if Mr. Porter wanted to open his restaurant he could do so in the configuration it was. He clarified that he was only asking for a special exception to serve alcoholic beverages. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 27, 2009 Page 4 Discussion was held regarding the State requirements of a liquor license and the requirements of the City code regarding seating capacity. Chairperson McNeely pointed -out that he would need to meet the requirements of the State and the City in order to obtain the liquor license. John Johanson pointed -out a couple of issues with the site plan and the building layout. He voiced his opinion that everything needed to be corrected before the request was forwarded to the Board of Adjustment. He advised that the Board members needed to decide whether or not they wanted this to come back or move it forward. He advised that the code called -out what items are required on the site plan and the building layout. The Board discussed imposing the aforementioned as a condition. More specifically, show a seating layout with 200 seats that shows how they equate to 68 parking spaces shown on a site plan; and draw a site plan per Section 110-171 of the City code. Lamar Russell and John Johanson gave the applicant an overview of what needed to be shown on the plans to meet the code requirements. Chairperson McNeely read conditions that the Board discussed as follows: There is to be 200 seats; the parking needs to be consistent with the seating, and needs to meet code; and the building plan and site plan need to conform to Section 110-171. Discussion followed regarding the items that the P & Z members did not receive that would be forwarded to the Board of Adjustment. Kate Latorre reviewed the code requirements for what needed to be shown on the site plan. John Porter, applicant, advised the Board that he would be happy to forward a copy of the updated site plan that will be forwarded to the Board of Adjustment. Discussion continued from various Board members that did not feel comfortable sending this application on to the Board of Adjustment with so many errors and omissions. Mr. Porter advised that this request was time sensitive. Discussion continued. Motion by Lamar Russell, seconded by Harry Pearson, to recommend the special exception to the Board of Adjustment with the conditions previously stated by Bea McNeely. Harry Pearson requested that the conditions be restated. Kate Latorre stated the conditions as follows: • That the parking shall conform to the number of seats. • A minimum of 200 seats are required to meet the requirement of the code. • The plans submitted to the Board of Adjustment shall be compliant with the requirements of the City code, specifically Section 110-171. • The application must be updated to reference only the request for alcoholic beverages; all other references shall be stricken. Discussion followed. Mr. Brown advised that staff would review the applications more closely to ensure they meet code or he will return it back to the applicant. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 27, 2009 Page 5 OPEN DISCUSSION Barry Brown, Planning Director, thanked everyone for their participation in the visioning. He was very pleased with the turnout. The next workshop would be held on June 11th, at 6 p.m., in the Radisson Resort Pavilion. He gave an overview of what that workshop would entail. Lamar Russell advised that he was going on vacation to Alaska over the next three weeks, therefore may not be at the next meeting. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Bea Mc. it erson Susan L. Chapman, Secretary PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES MARCH 25, 2009 A Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on March 25, 2009, at the City Hall Annex, 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Board Member, Dr. John Fredrickson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The Secretary called the roll. MEMBERS PRESENT John Fredrickson Donald Dunn Harry Pearson John Johanson Ronald Friedman MEMBERS ABSENT Bea McNeely Lamar Russell OTHERS PRESENT Barry Brown Kate Latorre Susan Chapman NEW BUSINESS 1 st Alternate 2nd Alternate Chairperson Vice Chairperson Planning Director Assistant City Attorney Board Secretary 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes: February 11. 2009. Donald Dunn questioned the minutes regarding the process of selecting a Citizens' Visioning Committee. Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney, advised that the selection process was changed after the Planning & Zoning Board meeting was held; therefore the minutes were correct as stated. Motion by Donald Dunn, seconded by Harry Pearson, to approve the meeting minutes of February 11, 2009. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. John Fredrickson read the last sentence of the minutes which stated: Mr. Brown asked Mr. Johanson to meet with him to discuss these issues and hopefully have something for the Board to consider at the next meeting. Mr. Fredrickson asked what happened. Barry Brown responded that John Johanson contacted him, but nothing happened. Mr. Brown advised that he was not able to accommodate his request at this point, but it was going to happen. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes March 25, 2009 Page 2 Bary Brown, Planning Director, advised that as of today, Todd Morley was back full time. Mr. Morley had spent the day with the City Manager and a mediator. However, regretfully, Mr. Morley would not be at this meeting tonight to review the sign ordinance with the Board. 