HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Agenda Pkt. 5-25-2011CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
OLD BUSINESS:
City of Cape Canaveral
Community Development Department
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
:APE CANAVERAL PUBLIC LIBRARY
201 POLK AVENUE
MAY 25, 2011
7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
Recommendation to City Council Re: Site Plan for Casa Canaveral
Assisted Living Facility — (700 W. Central Blvd.) — Danny P. Ringdahl,
Puerto Del Rio LLC, Applicant.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Approval of Meeting Minutes: May 4, 2011.
2. Recommendation to City Council Re: Proposed Ordinance Amending
Sections 110-1, 492, & 538 to Allow for the Provision of Parking Spaces
within Setbacks.
OPEN DISCUSSION:
ADJOURNMENT:
Pursuant to Section 286.1015, F.S., the City hereby advises the public that: If a person
decides to appeal any decision made by the Planning and Zoning Board with respect to any
matter rendered at this meeting, that person will need a record of the proceedings, and for
such purpose that person may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is
made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be
based. This notice does not constitute consent by the City for the introduction or admission
into evidence of otherwise inadmissible or irrelevant evidence, nor does it authorize challenges
or appeals not otherwise allowed by law. This meeting may include the attendance of one or
more members of the Cape Canaveral City Council, Board of Adjustment, Code Enforcement
and/or Community Appearance Board who may or may not participate in Board discussions
held at this public meeting. Persons with disabilities needing assistance to participate in any of
these proceedings should contact the City Clerk's office at 868-1221, 48 hours in advance of
7510 N. Atlantic Avenue Post Office Box 326 . Cape Canaveral, FL 32920-0326
Building &Code Enforcement: (32i) 868-1222 =Planning & Development (321) 868-1206 Fax &Inspection: (321} 868-1247
www.cityofcapecanaveral.org • email: ccapecanaveral@cfl.rr.com
Date: May 20, 2011
To: Planning and Zoning Board members
From: Barry Brown, Planning and Development Director
RE: May 25, 2011 P&Z Board Meeting
Site Plans for the Casa Canaveral Assisted Living Facility were reviewed by the P&Z
Board on Wednesday, May 4, 2011. The Board postponed a recommendation until May
25, 2011 in order to allow for the resolution of certain site plan issues. Comments and
questions raised at the May 4 meeting have been addressed by staff and responses are
included in the attached report. I have reviewed the revised plan set and I recommend
approval of the site plans dated May 20, 2011 as prepared by Andy Kirbach, P.E. of
Morgan and Associates Consulting Engineers, Inc. A lighting plan will be provided prior
to the meeting.
At the last meeting, staff was made aware of a section of our code that appears to
conflict with the way the code has traditionally been interpreted and applied. Staff and
the P&Z Board have consistently interpreted our code to allow for parking spaces within
the building setback. This is evidenced by the numerous residential and commercial
projects that have been approved and constructed with parking in the setback. Staff is
therefore proposing a code amendment that will clarify that parking spaces may be
provided in the setback. P&Z will be asked to review and make a recommendation to
the City Council regarding the proposed ordinance to clarify our code regarding the
provision of parking spaces within setbacks.
If you have question or comment, call me at 868-1206 or email
B.Brown cit ofca ecanaveral.or .
�MMZIFIT;I: -
The following are comments and questions raised by Ron Friedman regarding the ALF
site plans dated April 22, 2011. Responses by City staff and the applicant's consultants
are shown in red italics and in the attached letter from Curt Mosley.
Comments from May 4, 2011 P&Z meeting
1. Site Plan Modification — The proposed ALF requires a change to the existing
approved Site Plan and should include modifications to the existing Site Plan that will no
longer comply with the City Codes or that will otherwise affect existing residents.
For example, the garage access's for Bldgs. 17 and 18 will partially be on the ALF
property as well as within the required setbacks. Also, the approved Site Plan calls for
an access way through what is to be the ALF property with a connection to W. Central
Ave. at an existing curb cut.
Any modifications to the existing site plan for Buildings 17 and 18, including
reconfiguration of driveways and parking, are minor and will be addressed
JAI h
administratively by staff at a later date. There illnotbe a connection between Me
condominium property and the ALF propetty south of the retention pond.
2. Criteria for Site Plans — Section 110-222 requires that all trees greater than 4" in
diameter must be shown. There is a single large tree near the pond that appears to be
on the property.
3. Setback — About 80% of the driveways and about 20% of the parking, as well as the
dumpster station, are within the required setback areas. The Code's definition of
"setback" states "All required setback areas shall be landscaped with greenery (sod)
and shall be properly maintained." Furthermore, Section 11®-538(g) states that no
parking or backup areas can be within the setback.
4. Entrance — Why wasn't the City's Transportation Engineers recommendation for the
location of the entrance not followed?
The transportation engineer's original recommendation was to move the driveway
further east and make it a right -in, right -out only or to create an additional median cut on
Central. The original recommendation was based on a site plan that depicted a
different building orientation, a future commercial'buildir7g, and a connection to the
condo properties. The current building location limits the distance the driveway can be
moved east. A right -in, right -out only would create a bLturn movement for most traffic
exiting the ALF and the creation of another median cut would place it too close to the
two existing median cuts. After much deliberation, Staff concluded that an offset
driveway at its currently depicted location created few turning conflictS and was the best
option. Also, the transportation engineer, Joe Roviaro, revised his recommendation
after receiving a revised site plan that depicted current building location, deletion of the
commercial building and removal of the connection to the condos. Mr Rolliaro
concluded, In summary� based on the revised lite geometry plan submitted with the
reduced development intensity, the proposed access connection driveway locations on
Central Boulevard are acceptable".
The proposed entrance is 49' wide at the property line. Section 110-493 limits the width
of an entrance onto a public street to 24. However, the Code also says that in lieu of
two openings and therefore, each is limited to 24".
Section 41 10-493(b) states that "projects for which a site plan is required ...... shall' bc
considered on an individual basis and may deviate from this section. ...upon
recommendation by the planning and zoning board.
5. Visual Screening — This property abuts a commercial zoning along its eastern
property line. Section 110-566 requires visual screening of not less than 4' high nor
more than 8' high "within the required setbacks of the property line that does not have
the proposed visual screening.
A buffer will be provided between the ALF and Jungle Village as depicted on the plans.
