Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP & Z Packet for Nov. 18, 2009, rwill- -%e Canaveral City of Cat x CommunityDevelopment Depa- PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING AGENDA C�noF CITY HALL ANNEX CAPE CANAVERAL �7 111 POLK AVENUE NOVEMBER 18, 2009 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: EW BUSINESS: 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes: August 12, 2009. 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. 3. Recommendation to the City Council Re: Amending Section 110-482, Underground Utilities. 4. Recommendation to the City Council Re: Amending Chapter 102, Vegetation. OPEN DISCUSSION: 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 the 7510 N. Atlantic Avenue - Post Office Box 326 - Cape Canaveral, FL 32920-0326 Building & Code Enforcement: (321) 868-1222 - Planning & Development (321) 868-1206 - Fax & Inspection: (321) 868-1247 «.,�*,%v.ci t,,,ofcapecanaveral.org - email: ccapecana:vcral@cfl.rr.com 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 Lamar Russell John Fredrickson Donald Dunn Harry Pearson John Johanson Ronald Friedman OTHERS PRESENT Chairperson Vice Chairperson 1 st Alternate 2nd Alternate 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 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 Reauest 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 & Development 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 corner of AiA and Central Blvd. The property was located in the C-1 zoning district. The 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 Al 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 vandalise i i. Mr. Brown referred the Board members to the reports from the Brevard County Sheriff's 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 corner 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, therefore he recommended approval of the Variance, with the condition that when the new vinyl coated 6 ft. high chain link fence is installed, the existing multi -colored 4 ft. high wood fence that paralleled the new chain link fence be removed. Moshe Gal, representative for David Gal, petitioner, distributed a sketch of the property to the Board members, which highlighted the area where the 6 ft. high fence would be located. The sketch was entered 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. Gat testified that they were not requesting the Variance for the reason of 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. Harry 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) TI Ie literal Initer pletatiol II of t' ie provision's of t' ie ZUI III ly UIUIf Idf 1(;e wouiU 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 26 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 1/2 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 ftz 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 that he already installed various security devices to assist in protecting his p1oNeLY• The property owner was trying to 11 slall 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. 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 property without 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 rencing 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 the he didn't even know what it looked like. He advised that 800/0 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 Mr. Gal had made tremendous upgrades to Ll le secur it since RV II Ie purchased IQJCU the pro`JeI Ly, al lU j1 le y1%aJ jlllC that 1Ie VVould 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. 1. 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 Attorney, advised that staff proposed revisions to clarify the City non -conformities, in regards 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 McNeely advised that the only concern she had was regarding the safety of the alteration. Vls. Latorre answered that a LU lldltlg pCllllIL WVUIU nC 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 ioaa nearing aspects ora structure. -Sne 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 spoken with the Building Official about the ordinance, and he was told that the ordinance only effected commercial. The Building Official explained to him that if a commercial building was non- conforming by two feet, it would need to be moved back two feet to make it conforming. For residential, there was exclusion in Section 110-200, and a special permit. 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. The proposed o1dlllalll..e clearly definedwhat a structural aiteratiun 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 modern 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 review 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. Barry 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 Pian 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 bili 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 Attorney, the lawsuit raises some viable points and has at least an even chance of succeeding. 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 Roviaro of Luke Transportation, to think about the options in the bill and the I C1111II Il.aLIUI 1J Lo el le illy. Some IC Efactors to VUI IjIUCr Il ll.11lded that I L %-., %..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 Al A; 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 McNeely, Chairperson Susan L. Chapman, Secretary City of Cape Canaveral, Florida P&Z Board November 18, 2009 STAFF REPORT Request: For the following Variances: (1) a screen enclosure side yard setback of 10 ft. rather than the 15 ft. called for by Section 110-584(a)(3); (2) a screen enclosure rear setback of 4 ft. rather than the 5 ft. per Section 110-384(a)(4) of the code; (3) a side yard setback from a public street right-of-way of 9 ft. for a six ft. high fence rather than the 25 ft. per Section 110-470(1); (4) a rear setback of 3.3 ft. for an accessory structure (shed) rather than the_5 ft. per Section 110-468(a);_and (5) a side yard setback for pool accessories (pump) of 4 ft. 8 inches rather than the 15 ft. per Section 110-584(c) of the code. Applicant and Owner: David D. Jones, MD and Heather Parker -Jones, PhD. Subject property: 201 Tyler Ave. Corner of Tyler and Poinsetta. Future Land Use and Zoning designation: R-2, Residential Surrounding zoning: North — R-2, Residential East — R-2, Residential South — R-2, Residential West — C-1, Commercial Surrounding uses: North — Residential East — Residential South — Residential West — Lavilla Apartments Description The Joneses purchased a townhome at 201 Tyler in June of 2008 for weekend use. The townhome was constructed in 1983 and the pool was constructed in 1986 without a screen enclosure. Members of Jones family are highly allergic to mosquito bites. In addition, cabbage palms and a banyan tree located adjacent to the pool drop leaves, berries, and