HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02-13-1991 CAPE CANAVERAL
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 13 , 1991
A Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board of the City of
Cape Canaveral , Florida , was held on February 13 , 1991 at the City
Hall Annex, 111 Polk Avenue , Cape Canaveral , Florida. The meeting
was called to order at 7 : 30 P .M. by Chairman Russell . The
Secretary called the roll .
MEMBERS PRESENT
Lamar Russell Chairman
Arthur Berger Vice Chairman
Richard Thurm
Mary Wheeler
Wayne Washburn
Cecil Everett Alternate
OTHERS PRESENT
Ann Thurm Council Member
Rocky Randels Council Member
Edward Spenik City Manager
Kohn Bennett Deputy City Attorney
James Morgan Building Official
Susan Nelson Secretary
Ms . Wheeler moved to approve the minutes of January 9 , 1991 as
submitted. Mr. Everett seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
1 . RPUD Request for Preliminary Plan Development Application, a
portion of Parcels 753 , 753 . 1 and 790 , Sec . 15 , Twp. 24S , Rqe.
37E , (10 + or - Acres behind Ocean Carpets) - Luis Lorie for
Lorie & Associates , Inc.
Chairman Russell reviewed the RPUD submittal steps that had been
followed. He noted Section 640 . 13 (5) . Review Criteria was the next
step which needed to be addressed.
The Board members reviewed the RPUD submittal to establish that the
exhibits required in the Ordinance had been properly followed. In
reviewing the submittal , it was pointed out that no easements would
exist until the land was platted. Mr . Kammarude , spoke for the
applicant. He noted locations of adjoining developments . He stated
that future off street parking would be contained on individual
driveway (s) and/or garage (s) within the RPUD development.
Chairman Russell explained that the RPUD Ordinance was written as
though a developer intended to build the entire project. Mr.
Kammarude pointed out that the RPUD would be developed; the lots
would be sold with deed restrictions; and an architectural
committee would be formed to review any construction plans . He
also noted that the construction plans would be reviewed by the
Building Official .
Mr. Kammarude explained that the site data was included on the
submitted drawing noting that the common open space included a lake
and an existing canal to the South of the property. The
delineation of specific areas was designated as one stage . Mr .
Kammarude explained that the preliminary plan would accommodate
Planning & Zoning
Regular Meeting
February 13 , 1991
Page 1 of 3
runoff by using a curb/gutter system with underground pipe and an
aeration system so that all of the drainage would be stored on site
with no out fall . He noted that the undeveloped site drainage
presently discharged into the existing lake .
Mr. Kammarude stated that the secondary non-residential use ,
depicted on the submitted drawing totaled 1 . 58 acres , would be
devoted to commercial use and presently had no development plans .
Some of the Board members questioned whether commercial use could
be considered as part of the RPUD request. Discussion followed.
Mr. Kammarude noted that preliminary house sketches were submitted.
However, it was impossible to foresee the exact structures that the
individual owners would build on the lots .
Mr. Kammarude noted that everything contained in Section 640. 13
(2) (C) was included on the submitted Topographical Survey and that
the engineering requirements would be included on a submitted site
plan. He further noted that the grade of the property would be
established and would conform with the Subdivision of Land
Regulations and sold as individual buildable lots .
Ms . Wheeler asked the developer who would oversee that the deed
restrictions were enforced. Mr. Lorie answered that the developer
would have full control until 27 lots had been sold. Mr. Eric
Biewind, Associate for Lorie & Associates , Inc . , advised that an
owner could be sued by the people in the development if the owner
did not follow the requirements specified in the deed restrictions .
Attorney Bennett advised that the submitted deed restrictions did
not meet the RPUD code . Mr. Biewind commented that the deed
restrictions would need to be approved when the request was ready
for final approval . Discussion continued.
It was Mr. Thurm' s opinion that the submittal was inadequate until
such time the non-residential area was included in the preliminary
plan.
Attorney Bennett advised against the Board changing the ordinance
through interpretation by defining secondary non-residential use
as commercial use. Discussion followed.
Mr . Lorie stated that the land had been recorded and that the
acreage totalled 10 . 01 acres . He advised that the lot prices
ranged from $27 , 000 to $78 , 000 .
Mr. Washburn announced that he would abstain from voting due to the
fact that he was employed by the realty company hired by the
developer to market the property. It was his opinion that single
family deed restrictions were made to create better places to live
for people who want to live in better places . It was Ms . Wheeler ' s
opinion that the submitted deed restrictions were not thorough
enough.
Mr. Thurm read Section 640 . 01 of the RPUD Ordinance. If was his
opinion that the intent was not to have conventional subdivisions
scaled down in lot size. He also expressed his concerns regarding
the open space requirement . He noted that the developer was using
the canal as open space which conflicted with the ordinance . Mr.
Kammarude stated that the canal was public and recorded with the
Department of Transportation and that the canal was in the
easement . He also noted that the proposed lake was 2 . 6 acres and
would be utilized as an easement . He further noted that the
sidewalks were not included in the open space calculations .
Discussion followed.
Planning & Zoning
Regular Meeting
February 13 , 1991
Page 2 of 3
Chairman Russell summarized that the Board had the power to
negotiate and make allowances to the RPUD Ordinance to meet the
criteria of this request.
Ms . Wheeler gave her opinion of the RPUD submittal in regards to
Section 640 . 01 (A-F) . Chairman Russell polled the members for
their opinions as to the RPUD submittal . Discussion followed.
Mr. Lorie requested that all of the unsatisfactory items be
addressed. Mr . Berger summarized the items as follows : Secondary
non-residential use totalling 1 . 58 acres ; Retention areas , open
space . green areas . sidewalks and the canal ; and lack of
creativity. Discussion followed.
Mr. Lorie requested a five ( 5) minute recess in order to speak with
the City Attorney. Chairman Russell granted his request at 9 : 30
P.M.
The meeting reconvened at 9 : 40 P .M. Attorney Bennett advised that
Mr . Lorie had offered to amend the RPUD submittal by deleting the
commercial property and adding a five (5) acre parcel continuous
to the residential land. Attorney Bennett suggested that since the
application was amended, that the request be tabled until the next
scheduled meeting. He requested that the developer submit the
amended plan no later than seven (7) days prior to the next
meeting.
Discussion was held on the RPUD setback requirements . It was
concluded that the setbacks be as follows : front, 25 feet; rear,
15 feet; and side , 6 feet .
Ms . Wheeler noted that the 5 acre parcel of land was separated by
a canal . Mr. Lorie reiterated that the land had not been
subdivided and existed as one parcel . Discussion followed.
Chairman Russell moved to table the RPUD request until the next
scheduled meeting and that the developer submit an amended plan no
later than seven (7) days prior to that meeting. Mr. Everett
seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
2 . Site Plan Approval , Charlie ' s Place, Lot 16 , Block 3, Sec. 14 ,
Twp. 24S , Rge . 37E, Cape Canaveral Beach Gardens - Unit 2,
( 8550 N. Atlantic Avenue) - Charles W. Pindziak, Owner
Chairman Russell announced that the applicant had requested this
item be tabled.
There being no further business , the meeting was adjourned at 10 : 00
P.M.
Approved this 2 7 74 day of , 1991 .
le X 4'1d-el()
Chairman
vat fic1 L . ViaLTY1
Secretary
Planning & Zoning
Regular Meeting
February 13 , 1991
Page 3 of 3