The remainder of the required buffier between commercial and residential uses has
been provided by the hotels. Section 110-566(b)(2) allows 2 years for shrubs to reach
80% density and by inference the minimum 4 ft. in height.
6. Offstreet Loading — Section 110-506(a) requires 1 loading space per every 10,000
square feet of gross floor area or fraction thereof. With 64,280 SF as the gross ground
level floor area, 7 loading areas are required. The applicant should have requested a
variance to reduce the number of loading areas to the two proposed.
The code requirement as applied to an ALF is unreasonable. Staff has interpreted the
requirement for loading areas to apply to the kitchen and dining areas only and
therefore 2 loading spaces have been provided.
7. Lighting — Section 34-206 limits excess spillover of light to 0.2 foot-candles at the
property lines. There is not a lighting plan or even any indication of lighting. During the
public hearing before the P&Z Board, the Applicant's representative twice stated that
there would be no problem with lights. This cannot be determined without a lighting
plan.
lr�
8. Safetv — There are two elements of the design presented that have potential dire
effects. The potential increases when considering that most residents and some visitors
are elderly with slowed reaction times.
Vehicles that will utilize the rear parking area must traverse a ninety degree angle at the
northeast corner of the building. That turn has a centerline radius of five (5) feet. More
important, the proximity of the building prevents oncoming traffic from being seen until
the very last seconds. There will be employees rushing to work, or rushing to leave
work making that turn. Furthermore, vehicles traveling to or from the back parking lot
may end up in the pond if they don't navigate that turn properly, say during inclement
weather, at night, or if they are in an accident with another vehicle at that "intersection".
Stop signs are to be installed that will create a stop condition. A 15 ft. edge of
pavement radius has been provided.
The second safety concern is the sidewalk proposed to the west of the rear parking lot,
between the parking lot and the pond. It is located at the very edge of the top of the
bank of the pond, and in several small areas, within the pond's bank.
9. General — Who is responsible for maintaining the pond? Will the expense of
periodically cleaning it out be the sole responsibility of and burden upon the Condo
Association? This project as well as the commercial properties that contribute storm
water to the pond should be bound by a legal agreement to share the cost of pond
maintenance.
This is not a Planning and Zoning Board issue, but the applicant will address this atthe
meeting.
I recommend shrubbery between the sidewalk/parking lot and the southeast face of the
building, which would enhance the view from W. Central Ave.
10. Survev — Has a metes and bounds survey been provided. Where is the surveyor's
signature/certification?
A survey has been provided in the plan set.
11. The ALF project will be on it's own 7.7 acre parcel. That 7.7 acre parcel is part of
the approved Site Plan for Puerto Del Rio; but now will be separated from PDR. The
problem I see has to do with the northernmost existing hirise and proposed PDR
building #18. In both cases, the property line of the ALF will run through driveways and
backup areas.
In both cases, the setback required by the City codes will not be met (City codes define
setback as green open space (sod) and state that parking or backup areas are not
permitted in the required setback area.
So, in the case of the gKilgng northernmost hi -rise, approval of the ALF as
presented will create a non -conforming situation.
In the case of the approved location for bIdg 18, it cannot be placed there. not only
would part of it's driveway be on the ALF property, but the required setback in the
direction of the ALF property cannot be provided.
Reconfiguration of the driveway and parking for Building 18 is a minor site plan revision
to be addressed administratively.
Since the ALF constitutes a major change in the approved Site Plan for PDR, does that
mean that the approved Site Plan is no longer valid?
No. According to the City Attorney, the approved site plan continues to be valid for
Phases 3A and 3B.
Additional comments from Mr. Friedman dated May 15, 2011 —
I was wondering why they didn't have the metes and bounds (distances and bearings)
shown and the Surveyor's certification as required by the City Codes.
Then it dawned on me ... maybe they didn't provide them because the ALF property is
less than the 7.70 acres shown. As a minimum, the existing portion of the driveway for
the existing northernmost bldg and probably the portion of the proposed driveway and
setback for the southernmost bldg are not owned by the developer but by the
condominium association pursuant to F.S. 718.
F.S. 718 governs most aspects of condominiums, starting with the initial filings by a
developer all the way to termination and dissolution of a condominium. I am pretty
familiar with FS 718 as I have been Pres., Sec. and now VP of mine.
FS 718 requires that a certified surveyor's plan showing metes and bounds and total
area be filed with the State as part of the Declaration. If the project is to be built in
Ell
stages, an amendment to the initial declaration that includes the certified surveyor's plan
must be filed with the State. Those certified Surveyors plans show property to be
owned by the Condo Assoc. and essentially become new property lines. In the case of
Puerto Del Rio, as was the case with both Bayside and Bayport, the projects consisted
of several properties that the Developer obtained.
For Puerto Del Rio, one of the parcels obtained was the 7.70 acre parcel that is shown
as still belonging to the Developer. However, any of that 7.70 acre parcel that was
included in the phase Declaration no longer is owned by the Developer ... it is owned by
the Condo Association. The northernmost bldg. exists and is part of the Condo,
Association. If the southernmost bldg is within a phase where the Declaration has been
filed, that portion of the driveway is also owned by the Condo Association and not by the
Developer.
There are two other sections of 718 that come into play. One states that 7 years after
the initial Declaration is filed with the State, the Developer can no longer appoint a
majority to the Board of the Association, i.e., the Developer no longer controls the
Association. Even if the Developer has not followed 718 even though 7 years have
passed since filing the Declaration, another section of 718 requires the approval of all
owners to sell, lease, give up, etc. any part of the Association's property.
I believe you should ask the Developer for the certified Surveyors plan for all existing
phases to determine whether portions of the 7.70 acre parcel are owned by the Condo
Association and not by the Developer.
One other item .... there is a water line that serves the pool and cabana that is on the
7.70 acres parcel. There should be an easement shown and granted for that waterline
in case repairs or replacement is required in the future.
See Curt Mosley letter.
5
CURTIS R. MOBLEY
MICHAEL M. M. WALLIS {1956-2000)
LAW OFFICES OF
MOS%xY & WA_T m$, P.A_
1221 EAST NEW HAVEN AVENUE
POST OFFICE BOX 1210
MmLRouRiq i, FLoRiDA 32902-1210
May 17, 2011
Via E -Mail: B.Brown@cityofcapecanaveral.org
Barry Brown
Planning and Development Director
City of Cape Canaveral, FL
RE: Additional ALF comments from Mr. Friedman
Dear Barry:
AREA CODE 321
TELEPHONE 984-3842
TELECOPIER 169-11571
With regard to Mr. Friedman's e-mail of May 15, 20111 have the following comments.