blooms into the pool creating a maintenance issue. Therefore, the .1nneses decided to have a screen enclosure constructed over the pool. Earlier this year they retained Coastal Craftsman to constrict a screen enclosure. Unfortunately, Coastal Construction failed to pull the proper permits resulting in a screen enclosure that was constructed illegally, was not property engineered, and does not meet our code for side and rear setbacks. The Joneses did not realize that the enclosure was not properly permitted and that it did not meet our code. When it was brought to thP1r attention, they wanted to file for the proper permits and follow the provisions of our code. In evaluating their application for a screen enclosure, it was discovered that there were several nonconformities with the recently constructed screen enclosure and as well as existing privacy fence, shed, and pool pump. Our current code calls for a 15 ft. side yard setback for the pool, enclosure, and accessories. The pool is 15 ft. from the side yard property line and meets the current code. However, without a variance the screen enclosure would have to be built on the lip of the pool and therefore one would not be able to walk around the perimeter of the pool. In order to allow for reasonable use of the pool and ability to walk around perimeter of the pool the applicant is requesting side setback of 10 ft. for screen enclosure rather than 15 ft. per code. The applicant is also requesting a rear setback of 4 ft. rather than 5 ft. per code in order to keep the screen enclosure as is currently installed along the rear of the pool deck. The applicant is requesting a fence setback of 9 ft. rather than the 25 ft. per code in order to have a 6 ft. high wooden stockade fence for privacy. In addition, they are requesting a variance for the pool equipment setback of 4'8" rather than 15 ft. per code. And finally a request for a rear setback variance for the shed of 4ft. rather than 5 ft per code. Pertinent sections of code: Sec. 110-584. Minimum setbacks. (a) The minimum setbacks for swimming pools, enclosures and accessories shall be as follows and shall be in compliance with the electrical code as adopted in Chapter 82 of the City of Code of Ordinances: (1) Front, 25 feet (see subsection (b) of this section). (2) Side (interior lot line), eight feet. (3) Side (corner lot line), 25 feet; on all nonconforming_ lots of record 15 feet (see subsection (b) of this section.) (4) Rear, five feet (see subsection (c) of this section). (b) See section 110-536 for special setbacks. (c) In no event shall a swimming pool, screen enclosure or accessory feature be located within 15 feet of a property line that abuts and runs parallel to a public street. Sec. 110-470. Fences, galls and hedges. (a) Fences and walls may be permitted in any yard, except as specified in section 110-469, provided the following restrictions shall apply: (1) In any residential district, no fence or wall in any side or rear yard shall be over six feet in height or over four feet in height if within 25 feet of any public right-of-way, unless otherwise specified in this section; Sec. 110-468. Accessory structures. (a) No accessory structure shall be erected in any front yard, and the accessory structure shall not cover more than 30 percent of any required rear setback. No separate accessory structures shall be erected within ten feet of any building on the same lot or within five feet of any lot line. Aro accessory structure shall not exceed 24 feet in height. However, a lot with a one= or tyro— family residence only may have one additional accessory structure erected per unit, not to exceed 100 square feet with a maximum height of ten feet if detached or 32 square feet with maximum height of ten feet if attached in rear setback. In new construction an accessory building may not be constructed prior to the construction of the main building. No accessory building shall be used for any home occupation or business or for permanent living quarters; it shall contain no kitchen or cooking facilities. It may be used for housing temporary guests of the occupants of the main building. It is not to be rented or otherwise used as a separate dwelling. (b) Storage or utility sheds of a temporary nature, without a permanent foundation, not over 100 square feet in size or more than seven feet high, are exempt from this section, provided they are in the rear yard only. Variance evaluation criteria per Sec. 110-37 and Staff Analysis All variance recommendations and final_ decisions_ shall be based on an affirmative findina as to each of the following: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. Screen enclosure - the pool is 15 ft. from the property line; without a variance it is not possible to construct an enclosure that would allow a person to walk around the pool. There is nothing peculiar about the pool and deck that would preclude the applicant from meeting the rear setback per code. Fence -a side yard setback of 25 ft. for a 6 ft. high fence is onerous. iA Corner lot cannot have a privacy fence that any other lot could have without giving up 25 ft. of side yard. Shea- - A permit waG piilleri fnr a shed in 1ARR, hilt we are not .iire that existing Shed is the one the permit was pulled for. Regardless, the shed is not located per the permit or current code. There are no conditions peculiar to this property that would support the need for a rear setback variance. Accessories - given size and shape of the yard and location of the pool, there is no place per code to locate "Lille pool accessories. 2. Literal interpretation of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of this chapter and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. Screen enclosure - They would be deprived of having al screen enclosure over pool that allowed reasonable use of the pool. Fence - The applicant would be deprived of having a privacy fence that others in the same zoning district enjoy. Shed - No, the applicant would not be deprived of right to have accessory structure (shed) that others would have. Accessories - Yes, no location per code for accessories. 3. The special conditions and circumstances referred to in subsection (1) do not result from the actions of the applicant. The only circumstance requiring a variance that is of the applicants doing is the rear setback for the screen enclosure. All other circumstances were existing when the applicants purchased the property. 4. Approval of the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this chapter to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district. No, it is not a special privilege to have a screen enclosure, privacy fence, and pool accessories in this zoning district. It is a special privilege to have an accessory structure (shed) that does not meet code. 5. The requested variance is the minimum variance from this chapter necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. All requested variances are the minimum variance from the mrrle to make reasonable use of the pool, enclosure, fence, shed, and accessories. 