2. Recommendation to the City Council Re: Caribbean Vistas Preliminary Replat - Block 14, Lot 10, Avon by the Sea Subdivision - Daniel Coon. Applicant. Barry Brown, Planning Director, advised that Dan Coon submitted a preliminary plat to replat Lot 10, Block 14 of Avon by the Sea into two townhome lots. He explained that Lot 9 and 10 of Block 14 were currently combined to form one single family lot; a single family residence is located on Lot 9; it faces west and is addressed as 8002 Poinsetta Avenue; Lot 10 is currently the backyard to the residence and was formerly the location for a pool; the pool has been removed and the owner wants to separate Lot 9 from Lot 10 and replat Lot 10 into two townhome lots; while Lots 9 & 10 are combined by deed, they were never replatted as one lot, and therefore continue to be two separately platted nonconforming lots; therefore, Lot 10 can be replatted as requested. He advised that the replat was reviewed by city staff. The surveyor's comments have been addressed and were reflected in the version of the preliminary plat the Board members had in their packets. He noted that the Title Opinion is not required until final plat; so based on staffs review, staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat. Ron Friedman inquired about a consolidation deed. Discussion followed. Mr. Friedman asked the Planning Director why the lots were nonconforming according to his staff report. Mr. Brown explained that to meet the current code, R-2 lots require the lot to be a minimum of 75 ft. in width, these lots were only 50 ft. wide. Mr. Friedman questioned if they were trying to make one nonconforming lot into two nonconforming lots? Mr. Brown explained that these would be two townhome lots which the code requires to be only 20 ft. wide and 70 ft. deep, and therefore, the replatted townhouse lots would meet the current code. Harry Pearson asked if the townhomes would meet the three parking spaces per townhome rule. Mr. Brown replied that if they extended the driveway to 20 ft. then they could meet that requirement, but the Building Official would need to verify that during the permitting process. Daniel Coon, applicant, advised that each townhouse unit would either have a two car garage; or one car garage with two vehicles parking in front. Mr. Brown advised that the only concern he would have was regarding whether or not the project exceeded the 40% maximum coverage allowed by code, but the developer is required to provide engineered plans to show the maximum if not exceeded during permitting review. Discussion followed regarding stormwater retention. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes March 25, 2009 Page 3 Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by John Johanson to recommend approval of the Caribbean Vistas Preliminary Replat to City Council. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 3. Recommendation to the City Council: Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 94. Signs - Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney. Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney, advised that the City Attorney's office incorporated the changes from the last City Council workshop. She noted that the Local Planning Agency would make recommendation to the City Council, not the Planning & Zoning Board, but since it was on the agenda it would give the Board an opportunity to review the ordinance one more time, before it was scheduled before the Local Planning Agency. Barry Brown, Planning Director, advised that he was not involved in the proposed changes to the sign code until the tail end of the workshops. Donald Dunn advised that Todd Morley had a list of items that he was going to incorporate into the ordinance. He asked what happened to those items. Kate Latorre responded that the chart was updated to incorporate those items. The Board members reviewed and held discussion regarding the draft ordinance. Barry Brown advised that he would ask Mr. Morley to be present at the Local Planning Agency to verify these items and address any questions the Board members may have. Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney, asked the Board if they had any questions regarding the latest version of the proposed ordinance. She explained that any existing signs that did not meet the requirement of the new code would become nonconforming. Harry Pearson stated that he drove through the City and looked at all of the signs. He advised that there are 61 poles signs and 18 monument signs; so if the existing code is changed, as suggested, most of them would not be monument signs anymore. He noted that Pylon signs are not prohibited and there are 12 Pylon signs throughout the City, therefore when the code is changed most of the signs will become nonconforming. Ron Friedman stated that by prohibiting pole signs, the City would be doing a disservice to the business community. He noted and objected to the section on temporary signs that would allow an unlimited number and unlimited size of any kind of signs starting thirty (30) days prior to Election Day. Discussion followed. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes March 25, 2009 Page 4 Joyce Hamilton, citizen, advised that she understood that if a business could not meet the requirements of a monument sign then the code allowed for an accommodation of a pole sign with a granted variance. Discussion followed regarding where the variance procedure was located in the code. Kate Latorre advised that signs would still be required to go before the Community Appearance Board before a building permit is issued. She noted that the code further provides that the Building Official has the authority to waive the requirement of the Community Appearance Board if he finds it to be an insignificant change. The Board continued to review the draft ordinance. They suggested and recommended various changes to the draft ordinance. Kate Latorre stated that City Attorney, Anthony Garganese, advised her that all the changes that were agreed to by the group (City Council and Planning & Zoning Board), were incorporated into the proposed ordinance. Barry Brown, Planning Director, advised that he would speak with Todd Morley to verify that his list of changes that were agreed to by the group was forwarded to the City Attorney and incorporated into the draft ordinance. Also, as per the Board's request, he would ask Mr. Morley to attend the Local Planning Agency meeting. Discussion continued. Kate Latorre advised-tFiat she made a`list and notes of everything the Board talked about at this meeting. She would cross-check with Mr. Morley and Mr. Garganese about everything on the list to make sure the information is correct in the ordinance. She would also make a list of the other comments discussed at tonight's meeting to further discuss and possibly incorporate into the recommendation to City Council by the Local Planning Agency. OPEN DISCUSSION No open discussion was held. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m. Bea Susan L. Chapman, -Secretary PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2009 A Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on February 11, 2009, 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 Hart' Pearson John Johanson MEMBERS ABSENT Ronald Friedman OTHERS PRESENT Barry Brown Kate Latorre Susan Chapman NEW BUSINESS Chairperson Vice Chairperson 1 st Alternate 2nd Alternate Planning Director Assistant City Attorney Board Secretary 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes: January 14, 2009. Motion by John Fredrickson, seconded by Harry Pearson, to approve the meeting minutes of January 14, 2009. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 2. Election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson. Donald Dunn nominated Bea McNeely as Chairperson. John Fredrickson seconded the nomination. Bea McNeely accepted the nomination. There being no additional nominations, nominations were closed. By unanimous vote, Bea McNeely was re-elected as Chairperson. Bea McNeely nominated Lamar Russell as Vice Chairperson. Donald Dunn seconded the nomination. Lamar Russell seconded the nomination. There being no additional nominations, nominations were closed. By unanimous vote Lamar Russell was re-elected as Vice Chairperson. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes February 11, 2009 Page 2 3. Recommendation to the Citv Council: Proposed Ordinance Amendin Chapter 98, Subdivisions, Relating to Plats; Amending and Clarifying the Criteria Required for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plat Review and Approval: Providing a Procedure for Review and Consideration of Lot Splits: Providing for the Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Ordinances and Resolutions - Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney. Barry Brown, Director of Planning & Development, advised that the proposed ordinance amends the existing code regarding the subdivision of land. More specifically, it requires that all subdivisions of land be approved by the City Council-by-plarorby-a newly -created lot-split-procedure—He-explainud-thiat-in-the ----- past, land was subdivided by property owners without review and approval by the City. This has resulted in lots that do not have the size and configuration to properly accommodate future development and creates access management issues, such as curb cuts and lack of cross access from one parcel to another. Under the new ordinance, all subdivisions of land will be reviewed by staff and approved by City Council, either by ordinance or resolution. If the subdivision of land creates more than one additional lot, the subdivision must be done by plat, according to the platting procedure. Proposed plats will be taken to the Planning and Zoning Board for review and recommendation, and then adopted by ordinance by the City Council. Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney, explained that clarifications were made to the existing code based on previous Board discussions. She advised that the ordinance is consistent with Brevard County's code, relating to platting. The Board reviewed, held discussion, and suggested changes, to the draft ordinance. Following discussion, Kate Latorre summarized the recommended changes. Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by Donald Dunn, to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance, amending Chapter 98, Subdivisions, with the amended changes, as discussed. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. OPEN DISCUSSION Barry Brown, Planning & Development Director, advised that there was a City Council workshop scheduled tomorrow evening to address planned improvements on N. Atlantic and Ridgewood Avenues. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes February 11, 2009 Page 3 Mr. Brown polled the Board members regarding their availability to attend a sign code workshop meeting on February 17th @ 5:30 p.m. Following discussion, all the Board members verified they were available to attend the meeting. Mr. Brown gave an update on the visioning process. He advised that they were at the point where a Citizens' Visioning Committee needed to be selected. He explained that the purpose of the Citizens' Visioning Committee was to oversee the visioning process and create a true citizens ownership of the visioning and its results; the Committee would be a group of 7 to 12 Cape Canaveral volunteers --- who have demonstrated --an interest iri the City's fuuure; the Committee would-be comprised of business, civic, and government leaders, as well as, other interested parties who will champion the process and bring out participation and support from the community; the Committee should, as best as possible, represent the major stakeholder groups within the City; Committee members should be persons who live, own property, or operate businesses within the City; they should have a standing in the community that will lend credibility to the visioning. He advised that the Citizens Visioning Committee was discussed at the City Council meeting on Tuesday, February 2, 2009, and would be formalized at a Council Workshop on Thursday, February 12, 2009 @ 5:30 p.m. Mr. Brown further explained that staff is proposing the Business and Cultural Development Board (BCDB) serve as the core of the Committee; several other members will be added with an emphasis on providing the greatest representation of the various stakeholder groups. He noted that recommendations from the City Council, and others, would be submitted to the City staff; staff would then make selections; after prospective candidates have been vetted and contacted, the final Committee membership would be ratified by the City Council. Mr. Brown announced that Todd Morley resigned last week as Building Official; and Dennis Clements was the acting Building Official. Chairperson McNeely asked why Mr. Morley was leaving. Mr. Brown responded that he did not know and it was not his place to be discussing that publicly, but they were welcome to call Mr. Morley and speak with him directly. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes February 11, 2009 Page 4 Tom Garbowski, citizen, attended the last BCDB meeting, and listened to their discussion regarding the Visioning Committee, which he was concerned with. He was glad that they were not all going to be on the Visioning Committee, because a lot of them did not feel it was the right time and it was costing too much, one Board members said "It was a waste of time." He noted that earlier this evening Donald Dunn voiced his concern that the lots were too small for the commercial businesses along the presidents streets, which is what would be a good thing for the Visioning Committee to get into on how to consolidate those lots for larger buildings. He encouraged at least one member of the Planning & Zoning Board to be on the Visioning Committee, because from a legal point of view, they know the -zoning -and planning of what -would be allowed and what's not- Lamar Russell - responded that it was his understanding that members of volunteer boards would not be considered for the Visioning Committee, however the Planning & Zoning Board would be at the workshops to give guidance and assist in implementing the vision. Mr. Brown advised that the main purpose of the visioning process was to primarily create a vision for the visible build out of the City. Discussion was held regarding why the City didn't commercialize the beach. Lamar Russell explained that the residents have always defended residential along the river front and ocean front. Mr. Brown advised that it would continue to be defended. Discussion continued. John Johanson advised that at the previous two meetings he voiced concern regarding insufficient parking for condominium units with individual driveways. He explained that townhouses are required to have three parking spaces per unit; condominiums that are built to look like townhouses are only required two parking spaces. Because, there is no community parking, residents are creating traffic and pedestrian hazards; they park in front of their units or on the driveway with the vehicle extending past the sidewalk. He recommended that the code be changed to require a maximum of three units or 70 ft. per building to allow separation and open space; and require special exceptions for residential use in C-1 to comply with R-2 zoning with the townhouse code. He added that they also needed to define "accessory use". Mr. Brown asked Mr. Johanson to meet with him to discuss these issues and hopefully have something for the Board to consider at the next meeting. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. ly.�.41; Bea McNeely; C11airperspn Susan L. Chapman, S cretary PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 14, 2009 A Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on January 14, 2009, 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 MEMBERS ABSENT Ronald Friedman OTHERS PRESENT Susan Chapman Kate Latorre Barry Brown NEW BUSINESS Chairperson Vice Chairperson 1 st Alternate 2nd Alternate Board Secretary Assistant City Attorney Planning Director 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes: November 12, 2008. Motion by John Fredrickson, seconded by Harry Pearson, to approve the meeting minutes of November 12, 2008. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 2. Recommendation to City Council Re: Villagio Del Mar Final Replat - (Replat of Block 6, Lots 2 & 3, Avon by the Sea Subdivision (603. 605 & 607 Washington Avenue) - David Welsh, Applicant. Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney, advised that this agenda item was for a recommendation to the City Council for the final replat of Villagio Del Mar Townhomes. Barry Brown, Planning Director, explained that two lots were replatted into three lots for the purpose of constructing townhomes. He advised that the property was located at the southeast corner of Ridgewood and Washington Avenues. The Board members reviewed the final replat. Brief discussion followed. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 14, 2009 Page 2 Motion by Donald Dunn, seconded by Harry Pearson, to recommend approval of the final replat of Villagio Del Mar. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 3. Recommendation to Citv Council Re: Proposed Ordinance Amendin Chapter 110, Section 110-30 of the Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances, Relating to Land Use Decisions; Amending Application and Hearing Procedures; Establishing Procedures for Handling Deficient Applications; and Setting Forth Specific Criteria and Time Frames for Processing Applications - Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney. Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney, explained that the purpose of the proposed ordinance was to clarify and streamline efficiency in the processing procedures of land use related applications. The Board members reviewed and held discussion on the proposed ordinance. Lamar Russell entered the meeting at this time. Following discussion, the Board members agreed that Section 110-30 (b) of the proposed ordinance be changed to read ".... Upon written request of the applicant, the city manager or the city manager's designee may grant one (1) 30 -day extension .......... Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by Lamar Russell, to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance, with the noted change, to the City Council. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. OPEN DISCUSSION Barry Brown, Planning Director, advised that the City Council approved the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council contract to handle the city's visioning process, not to exceed $43,000. He encouraged the Board members to participate in the visioning process. He gave an overview of the visioning process. Discussion followed. John Johanson voiced a concern regarding insufficient parking for condominium units with individual driveways. He explained that each townhouse unit is required to have three parking spaces, and a condominium unit is only required to have two parking spaces. He advised that the condominium units do not have sufficient parking on their driveways, so they park their vehicles on the road in front of their units or on the driveway with their vehicles extending over the sidewalk, which creates a pedestrian safety concern. He suggested that the City code be changed to require condominium units to have a sufficient number of parking spaces. Brief discussion followed. Barry Brown, Planning Director, advised that he would research the matter and bring the issue back for further discussion at the next meeting. Planning & Zoniing Board Meeting Minutes January 14, 2009 Page 3 There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Bea McNeely C airp6rson Susan L. Chapmari�, Secretary