Stottler Stagg & Associates, the City of Cape Canaveral's engineers, prepared the
surveying exhibits of Puerto Del Rio, Phase Three, A Condominium. Each of the five (5) phases
in the Condominium is described by a metes and bounds description and a sketch of the Phase
which describes the Phase by metes and bounds in the box at the top of the page above the
sketch.
There is a metes and bounds description on one page followed by a sketch of the Phase
with a metes and bounds description. The metes and bounds description has a statement stating
the acreage in each Phase. Phase 3C has 3.75 acres, Phase 3D has 1.19 acres and Phase 3E has
2.04 acres for a total of 7.7 acres. I have enclosed copies of Sheets 8 through 13, inclusive, of
the surveying exhibits for Puerto Del Rio, Phase Three, A Condominium, for your review. In
addition, Mr. Friedman's statement that an existing portion of the driveway for the existing
northernmost building and probably a portion of the proposed driveway and setback for the
southernmost building are not owned by the developer, but by the Condominium Association is
incorrect. The truth is a portion of the existing driveway for the northernmost building
encroaches onto the developer's property because Phase 3C was never submitted to
condominium and therefore neither the Condominium Association nor the unit owners have any
legal interest in Phase 3. The same is true of the proposed driveway and setback for the
southernmost building. Phases 3D and 3E have not been submitted to condominium and the
Condominium Association and the unit owners have no legal interest in those Phases.
Although Mr. Friedman claims that he is familiar with most aspects of condominiums,
apparently he is not familiar with the Puerto Del Rio Condominium documents recorded in the
public records. The Surveyor's Certificate of Substantial Completion for Buildings 12, 13 & 14
in Phase 3A are attached to the First Amendment to Declaration of Condominium of Puerto Del
Rio, Phase Three, A Condominium recorded in Official Records Book 5766, Page 1643, Public
Barry Brown
May 17, 20I 1
Page 2
Records of Brevard County, Florida. The surveying exhibits were filed with the Florida Division
of Condominiums, Timeshares and Mobile Homes and approved by the Division prior to the
recording of the Declaration of Condominium in Official Records Book 5619, Page 6509, Public
Records of Brevard County, Florida. The surveying exhibits of Stottler,Stagg & Associates are
attached as Exhibit "A" to the Declaration of Condominium and as Exhibit "A" to the First
Amendment to the Declaration of Condominium.
Puerto Del Rio, Phase Three, A Condominium was to be constructed in five (5) phases,
i.e., Phases 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D and 3E. Phase 3B was added to the Condominium by the. Second
Amendment to Declaration of Condominium of Puerto Del Rio, Phase Three, A Condominium,
recorded in Official Records Book 5791, Page 6036, Public Records of Brevard County, Florida.
The Certificate of the Surveyor and the metes and hounds descriptions of Phase 3B are attached
to the recorded Second Amendment as Exhibits "A" & "B" to the Second Amendment. Phases
3A and 3B were submitted to the State and were approved as required by the Condominium Act.
The surveyor's plans submitted to the State included all five (5) phases with metes and bounds
descriptions and plot plans. Mr. Friedman should know that condominiums consist of units,
common elements and limited common elements, none of which are owned by the Condominium
Association. The surveying exhibits describe in detail the units, common elements and limited
common elements.
Your review of the legal descriptions of Phase 3A and 3B will show that no portion of
Phases 3C, 3D and 3E were submitted to condominium. No portion of Phases 3C, 3D and 3E are
owned by the Condominium Association. If Mr. Friedman would take the time to look at the
plot plan of the condominium which shows all five (5) phases and their boundaries and review
the recorded Declaration of Condominium and the First and Second Amendments, it would be
clear that no portion of Phases 3C, 3D and 3E have been submitted to condominium.
Section 718.301(1)(g), Florida Statutes, requires the developer to transfer control of the
Association to units owners other than the developer seven (7) years after recordation of the
Declaration of Condominium. However, the Declaration of Condominium for Puerto Del Rio,.
Phase Three, A Condominium was recorded on March 21, 2006 which is approximately five (5)
years ago. Mr. Friedman has clearly misstated the facts again with regard to the Condominium.
Mr. Friedman's next statement that another section of the Condo Act requires the
approval of all unit owners to sell, lease, give up, etc. any part of the Association's property does
not apply to the facts in this case. Neither the Condominium Association nor any unit owner of
Puerto Del Rio owns any part of Phases 3C, 3D and 3E, therefore no approval of the Association
is required. The Declaration states on page 3 that "The developer is not obligated to construct
any phases other than Phase 3A." On page 4 of the Declaration it states "The Developer has no
obligation to construct or add Phases 3B through 3E, inclusive, to the Condominium". In
addition, the Prospectus, which every buyer receives upon signing a contract, states on page 4 in
the section on Phased Development, "The Developer shall not be required to construct or add
any additional phase to the Condominium". The following statement is required by the Florida
LAW OFFICES OF
MOSLEM & WALLZS, P.A.
Barry Brown
May 17, 2011
Page 3
Condominium Act and is located on page 4 of the Prospectus: This is a phased condominium.
Additional lands may be added to this Condominium.
There is no reason for the City to ask the developer for the certified surveyor's plans
since the surveying exhibits have been recorded in the public records since 2006 and are readily
available to anyone who will examine the public records.
With regard to the question concerning the water line, Phases 3A and 3B are granted
rights to connect with and make use of underground utility lines, pipes, conduits, sewers and
drainage lines which may from time to time exist in Phases 3C, 3D and 3E on page 6 of the
Declaration. In return, the owners of Phases 3C, 3D and 3E have been granted the same
easement rights for utilities existing in Phases 3A and 3B of the Condominium. Pages 6 and 7 of
the recorded Declaration describe mutual reciprocal easements among the five (5) phases.
If you have .any questions, please let me know.. Thank you for your assistance and
cooperation in this matter.