6. The approval of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. All requested variances are in harmony with general intent of t►e chapter and are not injurious to the neighborhood or detrimental to public welfare. Staff Recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board Staff does not support variances necessary to allow for the screen enclosure as constructed, but it is clear that without a screen enclosure adequate mosquito control is not possible and maintenance of the pool would be burdensome. Staff supports necessary variances to reasonably accommodate a screen enclosure, privacy fence, and pool accessories, but staff does not support rear setback variances for pool enclosure and shed. Specifically, staff supports a side _yard of 10 ft. for the screen enclosure and 9 ft. for the fence as this will allow for reasonable use of the pool while minimizing the encroachment and variance requested. Staff also supports pool accessory variance as the applicant inherited the pool pump where it is; it is not causing a problem; and there is no place to locate the pump per code. However, staff does not 4 support rear setback for enclosure and shed. The screen enclosure can easily be relocated to meet code and the shed is in disrepair and deteriorating and not suitable as a host structure for support of the enclosure. The shed should probably be demolished and replaced with a new shed per code. SMMIKU Date- _November 13 2009 To: Planning and Zoning Board members From: Barry Brown, Planning and Development Director RE: .November 13, 2009 P&Z Board Meeting There are three agenda items for this meeting. The first is a request for five variances to accommodate a pool screen enclosure, a privacy fence, accessory structure (shed), and pool accessory (pump) at 201 Tyler Avenue. The other two items are proposed ordinance revisions. We are proposing to amend Chapter 102 - Vegetation, to remedy a number of tree code related complaints; see Todd Morley's memo. In addition, we are proposing to amend Chapter 110-482, the underground utilities ordinance, to extend the requirement for the undergrounding of utilities to include redevelopment and renovations of existing buildings; see Mr. Morley's memo. Vc riance Request No. 09-02 201 Tyler Avenue City of Cape Canaveral APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE `r rr- L� Date Filed Co -dR-O9 Fee Paid ,T -D $250 Filing Fee is non-refundable Description of Request: (Insure that the specific sections of the Zoning Ordinance that allow & support your request are noted). Attach separate sheet if necessary. %rlse See Address of request: /f i'- e.G:Pi ;FZ Civ t ed o ,, FL -:5:Z765' Legal Description: Lot(s) %. �3�, Block Subdivision &M B `1-t, Sck,, Section c" Township oN J Mange 317 F 0`TVU(Ir% c� n o- � STATEMENT OF FACT: State of Florida, County of Brevard 'R-kr/fir - a ne i , 6 b being duly sworn, depose and say that: I am the owner.(_s) I am the owner(s) designated agent.(Attach notarized letter of authorization). Owner(s) Name: Dhc id D. /`%Z) ,% /e ct Aev Address: 2el —TVI–e r- Ave , /y , G Home Phone: 1t_ Work Phone: �� �• <3� 9, f�S72 FAX: �r` 5 ..�s , a29 �Q . - All information, sketches and data contained and made part of this request, are honest and true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Sworn to and subscribed before me on this ;;?e/�day of CL 1 Vo ar v 1 UIDI1C, F lorlda Signature, of Applicant: MIA GOFORTH Notary Public - State of Florida RV iimRriI!-FVA� TR _2013 COmmiaton # OO 853695- The completed request form and the $250.00 filing fee mu s. i i 14 days prior to the PIanning & Zoning Board meeting. The Board of Adjustment meeting will be set after the request is heard by the Planning & Zoning Board. FOR CT 7Y USE ONLY Notice of Public Hearing Published in Newspaper on Notice to applicant be Certified Maii No. Notice posted on Bulletin Board on Notice posted on subject proper Ey on Property owners w/ in 500 ft notified on Variance AnnlicaHnn / Alia on/Page l of 4 on VARIANCE APPLICATION WORKSHEET Tariance Request No. 09-02 Allow a Screen Pool Encl. in ide setback at 201 Tyler Avenu This worksheet must be completed, legible, and returned, with all required enclosures referred to therein, to the Building Department; at least 14 days prior to the scheduled meeting to be processed for consideration by the Planning and. Zoning Board for study and recommendation to the Board of Adjustments. You and your representative are required to attend the meetings and will be notified by certified mail of the date and the time of the meetings. The Planning & Zoning Board holds its regular meeting on the 2nd and 4th Wednesdays of every month at 7:30 P.M. in the City Hall Annex, 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida, unless otherwise stated. ALL OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION MUST BE SUPPLIED TO PROCESS THE APPLICATION. 1. See STATEMENT OF FACT (attach notarized letter of authorization if not actual owner) "sL `.�'.J i i �% �l /! %�l ✓%i%E� tir.G' C � y �ry G �/ � �.4' Ni `"`"(` i 3. COMPLETE% LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF FF PROPERTY• Lot. (.F Block:_ —/ Subdivision:_- AvM t b} c Parcel: Section of Twp. 4. Size of Subject Property (calculate acreage):_ < 11 QCf e5 5. Ordinance Section under which Variance is being sought: t,'i;c /l6r/7 50 7 • 6. Current Zoning Classification of Subject Property:,..._ 7. Attach to this worksheet a letter giving a complete description of the Variance requested and any and all pertinent details and information. 8. VARIAN NOES ARE TO BE AUTHORIZED WHERE THEY ARE NOT CONTRARY TO C7 THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND WHERE, DUE TO SPEC Ip L CONDI TIONS A LITE_ RAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE TERMS OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, THE ORDINANCE SETS FORTH SPECIFIC ,:0N=Tr1'� y v �IL7TnL7 r,? TAT r.,LT nT, D ria i�i iT 7 i T C`� fl-, i i TZ -y' 'T T_..: in Di:IT ! n 5� T'T' 11� y 1 �L' sir vii i u111L ul i -L -M U 1 t.�L yiv, i BEFORE THE BOARD IS EMPOWERED TO GRANT THE VARIANCE, PLEA E ADDRESS EACH ONE IN WRITING. IF THE APPLICANT CAN NOT SATISFACTORILY ADDRESS ALL OF THE FOLLOWING, THIS SHOULD SERVE AS A PRELI AI�sAP.Y INDICATION THAT THE APPLICATION MAY BE REJECTED. Variance Annlirafinn / A,,a on/Pare p of 4 THE CONDITIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS AND ITEMS (A) THROUGH (F) MUST BE ANSWERED IN FULL: (Ordinance 110-62) A. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are unique to the land, structure or building involved and are not applicable to other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. C� L -T -erc i s ls'Y' Iry j✓ f � 0Y Y< C6��Xmz(J. 7-11 we /7u �> c %�v� 7'J v"u� /tel /c�l/i �7C J ��y ���r f B. That That Literal interpretation of the provisions of the zoning ordinance would deprive L applicant of righ is commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. are 4folwl%�7e«f C-� � r� �a � 7�Lj�r. Yr e r 14., 1 1°%r'1? Yl (,S ��ilr, %4 C. That the special conditions and circumstances referred to in item (A) above do not result from the actions of the applicant. Cy7TY 'Gr L� Ct1/1 G? 1 il)c C.7 jle /f'C /��" ,i"�yt /,/Zs r ; (vi i•i rl 'i r ifi . f/ i h. .t f' r 'A cr G� /Y fes' ca7Gl r�E , r-avi'7 c� Gig �U/ P• �j fG�trf Aw-5 D. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special C 11°' privileges that are denied by the ordinance to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. IDLOlt-C 1_1G117 / /"7 C YGlfli' ftl �i't'(/r�r AYI'7rG- `a Variance Application/ Aug. 00/Page 3 of 4 E. That the reasons set forth in the application justify the granting of the variance, and that the variance, if granted, is the minimum that would make possible use of the land, building or structure. GfGti//� �'L9PLG�,� fV' i Ito l nI 7�ll S �;z�f'��1 c�Y � �L f% �, y L f V 's /,'l 7/KL Lx/' I S'/Xkl F. That 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. j - j / w lift Too ( Cf'I G /U' ��L i^� LL);Il e`7 Y T�� f <`�c Cu '04'G�1 i/V GL 41'1e I Vljgled &1& 57 WHILE THESE CONDITIONS MAY SEEM UNDULY HARSH AND STRINGENT TO THE INDIVIDUAL APPLICANT, IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT THE ZONING ORDINANCE WAS ENACTED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE BE REQUIRING AN ORGANIZED AND CONTROLLED PATTERN OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE DIFFICULTIES OR HARDSHIPS RELIED UPON MUST BE UNIQUE TO THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY (E.G., PECULIAR LOT SHAPE) NOT GENERAL FN CHARACTER, SINCE DIFFICULTIES OR HARDSHIPS SHARED WITH OTHERS IN THE AREA GO TO THE REASONABLENESS OF THE ZONING GENERALLY, AND WILL NOT SUPPORT A VARIANCE. IF THE HARDSHIP IS ONE TFLAT IS COMMON TO THAT AREA, THE REMEDY IS TO SEEK A CHANGE OF THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 9. Attach a list of names and addresses of all property owners within 500 feet of subject property accompanied by a certified survey or portion of the tax assessors map showing boundaries of the attached property. 10. The following items or documents must be attached to this submittal. a. Notarized affidavit of all property owners. b. Check for the required fee. c. Map showing properties within 500 feet and a list of all property owners and addresses. d. Survey or portion of tax assessors map showing boundaries of subject property. e. Legal description showing metes and bounds of subject property. f. Copy of recorded deed of subject property. 11. THE UNDERSIGNED OWNER/ AUTHORIZED AGENT AGREES THAT THIS APPLICATION 1AUS" BE C11MPTES ZD AivDA CCuRA.TE BEFORE CONSIDERATION BY THE CITY OF CAPE CVERAL PLANNll\ G AND ZONL�iG tSUA1tD ANIS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, APPLICAI\I' SIGNATURE: r '-- eL� PRINT NAME: Variance Application/ Aug. 4 of 4 1 U - --v- - -- - Pi 13 City of Cape Canaveral Request for. Variance June 29, 2009 Property Owners; Dr. David D. Jones Dr. Heather Parker -Jones Mailing Address: 7228 Winding Lake Circle, Oviedo, FL 32765 Uontact Phone #: (40 7) 619-8616 Property Address: 201 Tyler Avenue, Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 Lot 1 Block 42 In June of last year we purchased the above-named property and immediately began to make improvements to this unit. Like many new property owners in this area, we are committed to contributing to the city's efforts to making this area as safe, aesthetically pleasing, and as attractive to visitors as possible. To this end, we have embarked upon a plan to beautify and make more functional our corner int_ One of the improvements we desire to make is to enclose our backyard and pool area with a screen. This screen will protect our family and our _visitors from attacks from mosquitoes and other insects. Several members of our family are extremely allergic to mosquitoes and the only way that they can enjoy being in the yard is for us to enclose the area. Further, in order to attract the types of renters that will respect our property and the property of our neighbors; we must provide any and all amenities that will ensure a safe and pleasant rental experience. An enclosed pool and backyard area is a means to this end. In order to create this screen enclosure, we hired a reputable company called Coastal Craftsmen. This company assured us that they could erect this screen and that they . would take care of any paperwork necessary to begin working on this project. On June 4'h, we were on the property as a Coastal Craftsmen worker was completing this screen enclosure when city representatives (puree Alexander and Michael Richart) informed us that no permit had been issued for the screen enclosure and that all work on the screen must be brought to an immediate halt. At thispoint, the screen was 95% co_m_piete. When Coastal Craftsmen subsequently applied for a permit they were informed that according to Section 110.584 (Minimum Setbacks) there was not enough room between the screen and our property line for :=pork on the screen to be approved. As the property owners, we are respectfully requesting a variance because the odd configuration of our lot and the way that our lot is situated makes it impossible for any screen enclosure to comply with the number of specified feet that must exist between the edifice and the property line. Such compliance would place the screen within the actual pool. At this point the edifice is near completion, requiring only one more day of work. Our neighbors are excited about the improvements that we have already made and that we will continue to make to this property and our research indicates that this screen enclosure poses no environmental, aesthetic, or safety threat to the surrounding area. Further, we are in need of the enclosure for health reasons for our family and for any renters who are hyper -allergic to mosquitoes. Thank you for considering this request Dr. Heather Parker -Jones [Nome] [Meet Jim Ford] [Apprs 8Mh UCh Info] [Amend Nam ] Pffi] saN e_4ur Homes] [Exemptions] [Tangible Propertyj [Locations] [F..orms] [Appeals] [Property Research] [Map Search] ]Maps..