Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Minutes 5-4-2011PLANNING & 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 Chairperson Bea McNeely Vice Chairperson John Fredrickson Harry Pearson Donald Dunn Ron Friedman 1"Alternate Duree Alexander Recording Secretary Kim Kopp Assistant City Attorney Barry Brown Planning & Development Director NEW BUSINESS 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes: April 13, 2011. QMotion 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 28° 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 staffs intention to present the Site Plan to the City Council on May W. 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 he pointed out the reasons why. Discussion followed regarding the approved Puerto Del 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 III (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 nonoonformities 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 K 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 property, 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 K 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 251h. 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 Ill ° in order for the Site Plan to be presented to the City Council on May 17". 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 25" day of AA .2011 ofanat 7emw Lamar Russell, Chairperson Susan L. , Sec tary 11