CRMIdc
cc: Danny Ringdahl
Andy Kirbach
Sincerely,
Curtis R. Mosley
LAW OFFICES OF
Mosx,EY & WB.LLIS, P.A
N'
PUERTO #, A CONDOMINIUM
PHASE 3,
CRS I BRG DIST CRS BRG DIST II
m
w
T
a
N
DRE 1675. PQ GM
UNE ORB 3975, PG 971
3949, PG 1127 ,-
MB
MB s 4� N UNE PW{S£
a POMtT EMENT & PHASE 3E
� cp rr woem atr uHc mmcu �w
k F UNE arm s292AG 21BS
PHASE 3C, PUERTO DEL RIO
CURVE
RADIUS
ARC 'LENGTH CENTRAL ANGLE
C8
100.00
78.54'
45'00'00
C9
400.04'
196,17'
28'05'55"
C10
385.00'
112.43'
16'43'53'
C 1 1
150.00'
45.31'
1 T 1-8'28"
EXHIBIT "A"
PHASE 3CStottler Stagg & Associates
off SHE 8 OF 34 Architects Engineers Planners, Inc.
COMPUTER FILE 8680 N. Atlantic Ave. Cape Canoverol, FL 32920
PHONE (321) 783-1320 FAX: (321)) 783-7065
DATE. 1 22; G r PH3F.DWG www.sccWemtaggx= L8 6700
COPYRIGHT @ 2001 STOi M STAGG 8F ASSOCIATES
PUERTO DEL RIO, , CONDOMINIUM
PHASE 3C, PUERTO DEE R10
A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 24 SOUTH, RANGE 37 EAST,
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING BOUNDED ON THE SOUTH BY CENTRAL BOULEVARD
AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3057, PAGE 445 AND BOUNDED ON THE
WEST AND THE NORTH BY OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4292, PAGE 2493 AND BOUNDED
ON THE EAST BY OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3675, PAGE 971, OFFICIAL RECORDS
BOOK 3949, PAGE 1127 AND OFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3064, PAGE 2885, ALL OF
THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCE AT AN INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID
CENTRAL BOULEVARD, (A 100 FOOT RfW PER ORB 3057, PAGE 445) AND THE EAST
LINE OF SAID ORB 4292, PAGE 2493; THENCE N 00'S1'26"W, ALONG SAID
EASTERLY LINE OF SAID ORB 4292, PAGE 2493, FOR A DISTANCE OF 976.72 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUE ALONG SAID EAST LINE, N 49'06'35"E, FOR A DISTANCE
OF 258.02 FEET, TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST LINE OF SAID ORB 3675,
PAGE 971; THENCE 5 3722'00'E, ALONG SAID WEST LINE, FOR A' DISTANCE .
OF 157.75 .FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE ALONG SAID
WEST LINE AND THE WEST LIME OF SAID ORB 3949, PAGE 1127, S 37-22'00"E,
FOR A DISTANCE OF 743.83 FEET, TO THE NORTHERLY LINES OF PHASE 3D AND
"PHASE 3E, PUERTO DEL RIO; THENCE ALONG THE SAID NORTHERLY LINES, THE
NEXT FIVE (5) COURSES, S 52'3WOO"W. FOR A DISTANCE OF 110.97 FEET;
THENCE S 07'39'36'W, FOR A DISTANCE OF 7.82 FEET, TO A POINT OF
CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST HAVING A RADIUS
OF 100.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWEST ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH.
A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 45'00'00 , FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 78.54 FEET,
TO THE POINT OF TANGENCY;. THENCE S 52'39.WW, FOR A DISTANCE
OF 54.66 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE
NORTHWEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 400.00 .FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY
ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 2605'55`,
FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 196.17 FEET, TO A POINT; THENCE N 09'14'291W.
ALONG A RADIAL LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 15.00 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE
SOUTHERLY AND EASTERLY LINES OF PHASE 3A, PUERTO DEL RIO SAID POINT
BEING A POINT ON A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST. HAYING A RADIUS
OF 385.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, AND
THE SAID SOUTHERLY AND EASTERLY LINES OF PHASE 3A, PUERTO DEL RIO,
THE NEXT EIGHTEEN (18) COURSES, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16'43'53",
FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 112.43 FEET; THENCE N 3720'24-W. ALONG A
NON—RADIAL LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 135.38 'FEET, THENCE N 5739'36'E.
FOR A DISTANCE OF 139.95 FEET; THENCE N 37-20-24-W, FOR A DISTANCE
OF 32.80 FEET; THENCE S 5739'36W, FOR A DISTANCE OF 25.11 FEET;
THENCE N 37'20'24'1+1, FOR A DISTANCE OF 142.32 FEET; THENCE
N 41'26'40'W, FOR A DISTANCE OF 30.27 FEET; THENCE N 37.20'24'W,
FOR A DISTANCE OF 22.88 FEET -.-THENCE N 32'24'31"W, FOR A DISTANCE
OF 25.20 FEET; THENCE N 37'20'24"W. FOR A DISTANCE OF 90.90 FEET;
THENCE N 07'39'36"E, FOR A DISTANCE OF 46.43 FEET; THENCE
N 37'20'24'W, FOR .A DISTANCE OF 24.52. FEET; THENCE N 52'39'13'E,
FOR A DISTANCE OF 95.63 FEET; THENCE N 71r53'42*W, FOR A DISTANCE
OF 198.89 FEET; THENCE N 00 33'41'W, FOR A DISTANCE OF 150.26 FEET;
THENCE N 89'26'19'E, FOR A DISTANCE OF 5.51 -FEET. TO A POINT OF CURVATURE
OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 150.00 FEET; THENCE
NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE. ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
17'18'28', FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 45.31 FEET, TO THE POINT OF TANGENCY;
THENCE N 7Z07'51'E, FOR A DISTANCE OF 76.21 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONA"TINING 3.75 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
EXHIBIT 'A"
PHASE 3C � Stottler Stagg & Associates
SHEET 9 OF 34 Architects Engineers Planners, Inc.
8886 N. Atlantic Ave. Cape Canaveral, FL 3292C
COMPUTER FILE
DATE: 1 /22/04 1 ��� (�1xW Xtotue tt FAX: (321} 753-7685
PH3F.DWG ass -gym is a�6o
COPYRIGHT Q 2001 STOiTIER STAGG & ASSOCIATES
N
PUERTORIO,
PHASE
CRS
8RG
DIST
L58
N 00'33'22" E
180.19'
L59
N 52'39'36" E
54.66'
L60
S 37"20'24' E
243.10'
L61
S 00'32'55"-W
106.92'
LCURVEI RADIUS IARC LE14QTHICENTRAL ANGLEI
Cl N R/W UNE POINT OF BEGINNING
POINT OF COMMENCEMENT
PI NOM "WEA
EXHIBIT
PHASE 3D, PUERTO- DEL RIO
--111 rimer.