& Data[U.nusabl.e Property] [Tax Author,tiesj [Tax Eacts] [FAQ] [Links] [[n.Thg ] jSax_Est [contact Usj General Parcel Information for I.Q-z7-1z-rr_nnnAI n_nnnl n, Parcel Id: 24 -37 -23 -CG -00042.0- 0001.01 Map/Ortho Aerial Milla e on: Fqz:; Use Records Date Amount - -ed Type Screening Code: : Vacant/Improved Code: _135 A Site Address: 201 TYLER AVE, CAPE CANAVERAL 32920 Tax 2434076 I 5870/8753 Acct: $135,000 Ci*o -4A-, 4104/0354 „Y u- —uvaiu -uumy riaaress Assignment Utttce for E9-1-1 purposes: this information may not reflect community location of property. Tax_informati.oi _is_ available at the Brevard County_._Tax Collector's web_site (Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site) Owner Information Value Summary for 2005 Abbreviated Description Plat Book/Page: ISub Name: AVON JW 36 FT OF 0003/0007 _ BY THE SEA_ LOT l BLK 42 View Plat (requires Adobe, Acrobat.. Reader-file_size may be._large) Land Information Acres: 0.11 Site Code: 0 * Theis *he value dfor ..0 r aud valorem purposes in accordance with c 1 vj,,, l 1(1) and (8), Florida Statutes. This value dQes_no represent anticipated selling price for the property. ** Exemptions as reflected on the Value Summary table are applicable for the year shown and may or may not be applicable if an owner change has occurred. *** The additional exemption does not apply when calculating taxable value for school districts pursuant to amendment Therefore the taxable value used to compute school district tax is $25,000 higher. Sales Informatinn Official Sale Sale DIP pyx Sales *** Sales Physical Records Date Amount - -ed Type Screening Screening Change Vacant/Improved Book/Page Code Source Code_ I 5870/8753 6/2008 $135,000 WD 4104/0354 12/1999 4%1999 $83,0001 WD 99 08 I I 4004/.0496 $72,000 WD 2469_/2017 11/1983 Ssl.nnn ujn htt =//www.brevardpropertyappraiser.com/as /S W n�,6 er=1X... 062 912009 QA 0/7/12007 *** Sales Screening Codes and Sources are from analysis by the Property Appraiser's staff. They have no bearing on the prior or potential marketability of the property. Building Information PDC # Use Code Year Built Story Height Frame Code Exterior Code Interior Roof Roof Code Type Mater. Floors Code Ceiling Code 11.3.5 RV RV 1983 8 03 03 0.3 02 0..4 ..0.3 03 Building Area Information PDC Base Garage Open Car Screened Utility Enclosed Bonus RV RV Total # Area Area Porches Port Porches Rooms Porch Basements Attics Rooms Carport Garage p g Base Area 1 882 0 102 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 882 Extra Feature Description Units POOL DECK 410 POOL 1 Data Last Updated: Monday, June 29, 2009- Printed On: Monday, June 29, 2009. New Search Help [Home] [MeetJimlordj [Appraisar's..Jobl [General -Info) [Amendmenl.l] [Save_Our.H.omes] [Exemptions] [Iangible..PrQperty] [Locations] [Forms] [Appeals] [Property Research] [Map...Search] [Maps & Qata] [Unusable...P...roperty] [Lax Authoritiesj [Cax..Eaats] [FAQ] [Links] [in ..T.he Mews] (Cax.atimatnrl [C ..Qntact. Us] Copyright © 1997 Brevard County Property Appraiser. All rights reserved. http://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.com/asp/Show nareel.asp?acct=2434076&gen=T&._, 06/29/2009 RADIUS MAP JONES, DAVID DWAYNE Parker-Jones.500 42 5 CARVER DR I A15 - FEL] IT I V. 83 20 41 6 1 2 FTT I HITCHING POST RD 79 1 6:2 52 30 15!81±1263 RICHIEAV 46 14 75 11. 43 c' KA "y Z )L MAP SCALE IS: 1:6,000 OR 1 inch equals 500 feet Legend F_ V BUFFER DISTANCE: 500 feet Notification buffer C 2 This map was compiled from recorded documents and does not reflect q = Parcel/lot boundaries an actual survey. The Brevard County Board of Commissioners does not assume responsibility for errors or omissions contained hereon. Notified Properties 0 R I Produced by: Brevard County Planning & Zoning.Office - GIs 7/22/2009 6uyiect Properties 1dAYY SURV ' fCVR and/or CER71FIE'D To; ,WE JONES AN,-. IEA IHER PARKER -JONES, MORTGAGE INC, LANDAMERICA-GULFATLANTIC TI71.F.., S TI TLE INSURANCE CORP. -SCRIP TION AS FOLLOWS; YE �%{.:ST 36 FEET OF 'LOT i, BLOCK' �2, A VON—B Y— TY,E SEA, AS RECORDED I PLA i 800, AGE 7, PUBLIC RECORDS OF BRE VARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. I _ TYLER A VENUE i 48' R1W N 90'00'00 " E REC 5/a" I. R. J6. REC X" Iw 14.00 (P)F to � ti CONC N DRIVE 0.7=C 91V ' 14.4 21, s ONE STORY ATTACHED . 3- O U pCS4 3 R 3 #201 14 78.0 p SCREEN Lo PORCH �O 5.7 POOL 10,( 8.2 N CONC 4 ' CIL FEN, 36.00AEC .112 i.R.1-2- S 90-00,000i w 0 E L 0 T 9, BLOCK 42 r NkEirEP--jrnTT ALK ,- M. -LAND SURVE.YuN GRU� NOTES JU LEGEND )- 6ii:1-'S FLUISSF AUfa1NlSiht,Fy R,S Wit -l; i'UH71IS,SUi VEY I�SjINOTtVALID AND IS PRFSf'NIEO FOR Ip. .ntON PIPE ` UNLlSS Ei730SSFU WI❑i S0NI'(-Oti'S SEAL,. Llt ..ur.>r: nau `i i INPOR1AA710NAL PURPOSES ONi'L N dak+CREtE LIUNUHk:h71^ Y.„n „Q acv v.o•; PREPARED FROU T Ti.0 WFORun7i0N FURNISHED 70 THE St1RVEY0R. '[HERE N a 0 Ci a - 14 78.0 p SCREEN Lo PORCH �O 5.7 POOL 10,( 8.2 N CONC 4 ' CIL FEN, 36.00AEC .112 i.R.1-2- S 90-00,000i w 0 E L 0 T 9, BLOCK 42 r NkEirEP--jrnTT ALK ,- M. -LAND SURVE.YuN GRU� NOTES JU LEGEND )- 6ii:1-'S FLUISSF AUfa1NlSiht,Fy R,S Wit -l; i'UH71IS,SUi VEY I�SjINOTtVALID AND IS PRFSf'NIEO FOR Ip. .ntON PIPE ` UNLlSS Ei730SSFU WI❑i S0NI'(-Oti'S SEAL,. Llt ..ur.>r: nau `i i INPOR1AA710NAL PURPOSES ONi'L N dak+CREtE LIUNUHk:h71^ Y.„n „Q acv v.o•; PREPARED FROU T Ti.0 WFORun7i0N FURNISHED 70 THE St1RVEY0R. '[HERE �� ��. . �v r. Date: November 13, 2009 To: Barry Brown, Planning and Developme hector From: Todd Morley, Building Official E: RRevisions to City Code Ch. 11 2 Underground utilities required Please fonvard the attached draft revisions to the Planning and Zoning Board. for reconunendation to City Council. y Background: • The Citi, 's Redevelopment Plan includes a provision that all utility- lines should. eventually be placed underground. This draft is untended to enact this facet of the Redevelopment. Plan. • Tht- City CM,— aira„adc' rsrn,irae all l.e;,° de -1--, ent + 11 , , , .__.-- �u++�� 'c.iv�uit,lla to lilstall lltilIL k ;-- lines 'ul'luclgroulluJ Tlus ordinance expands that requirement to include reefevelajnrent and renovations of existing btrrlt� exceeding 50 /a oftlue assessed 1`alue OI the e--' - g structure. • This ordinance applies only to onsite utility lines, not utility lines in the right-of-way. DRAFT September 15, 2009 ORDINANCE NO. -2009 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 110- 482 OF THE CITY CODE RELATED TO UNDERGROUND UTILITIES; REQUIRING THAT UTILITIES BE PLACED UNDERGROUND WHEN AN EXISTING BUILDING UNDERGOES SUBSTANTIAL RENOVATION AND DURING THE REDEVELOPMENT OF ANY PROPERTY; PROVIDING THAT THE CITY MANAGER MAY WAIVE UNDERGROUNDING UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; PROVIDING A DEFINITION FOR "REDEVELOPMENT; 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, the City Council recently conducted a workshop to identify and prioritize the goals and objectives set forth in the City's Redevelopment Plan; and WHEREAS, consistent with Policy 2.3.5 of the Redevelopment Plan, the City Council desires to improve the aesthetic appeal of the City of Cape Canaveral and the reliability of utility services by requiring that property owners relocate utility lines underground during substantial renovation to existing improvements or during the rerleve o„ P t of anyproperty; and . l 11 n. , 1 V.1 L 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, Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances, City City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. _-2009 Page 1 of 4 DRAFT September 15, 2009 of Cape Canaveral, Florida, is hereby amended as follows (underlined type indicates additions and strikeout type indicates deletions, while asterisks (* * *) indicate a deletion from this Ordinance of text existing in Chapter 110. It is intended that the text in Chapter 110 denoted by the asterisks and set forth in this Ordinance shall remain unchanged from the language existing prior to adoption of this Ordinance): CHAPTER 110. ZONING ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL Sec. 110-1. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Redevelopment means the process of demoli+ion of existing improvements and the construction of new improvements on a site ARTICLE IX. SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Sec. 110-482. Underground utilities required. I Utility lines of all kinds, including, but not limited to, electrical service conductors, telephone, cable television, water, sewer, gas and reclaimed water shall be constructed and installed beneath the surface of the ground and in compliance with all applicable laws and ordinances unless it is determined by the eity manager vrith inp tit from the building official Primary facilities providing service to the site and leading to the site from franchised utilities shall be placed underground. It shall be the developer's responsibility to make the necessary arrangements with each utility in accordance with that utility's established policies. City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. _-2009 Page 2 of 4 DRAFT September 15, 2009 Installation of incidental appurtenances such as transformer boxes, pedestal mounted boxes for electricity, or similar service hardware necessary for the provision of electric and communication utilities shall not be required to be placed underground, although screening of such appurtenances by the use of vegetation is required. (121 Underground construction and installation of utility lines shall also be required in coniunetion with the substantial renovation of any existing building or the redevelopment of any property. For purposes of this subsection a "substantial renovation" occurs when the building permit value of the renovations exceeds fifty percent 50%) of the fair market value ofthe existing improvements on the property, as established by the Brevard County Properiy Appraiser or by a licensed appraiser, whichever is greater. Lel The city recognizes that certain existing -physical elements on some properties may impose unreasonable hardships on a property owner's ability to comply with the undergrounding requirements of this section Such physical elements may include but are not limited to, soil or topographical conditions existing buildings swimming pools and large trees. Upon confirmation of these hardships by the appropriate utility company and the city building official and public works director, the city manager may waive the undergrounding requirement, or may allow the waiver of one (1) re wired parking space to be used for the required pad mounted transformer and switch gear when the proposed development calls for more than ten (10) parking spaces 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. 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 City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. _-2009 Page 3 of 4 DRAFT September 15, 2009 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 " , 2009. ROCKY RANDELS, Mayor ATTEST: For Against Bob Hoog Buzz Petsos SUSAN STILLS, City Clerk Rocky Randels C. Shannon Roberts Betty Walsh First Reading: Legal Ad published: Second Reading: Approved as to legal form and sufficiency for the City of Cape Canaveral only: ANTHONY A. GARGANESE, City Attorney City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. -2009 Page 4 of 4 CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Date: November 13, 2009 To: Barry Brown, Planning and Development Director From: Todd Morley, Building Official RE: Revisions to City Code Ch. 102 Trees Please forward the attached draft revisions to the Planning and. Zoning Board, for recoi-irnendaIIon to CrRi Council. Background_ City Council directed staff to investigate a. remedy regarding a munber of tree code -related. complaints • A committee of staff members was formed. It consisted of o Bennett Boucher, City Manager o Todd Morle-N-, Building Oficial o Duree Alexander, Code Enforcement Officer o Kai- McKee. Streets Dept. Supeii4sor and Cite Arborist o Tian Davis. Streets Dept. and City Arborist • A first meeting was held where the group identified problem areas of the code and decided on a course of action, • Todd Morley researched the existing Brevard County tree code as well as the proposed revisions to the Brevard County tree code. Several good practices were uncovered and revealed to the committee. • A second meeting was held were the group debated many conceptual differences. It was decided to limit the changes to the problem areas: o Expand the exemptions section to include all residential parcels »nder 10,000 sq. ft., o Revise the penalties downward. o Include a provision that a Certificate of Occupancy may be withheld if a violation of the Chapter exists (new construction). o Limit the use of palm trees used for mitigation, o Acknowledge the difference between "land clearing" and "clearing of understory", o Create criteria for City Council when considering the removal of a specimen tree, o Revise the minimum "size of tree" requirement downward. DRAFT October 23, 2009 ORDINANCE NO. -2009 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 102, VEGETATION, OF THE CITY CODE RELATED TO LAND CLEARING; AMENDING DEFINITIONS AND PENALTIES; PROVIDING FOR ADDITIONAL EXCEPTIONS FROM PERMITTING; REPEALING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO SMALL SCALE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS; PROVIDING SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL CRITERIA; AMENDING MINIMUM TREE REQUIREMENTS; ill 1-iVLlE It 1\ 1 REQUIREMENTS; MAKING CONFORMING AMENDMENTS; 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 -- - I and `XT WHEREAS, the Florida Constitution, Article 11, Section 7, provides "it shall be the policy of the State to conserve and protect natural resources and scenic beauty;" and WHEREAS, on April 19, 2005, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2005-05, which served to Improve the City Code and afford more ,'-o—e Linn for existing trees and require more enhancedr_ landscape plans for future developments within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council