DATE: 1/22/004,1 PH 3F ;D G
COPYRIGHT Q 2001 STOTR.ER STAGG & ASSOCIATES
Stottter Stagg .& Associates
EX ME Architects Engineers Planners, Inc.
8680 K Atlantic Ave. Ccpe Canaveral, FL 32920
PHONE: (321) 783-1320 FAX: (321) 783-7065
er+wst0ttte'sta99x= LS 6706
PUERTO DEL RICA, A CONDOMINIUM
PHASE 3.
PHASE 3D, PUERTO DEL RIO
A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 24 SOUTH,
RANGE 37 EAST, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEJNG BOUNDED ON
THE SOUTH BY CENTRAL BOULEVARD AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL
RECORDS BOOK 3057, PAGE 445 AND BOUNDED ON THE WEST AND
THE NORTH BY OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4292, PAGE 2493 AND
BOUNDED . ON THE EAST BY OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3675,
WAGE 971, OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3949, PAGE 1127 AND OFICIAL
RECORDS BOOK 3064, PAGE 2885, ALL OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS
OF BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS.
COMMENCE AT AN INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY
LINE OF SAID CENTRAL BOULEVARD, (A 100 FOOT R/W PER
ORB 3057, PAGE 445) AND THE EAST LINE OF SAID ORB 4292,
PAGE 2493; THENCE S 8927'05' E, ALONG THE SAID RIGHT
OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 36923 FEET, TO THE POINT
OF BEGINNING, BEING ON THE EAST LINE OF PHASE 38, PUERTO
DEL RIO; THENCE N 00'33'22"£, ALONG THE SAID EAST UNE,
FOR A DISTANCE 'OF 180.19 FEET, TO A POINT ON A CURVE
CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 400.00 FEET,
SAID POINT HAS A RADIAL BEARING OF S 08'12'28' E FROM THE
CENTER OF SAID CURVE AND BEING ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF
PHASE 3C. PUERTO DEL RIO; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE
ARC OF SAID CURVE, AND THE SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 29°0756', FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF
203.38 FEET, TO THE POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE
N 52'39'36'£, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY UNE, FOR A DISTANCE
OF 54.66 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE
TO THE NORTHWEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 100.00 FEET; THENCE
NORTHEASTERLY ALONG .THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, AND THE SAID
SOUTHERLY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 04'4525,
FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 8.30 FEET. TO A POINT, SAID POINT
BEING ON THE. WESTERLY LINE OF PHASE 3E, PUERTO DEL RIO;
THENCE S 37'20'24"E; ALONG THE SAID WESTERLY LINE,
ALONG A NON—RADIAL UNE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 243.10 FEET;
THENCE S DO'32'55'W, ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE, FOR A
DISTANCE OF 106.92 FEET, TO THE SAID NORTH RIGHT OF WAY
LINE; THENCE N 89'27'05"W, ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE,
FOR A DISTANCE OF 383.55 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONA11NING 1.91 ACRES MORE OR .LESS
EXHIBIT "A'
Stottter Stagg & Associates
PHASE 3D WE
SHEET 11 OF 34 Architects Engineers Planners, Inc.
//''}} ��jj COMPUTER FILE PHONE:
N. Mont;c Ave. Cope Conaveral. FL 32920
TE: 1 j LL� iJ PHONE: {32t} 783-1324 FAX. (321) 783-7065
PH3F.DWG /--taitl=to99•*m LB 67a0
COPYRIGHT Q 2001 STOTTLER STAGG do ASSOCIATES
N
i o
J
Ln
PUERTO DEL RIO, A CONDOMINIUM
CRSBRG.
DIST
L6
N 00'3 55"-
106.
1-63
N 3720 24 W
243.10
64
N 7' 36
_
82
L65
N 52'3 0
110.97,
[CURVE1 RADIUS )ARC LEkGTHICENTRAL ANGLE)
> 3 --(too' reicw of wa — U- FUIW UNE- -
c:) — —
ova '�57 oc p� ��p /� p�}1�p}��y�^
PORI O DLVI�YI ING
" ( POINT OF COMMENCEMENT
EXHIBIT A"
TE: 1/22
inn f �H3tLDVVG
COPYRIGHT {jC 2001 STOTTLER STAGE & ASSOCIATES
ORB 3949 PG 1127
l -S UNE PHASE 3C
ORB 3064. PG. 2885
015
177'0p -W
173:5
Stottler Stagg & Associates
Architects Engineers Planners, Inc.
8680 N. Atlantic Ave. Cape Canaveral, FL 32920
PHONE (321) 783-1320 FAX: (321} 783-7065
xs—t.ttlars.o99— L6 6706
PUERTO DEL 'RIO, A CONDOMINIUM
PHASE 3.
PHASE 3E, PUERTO DEL RIO
A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 24 SOUTH,
RANGE 37 .EAST, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING BOUNDED ON
THE SOUTH BY CENTRAL BOULEVARD AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL
RECORDS BOOK 3057, PAGE 445 AND BOUNDED ON THE WEST AND
THE NORTH BY OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4292, PAGE 2493 AND
BOUNDED ON THE EAST BY OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3675,
PAGE 971, OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3949, PAGE 1127 AND OFICIAL
RECORDS BOOK 3064, PAGE 2885, ALL OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS.
OF BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS;
COMMENCE AT AN INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH .RIGHT OF WAY
LINE OF SAID CENTRAL BOULEVARD, (A 100 FOOT R/W PER
ORB 3057, PAGE 445) AND THE EAST LINE OF -SAID ORB 4292,
PAGE 2493; S 8927'05" E, ALONG THE SAID RIGHT OF WAY
LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 752.78 FEET, TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING, SAID POINT BEING ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF
PHASE 3D, PUERTO DEL RIO; THENCE N 00'32'55"E, ALONG
THE SAID EASTERLY, FOR A DISTANCE OF 106.92 FEET; THENCE
N 3720*24*W, ALONG SAID EASTERLY .LINE, FOR A DISTANCE
OF 243.10 FEET, TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF PHASE 3C PUERTO
DEL RIO AND A POINT ON A CURVE, OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO
THE NORTHWEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 100.00 FEET, SAID POINT
HAS A RADIAL BEARING OF S 42'O5'49" E FROM THE CENTER
OF SAID CURVE; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID
CURVE, AND THE SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE
OF 40°14'35", FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 70.24 FEET,
TO THE POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 0739'36"E, ALONG SAID
SOUTHERLY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 7.82 FEET, THENCE
N 52'38'00"E. ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, FOR A
DISTANCE OF _ 110.97 FEET, TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID
ORB 3949. PG .1127; THENCE S 37*22*00*E, ALONG THE SAID
WESTERLY LINE AND THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID ORB 3064,
PG 2885, FOR A DISTANCE OF 534.55 FEET, TO THE SAID RIGHT
OF WAY LINE AND A POINT ON A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE
NORTHWEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 561.05 FEET, SAID POINT HAS
A RADIAL BEARING OF S 12'21'52" E FROM THE CENTER OF SAID
CURVE; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE AND
THE SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE. THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE
OF 12'54'31', FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 126.40 FEET, TO THE
POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 89'27'05"W, ALONG SAID RIGHT
OF WAY UNE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 173.85 FEET, TO THE POINT
OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 2.04 ACRES MORE OR LESS
EXHIBIT A"
Stottler Stagg & Associates
PHASE 3E
SHEET 33 OF 34 Architects Engineers Planners, Inc.
n 8680 N. Atlantic Ave. Cape Canaveral, FL 32920
DATE. 1 � 22f V fit ) COMPUTER FILE PHONE (329w}w7�ottfmtcg9.camFAX-
LB 6706 763-7065
I PH3P.DWG
COPYRIGHT 042001 STOTTLER STAG & ASSOCIATES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
MAY 4, 2011
A Special Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on May 4, 2011, at the City Public
Library, 201 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Lamar Russell, Chairperson, called the
meeting to Order at 7:00 p.m. The Secretary called the roll.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Lamar Russell
Bea McNeely
John Fredrickson
Harry Pearson
Donald Dunn
Ron Friedman
OTHERS PRESENT
Duree Alexander
Kim Kopp
Barry Brown
NEW BUSINESS
Chairperson
Vice Chairperson
15t Alternate
Recording Secretary
Assistant City Attorney
Planning & Development Director
Approval of Meeting Minutes: April 13, 2011.
Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by Donald Dunn, to approve the meeting minutes of April
13, 2011, as written. Vote on the motion carried unanimously.
2. Recommendation to City Council Re: Site Plan for Casa Canaveral Assisted Living
Facility (700 W. Central Blvd.) — Danny P. Ringdahl, Puerto Del Rio LLC, Applicant.
Mr. Brown summarized that in August of last year the City began discussions about allowing
Assisted Living Facilities. He advised that on Thursday, April 28th the Board of Adjustment
approved the Special Exception and Variances for this project. Over the past several months
the applicant has been developing a Site Plan with consultation and direction from City staff.
City staff was now confident that the developer has a Site Plan that works for this site, and staff
recommends approval of the Site Plan. He added that City staff is working with Mr. Ringdahl on
a Development Agreement that will address roadway improvements and a streetscape plan for
West Central Blvd.
Mr. Brown advised that the applicant had prepared the Site Plan Checklist contained in the
Board packet. The Board members reviewed the Site Plan and discussed memos from City
staff pertaining to their review and recommendations of the Site Plan. Mr. Brown advised that it
was City staff's intention to present the Site Plan to the City Council on May 17th. He noted that
there were minor revisions to be made to the Calculation Table on the Landscape Plan. He
would be addressing the revisions with the project engineer, who would then incorporate the
changes. Discussion was held regarding the Landscape Plan, including removal of existing
vegetation, and visual screening requirements per City code.
Mr. Friedman commented that an Assisted Living Facility in this location would be good for the
City. He voiced his opinion that this should not be a Site Plan for just this specific parcel of
property, but a revision to the approved Puerto Del Rio Site Plan of which this parcel was a part
of , and iie pointed out ti Ie reasons l I Discussion.Jifollowed regar dii ig the approved oVed Puerto io Dei
Planning & Zoning Board
Meeting Minutes
May 4, 2011
Page 2 of 4
Rio Site Plan. Mr. Ringdahl confirmed that Puerto Del Rio, LLC owned the property, and
outlined the property boundaries for the Board members. Discussion continued. Mr. Brown
advised that as per the City code no inconsistencies had been created with the planned units of
Puerto Del Rio, Phase I II (B). He pointed out that the Fire department reviewed this Site Plan in
relation to the property to the North and they were well aware of the property to the West and
they had no comments regarding any cross-connection(s). He confirmed that Mr. Friedman's
concerns had been addressed from an emergency services standpoint. He advised that if it is
determined that any nonconformities have been created then revisions will need to be made to
the Puerto Del Rio Phase III (B) approved Site Plan.
Mr. Friedman identified some discrepancies of the Site Plan that were not in compliance with
requirements of the City code. He advised that the metes and bounds were not shown; the
surveyor's certification was not provided; also, there appeared to be a tree on the property that
was larger than 4" in diameter not shown on the Site Plan. He informed that about 80% of the
driveways and 20% of the parking, as well as the dumpster stations are located within the
required setback area. He read the definition of a "setback" from the City code. Mr. Brown
responded that the definition was in conflict with other Sections of the City code. He clarified
that the City has always allowed parking within the required setback. Mr. Friedman voiced his
opinion that every project should stand on its own merits, and he would rather see a five or six
story building in a smaller foot print or reduce the size of the building to meet the requirements
of the City code. The Board members looked at the driveways, parking, and dumpster stations
in relation to the setback lines as shown on the Site Plan. The Board members reviewed and
discussed City code Section 110-538 (9). Following an ensuing discussion, Chairperson
Russell stated for the record that the Board would allow the City Planner, Developer, and the
Developer Representative(s) time to research the City code on other points of the argument.
Following a 10 minute recess, Mr. Brown advised the Board that they wanted to address all the
issues that the Board had even though he did not have an answer that supported the Site Plan
as drawn. He explained that they would need to go back and research the City code further and
see if there was a provision for parking in a setback that was addressed elsewhere. Mr.