remains committed to preserving, enhancing, and creating green area within the City and to preserving existing trees on public and private property; and WHF-PF.AIQ fhP 1 at[T CnUni'N de."ii, to acne d st x land l i 4 F ..t -- 3 aa. V uaii�.uu iaJ-�aiil tu11U i�tear�n' prV Ylsl Vlls as set 1CJ1111 herein in order to ensure the most effective application ofthe City's land clearing regulations while not creating a hardship of its residents and property owners; and WHEREAS, after careful review of the City's existing land clearing and tree protection regulations, the planning and zon—Ing board has recommended that the City Council adopt this ordinance in order to improve the manner in which the City preserves, protects, and creates a viable tree canopy within the City and to promote a more aesthetically and environmentally pleasing community; and City of nape Canaveral Ordinance No. _-2009 T__ rage i of 10 DRAFT October 23, 2009 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, concurs with the planning and zoning board's recommendation and hereby finds this Ordinance to be in the best interests of the public health, safety, and -welfare of the citizens of Cape Canaveral. 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: Cert nn 1. Recitals Tl:e f^re^n�. r +a's herel, l"Ifr. ' E A L, 1. cL.:.. -- � reCiu�o are u�,� Uy iuuy iili,orpvraLeu uerciiL uj Luigi reference as legislative findings and the intent and purpose of the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral. Section 2. Code Amendment. Chapter 102, Vegetation, ofthe Code of Ordinances, City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, is hereby amended as follows (underlined type indicates additions and strikeout type indicates deletions, while asterisks (* * *) indicate a deletion from this Ordinance of text existing in Chapter 102. It is intended that the text in Chapter 102 denoted by the asterisks and set forth in this Ordinance shall remain unchanged from the language existing prior to adoption of this "Ordinance): CHAPTER 102. VEGETATION ARTICLE II. TREE PROTECTION DIVISION 2. LAND CLEARING Sec, 102-36. Definition-_ The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this division, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Clear trunk means a measurement from the soil line to the point in the canopy where the trunk caliper begins to taper abruptly. On many palms this point will lie at the base of the petiole of the third or fourth youngest but fully expanded leaf. City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. _®2009 „_-_ 1_t rdgr-2 U1 10 DRAFT October 23, 2009 Understory means an underlying layer of low native vegetation usually associated with trees. Plants in the understory consist of a mixture of seedlings and saplings of canopy and palm trees together with understory shrubs (i.e. cabbage palms palmetto Sec. 102-37. Title; applicability; intent and purpose;sinall-scale residential dwelling exemptions. (b) Applicability. This division shall be applicable to all land lying in the incorporated area of the city,bsection (e) below. • :MIMI- : : : :: Sec. 102-38. Enforcement and penalties. (b) Penalties. In addition to all other remedies set forth in this division, one or more of the following civil fines shall apply to violations of this division; (1) Faihjre to obtain a permit required by section 102-39 or 5ection 102-40.5. Fine of $250.00 per tree or $500.00 per specimen tree removed, not to exceed $5,000.00, plus $500.00 per quarter (1/4) acre of undergM $250.00 per f 00 square feet cleared. 15:1.1.1:1KK:�.�l•J.:l:1:A:1:1• - - - City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. -2009 Page 3 of 10 DRAFT October 23, 2009 (dd) Withholding of Certificate of Occupancy, The building official shall have the right to refuse to issue a certificate of occupancy or certificate of completion until all violations of this division have been remedied. Sec. 102-40. Permit criteria; exemptions; standards of review. (b) Permit exceptions. The following tree removal activities are exempt from the permit requirements of this division: (1) Trees removed by the city or other governmental agency and which interfere with the safety of the motoring public or disrupt public utilities such as power lines, drainage systems and other public utilities. (2) All trees and plants, within a licensed tree nursery, planted for harvest provided said trees and plants are., planted and growing on the premises of the r r---- t�- licensee and are for sale or intended for sale in their ordinary course of business. (3) The emergency removal of a dead or seriously damaged tree, to mitigate an imminent threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the property owner or the general public. Prior to any emergency removal the property owner shall be required to document the immediate threat requiring emergency removal with the followy LAI Photograph(s) of the tree(s) including any areas that may be damaged, diseased or infested, LIL Approximate measurements of the tree height spread and DBH• and LCI Distance to structure(s) or other immovable. threatened target(s)if felled. City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. -2009 Page 4 of 10 DRAFT October 23, 2009 (4) Land clearing and tree removal activities authorized and preempted by state or federal law. (5) Trees planted specifically for silvicultural purposes provided the property owner can provide documentation to the city evidencing that: (i) the property is requested as a silvicultural site with the division of forestry; and (ii) trees of typical harvestable size and type exist on the property which are capable of being harvested for income and that the property has, or intends to, generate income from the harvested trees. The removal of any plant or tree that is an invasive or undesirable species (77) The removal of vegetation that has been ordered by the City. Land clearing and tree removal on parcels containing an existing residential single-family dwelling unit or duplex or triplex that have been issued a certificate of occupancy. These parcels shall remain subject to the provisions of sections 102-41 and 102-45 of this code. (99) Any parcel subiect to a city development order authorizing the construction of a new residential single-family dwelling unit duplex or triplex or a subdivision with three (3) or less single-family dwelling units These parcels shall remain subject to the provisions of sections 102-41 and 102-45 of this code 10 Land clearing and tree removal on undeveloped parcels in the R-1 R-2 and R-3 zoning districts that are less than 10,000 square feet These parcels shall remain subiect to the provisions of sections 102-41 and 102-45 of this coja The follo-r6mg, reqtnremert.s Shalf appfyl to Sinai! scale residential developments as defin in snbsccti _ I'-- I Biget-is PRIOR- - ------------- City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. -2009 Page 5 of 10 DRAFT October 23, 2009 wPOSNER- Mr. IS I I : . :.. : . - we -IN :. . 