Ringdahl specified which buildings were not already constructed at Puerto Del Rio and clarified
that the property where those buildings were not constructed was owned by Puerto Del Rio
LLC, and not the Puerto Del Rio Condominium Association.
Mr. Friedman pointed out a few more discrepancies'. He advised that the proposed entrance is
greater than 49 ft. at the property line, and actually scaled -out to 54 ft. He advised that the City
code Section 110-493 limits the width of an entrance onto a public street to 24 ft.; however, the
City code allows that in lieu of two openings onto a public street, a single opening of 35 ft. can
be provided. He noted that this project was proposing two openings. Kim Kopp, Assistant City
Attorney, read the code Sections to the Board. She advised that Section 110-493 (b) stated that
projects where a site plan is required shall be considered on an individual basis and may
deviate from this Section in the interest of traffic safety upon a recommendation of the Planning
& Zoning Board. Brief Discussion followed. Mr. Brown asked the Board for time to consult with
the developer and his representatives regarding the proposed entrances to the driveway. After
consulting with the Project Engineer, he advised that the Fire department wanted a minimum 20
ft. width for each driveway opening.
Mr. Pearson asked why the City's transportation engineering consultant's recommendation for
the location of the entrance was not followed. Mr. Brown distributed a copy of a report dated
May 4th, from the City's transportation engineering consultant addressing this issue. The Board
members read the report to themselves. Mr. Friedman stated to Mr. Brown that he had
informed him that the City's transportation engineering consultant did not want the access
where it is shown, but staff overrode his recommendation. He found it very strange that the
Planning & Zoning Board
Meeting Minutes
May 4, 2011
Page 3 of 4
City's transportation engineering consultant now says its o.k. Mr. Brown explained that in early
January, City staff asked the City's transportation engineering consultant to look at the
driveway, because staff was concerned about it being offset. The City's transportation
engineering consultant had previously analyzed the driveway based on the former Site Plan that
showed a commercial building in the southeast corner of the property and a connection to the
existing Puerto Del Rio condominiums. City staff looked at this and concluded that if the
driveway was moved further to the east then two driveways would be close together making the
situation worse. Therefore, City staff did not agree with the traffic engineer's first assessment.
Subsequently, Mr. Brown contacted the City's transportation engineering consultant and
advised him that the proposed Site Plan had been revised since he had last reviewed it. He
agreed to look at it again and revisit his original recommendation and revise it accordingly.
Following his review he concluded that based on the low volume of traffic on W. Central Blvd.,
and the low volume of potential turning conflicts, that the location of the driveway is now
acceptable. Mr. Friedman commented that safety should not take a back seat to anything. Brief
discussion followed regarding the entrance width.
Mr. Friedman read City code Section 110-506 (a) regarding loading space. He pointed out that
the proposed building has over 64,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, which by City code would
require several loading areas; therefore, there should have been a granted Variance to reduce
the requirement to two loading areas, as proposed, which is more reasonable. The Project
Engineer advised that they looked at the City code, which based on the gross floor area would
require six loading areas which was very unreasonable. He explained that they used
approximately 20,000 sq. ft. of common area to calculate the two loading areas in order to meet
the City code requirement.
Mr. Friedman read City code Section 34-206 regarding lighting. He advised that there is not a
lighting plan included on the Site plan. He questioned how the Board would know that the
lighting will promote safety, and that it would not have access spillover? The Project Engineer
responded that they do have a lighting plan it was just not provided.
Mr. Friedman reiterated that safety should not take a back seat to anything. He voiced his
opinion that there were two safety concerns. The first being that most residents and some
visitors are elderly, with slowed reaction times, will utilize the rear parking area; they will need to
traverse a ninety degree angle at the northeast corner of the building. He explained that the
turn has a centerline radius of five feet. More important, is the proximity of the building which
prevents oncoming traffic from being seen until the very last second. Vehicles traveling to or
from the back parking lot may end up in the pond if they don't navigate that turn properly,
perhaps during inclement weather, at night, or if they are in an accident with another vehicle at
that intersection. Mr. Brown replied that stops signs could be installed to slow people down, but
he did not see where visibility is an issue. Mr. Friedman responded that if you go to any of the
other projects and there is a stop sign the drivers don't stop or even slow down. The Project
Engineer advised that they talked about the driveway a few times with the Fire department. The
Fire department had decided it would be better to have a second access than to eliminate it. He
pointed out that it does have curbing, but they could also install a guardrail and additional
signage for added safety. It was noted that there was no pedestrian walkway at that location.
Mr. Friedman advised that his second concern is a sidewalk proposed to the West of the rear
parking lot, between the parking lot and the pond, because it is located at the very top and in
several small areas along the banks edge of the pond. He recommended that shrubbery be
planted between the sidewalk/parking lot and the Southeast face of the building. Discussion
followed regarding pedestrians having to walk behind vehicles in the parking lot to access the
sidewalk. Mr. Russell asked who was responsible for maintaining the pond. The Project
Planning & Zoning Board
Meeting Minutes
May 4, 2011
Page 4 of 4
Engineer answered that it is shared between both property owners, and currently being
maintained by Puerto Del Rio, LLC.
Chairperson Russell summarized Mr. Friedman's comments and concerns. Brief discussion
followed.
Chairperson Russell asked for comments from the audience. Resident, Susie Carter, stated
that she was appalled at the amount of time that has been spent on this project. She advised
that she had brought up her concern about the entrance at the last meeting when the Board was
considering the Special Exception and Variances. It was her belief that there was still some
homework to be done. She encouraged the Board to make sure that the Site Plan met the City
code before voting. Resident, Greg Tangelos, commented that if the building footprint was a
little smaller most of the issues would clear up.
Mr. Brown advised that he planned to go back and research the City code for any provisions
regarding parking in the setback. If there is nothing, and what they are proposing is in violation
of the City code, then they will propose a Variance and try to have that presented to the Board
for consideration on May 25th. He advised that most of the other issues have already been
worked out.
Motion by Donald Dunn, seconded by Harry Pearson, to delay the Site Plan recommendation
until May 25, 2011. Vote on the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Brown advised the Board that if a provision for the parking in the setback is found within the
next few days he would contact the Board members for their availability to attend another
Special Meeting be scheduled on May 11th in order for the Site Plan to be presented to the City
Council on May 17tH
OPEN DISCUSSION
There was no open discussion.
Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by Donald Dunn to adjourn the meeting at 8:48 p.m.
Approved on this day of , 2011.
Lamar Russell, Chairperson
Susan L. Chapman, Secretary
ORDINANCE NO. -2011
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE
CANAVERAL, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 110 ZONING,
RELATED TO PARKING WITHIN SETBACKS; PROVIDING FOR THE
REPEAL OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES AND
RESOLUTIONS; INCORPORATION INTO THE CODE; SEVERABILITY;
AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City is granted the authority, under Section 2(b), Article VIII, of the
State Constitution, to exercise any power for municipal purposes, except when expressly
prohibited by law; and
WHEREAS, Florida Statutes Chapter 163, Local Government Comprehensive Planning
and Land Development Regulation Act provides for the ability of the City of Cape Canaveral to
plan for its future development and growth and provide necessary regulations for same; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds a need to modify the City Code to permit parking
spaces and drive aisles within setbacks provided such parking and driveways are not located
within five feet of right-of-way lines; and
WHEREAS, the City of Cape Canaveral Planning and Zoning Board has reviewed the
proposed amendment at a duly noticed public hearing held on , 2011, and said
Board and City Staff have recommended approval of this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, hereby finds this
Ordinance to be in the best interests of the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of
Cape Canaveral.
BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Brevard
County, Florida, as follows:
Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are hereby fully incorporated herein by this
reference as legislative findings and the intent and purpose of the City Council of the City of
Cape Canaveral.
Section 2. Code Amendment. Chapter 110, Article I, "In General"; and Article IX,
"Supplementary District Regulations", Division 2 "Off -Street Parking", and Division 5
"Setbacks"; of the Code of Ordinances, City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, is hereby amended as
follows (underlined type indicates additions and it is intended that the text in Chapter 110
denoted by the asterisks and omitted from this Ordinance shall remain unchanged from the
language existing prior to adoption of this Ordinance):
CHAPTER 110
ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL.
City of Cape Canaveral
Page 1 of 4
Sec. 110-1. Definitions.
Setback means a required open space on the same lot with a principal building, which space is
unoccupied and unobstructed by buildings from the ground upward, except as specified in
sections 110-468, 110 538 110-492, and 110-567. All required setback areas shall be landscaped
with greenery (sod) and shall be properly maintained.
ARTICLE IX.
SUPPLEMENTARY DISTRICT REGULATIONS
DIVISION 2. OFF-STREET PARKING
Sec. 110492. Location of Spaces.
(a) Parking spaces for all residential uses shall be located on the same property as the
main building, except that one-half the total number of required spaces for
multiple -family dwellings, townhouses and mobile homes may be located in a
common parking facility not more than 200 feet distant from the nearest boundary
of the site.
(b) Parking spaces for other uses shall be provided on the same lot or not more than
500 feet distant.
(c) Parking requirements for two or more uses of the same or different types may be
satisfied by the allocation of the required number of spaces for each use in a
common parking facility.
(d) Required offstreet parking areas for seven or more automobiles shall have
individual spaces marked and shall be so designed, maintained and regulated that
no parking or maneuvering shall be on any landscaped buffer, public street, walk
or alley and so that any automobile may be parked and unpacked without moving
another, allowing, however, a driveway of not more than 24 feet total on any
street or alley for ingress or egress to the offstreet parking area.
ri t-of-wa
isles are permitted within setbacks except that
DIVISION 5. SETBACKS
City of Cape Canaveral
Ordinance _2011
Page 2 of 4
See. 110-538. Encroachments.
Every part of every required setback shall be open and unobstructed from the ground
to the sky, except as follows or as otherwise permitted in this chapter:
(7) Parking may be located in a Fequired frepA or rear sethaek for single family a
o
ire family . wellifi
�rru
8
p -ap rty abuffing State Highway AIA and located nefth &P the existing eentefline
pennWed within Wa feet of the front le
line.. PafkiRg may be peffnitted on a required side --k on a comer- lot in !he eefranefei—al
Sgdistrict.
ct
LV111S�LTJZr
(9) No req ife Seth e 1 � soape buff shall be use l Yw f 1
1 Y 11g sYuvc-vr
baeketA afea, except as speeified in subseofiafls (7), (8) and (11) of this
.
QR(� ) Open, enclosed porches, platforms or paved terraces not covered by a roof
or a canopy and which do not extend above the level of the first floor of the building may extend
or project into the required setback.
Primary par -king may be loeated in a requimd fmnt s aek for- multiple faraily
.7we
0(12-) Signs for on-site advertising shall be in conformance with chapter 94
pertaining to signs.
Roof overhangs (eaves) may project not over two feet into a required
setback.
setback.LUO Air conditioner units may project not over five feet into a required rear
x{-13} Emergency pad -mounted generators as provided for in section 110-484.
1U2�0-6-) Conveyor systems may be located within setbacks in the M-1 light
industrial and research and development district by special exception, for purposes of moving
aggregate and other materials.
Section 3. Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Ordinances and Resolutions. All prior inconsistent
ordinances and resolutions adopted by the City Council, or parts of prior ordinances and
resolutions in conflict herewith, are hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict.
Section 4. Incorporation Into Code. This Ordinance shall be incorporated into the Cape
Canaveral City Code and any section or paragraph, number or letter, and any heading may be
changed or modified as necessary to effectuate the foregoing. Grammatical, typographical, and
like errors may be corrected and additions, alterations, and omissions, not affecting the
construction or meaning of this ordinance and the City Code may be freely made.
City of Cape Canaveral
Ordinance _2011
Page 3 of 4
Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word or provision
of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent
jurisdiction, whether for substantive, procedural, or any other reason, such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.
Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption
by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, this day of
, 2011.
ATTEST:
Angela Apperson, City Clerk
First Legal Ad Published:
First Reading:
Second Legal Ad Published:
Second Reading:
Rocky Randels, Mayor
FOR AGAINST
Bob Hoog
Jim Morgan
Buzz Petsos
Rocky Randels
Betty Walsh
Approved as to legal form and sufficiency for
the City of Cape Canaveral only:
Anthony A. Garganese, City Attorney
City of Cape Canaveral
Ordinance 2011
Page 4 of 4