1 III budding ol ficial shall not apply the —4-1,111,11ts set forth in section H-2-40 and shalf issue a fand dearitig permi ».,...,..zing ............. ..xa .,� .�...ui uis "vi u,a_y �a vv.s ioccat .0 vv i�iiiii �tt�. fboiptttii of airystructure appiuved by a city de-miopment order. ;•. ;.- ;. ..:,IMWIW: WB� IS..w"wee ;wei : - •. — ------ --- --- w�.�iwww� - 6-9015,1111 Milo New � �••rirr[..rt8•ysiaa��a.a�9a.�sissasiaeC•�d�•�uai�•ty���:inyn �k�3.nit:�.��.•►�ilnwi:•�reiei�..rn�i City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. -2009 Page 6 of 10 011ie MIIIIIIILIAIIIIIIIIIWI :..Bpi: ..: — ------ --- --- w�.�iwww� - 6-9015,1111 Milo New � �••rirr[..rt8•ysiaa��a.a�9a.�sissasiaeC•�d�•�uai�•ty���:inyn �k�3.nit:�.��.•►�ilnwi:•�reiei�..rn�i City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. -2009 Page 6 of 10 DRAFT October 23, 2009 111*11 wilwonanj M ont*M ej goo olj MW-. I R.Moll Ron I or's Igo smalls IJ%.XVg MINIM I IL"Imajaws alms :. - • us :• :• i • r •ii i• - • . ; ;Luilostolminammi-; ANIM IN • • e • : • -- : • : ; : • • Sec. 102-41. Specimen trees. (a) Specimen trees shall be preserved or relocated on site to the greatest extent feasible kW Notwithstanding any other provision of this division, specimen trees shall not be removed except for extraordinary circumstances and hardships and only by final permit approved by the city council. As a condition of removal of any specimen tree, the city council shah have the right to require that replacement trees be planted or a contribution to the tree bank be made in accordance with section 102-43 of this division, except replacement and/or tree bank contribution shall be based on a maximum of a two -to -one ratio of cumulative diameter (dbh) basis of specimen trees removed using the data in table 1. (c) In reviewing an application for final permit to remove a specimen tree the city council shall consider the following; La Whether the site design as determined by a pre -land clearing inspection are feasible to allow the use permitted, as established by the applicable zoning district regulations. Streets rights-of-way, easements utilities lake perimeters and lot lines shall be shifted whenever possible to preserve trees ta Whether the specimen tree is located within the footprint of the proposed structure or is closer than 10 feet from the foundation of the proposed structure and whether or not it is feasible to relocate the structure. kL Whether the location of the specimen tree prevents any access to the property from a publicly dedicated and maintained roadway or whether the tree constitutes a hazard to pedestrian or vehicular traffic that cannot be miti gated without removing the tree. City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. -2009 rage 7 of 10 DRAFT October 23, 2009 Whether the location of the specimen tree interferes with or prevents the construction of utility lines drainage facilities roadways or required vehicular use area which cannot be practically relocated or rerouted Whether the specimen tree is diseased weakened by age storm fire or other injury so as to pose a danger to persons property site improvements or other trees Sec. 102-45. Minimum tree requirement. Nn oprtifirate of OCC,,nanry shall be issued ^,n tl'e £ + ,, +; indicated y�-==�.7 i.. y'p-S of eiviisL u�. �ivai iiiuiia wu uty below unless the underlying parcel has at least the required minimum number of approved trees: (a) Any new single-family, duplex or triplex dwelling unit on a lot of less than 7.500 6,060 square feet: not fewer than two trees. Each tree shall be at least 64t feet (8') tall with one inch (1 ") dbh minimum and a two foot (2') spread Palm trees shall have at least eight feet (8') of clear trunk. (b) Any new single-family, duplex, and triplex dwelling unit on a lot equal to 7,500 '_I_ 60 square feet or greater: not fewer than two trees plus one additional tree for each 4,000 square feet or fraction thereof over 6;000 7,500 square feet. Each tree shall be at least eight feet (8') tall with one inch (I ") dbh minimum and a two foot (2') spread Palm trees shall have at least eight feet (8') of clear trunk. (c) Any commercial, industrial, multifamily or other structure requiring site plan an royal under the city land develo rrient re ulatio �s: +t, r__ � ___ rrn p== g r no fewer than six tees or 16u1 uees per acre, whichever is greater. Sec. 102-49. Remedial action. (b) Tree replacement remediation requirements.. Each tree destroyed or receiving major damage in violation of this division must be replaced by either a comparable size and desirable type of tree as listed within this division or providing a contribution to the tree bank equal to four times the contribution listed on table 1 or planting four preferred plants listed within section 102-54 before issuance of a ce_rtifcate of occupancy or certificate of completion. Palm trees may only be used to satisf, gp to hventy-five percent (25° �) of the required remediation. City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. _-2009 Page o of 10- DRAFT October 23, 2009 TABLE 1. CITE' OF CAPE CANAVERAL TREE REPLACEMENT STANDARDS DBH of Number of Replacement Number of Replacement Preferred Contribution to Protected Canopy Trees Required Small Trees or Palms Plant Tree Bank* Tree for Each Tree Removed Required for Each Tree Removed (Palms must have at least 8 feet of clear trunk) 4" up to but not 1 or 1 or Preferred ' or $250.00 Plant(s) including w/Credits 8" 8" up to 2 or 2 Preferred $500.00 but not Plant(s) including w/Credits 12" 12" up to 3 Not allowed Preferred $750.00 but not Plant(s) including w/Credits 16" up to L 4 Not allowed Preferred $1,000.00 lit Hut Plant(s) including w/Credits 24" >24" To Be Preserved To Be Preserved To Be To Be Preserved See §102-41 See §102-41 Preserved See §102-41 See §102- 41 *These amounts may be adjusted biannually to compensate for increases to costs of plants as well as to costs of installation and establishment. Section 3. Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Ordinances and Resolutions. All prior inconsistent ordinances and resolutions adopted bythe City Council, orparts ofprior 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 No. -2009 Page 9 of 10 DRAFT October 23, 2009 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 ATTEST: ANGELA APPERSON, City Clerk First Reading: Legal Ad published: Second Reading: ROCKY RANDELS, Mayor For Approved as to legal form and sufficiency for the City of Cape Canaveral only: ANTHONY A. GARGANESE, City Attorney Bob Hoog Buzz Petsos Rocky Randels C. Shannon Roberts Betty Walsh City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. -2009 Page 10 of i0 Against