Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 14, 2008PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 14, 2008 A Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on May 14, 2008, at the City Hall Annex, 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Chairperson Bea McNeely called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The Secretary called the roll. I&Iatyjl: �:t. ' : : ► Bea McNeely Chairperson Lamar Russell Vice Chairperson John Fredrickson Donald Dunn Harry Pearson John Johanson 1 st Alternate Ronald Friedman 2nd Alternate OTHERS PRESENT Susan Chapman Board Secretary Shannon Roberts Council Member Leo Nicholas Council Member Anthony Garganese City Attorney Todd Peetz City Planner NEW BUSINESS Approval of Meeting Minutes: April 23 2008 Motion by Donald Dunn, seconded by Harry Pearson, to approve the meeting minutes of April 23, 2008, as written. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. . 2. Recommendation to City Council Re: Preliminary Replat for Sea Shell Cay Townhomes — John Johanson Applicant. John Johanson, Applicant, announced that he had a voting conflict, because he was an ownership partner of the property. Mr. Johanson submitted the required voting conflict form to the Board Secretary. Todd Peetz, City Planner, advised that the agenda item was for a preliminary replat fnr I- -- Int-_ I----t—a1. — that L, . property Y... 1v sated on the northwest side of Sea Shell Lane and north of Harbor Drive. The zoning was C-1 with a granted special exception for residential use. He noted that city staff reviewed the preliminary replat, and all comments had been satisfied. However, the city engineer's chief surveyor, had commented that an Opinion Title be attached to onxi fi irfknr rnxAfZ%A1C oily U—.— . �I ,vv. . Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 14, 2008 Page 2 John Fredrickson asked why it took so long to submit the preliminary replat. City Attorney, Anthony Garganese, responded that the Board of Adjustment had denied the special exception request. A lawsuit was filed by the Petitioner. Upon remand from the Brevard County Circuit Court overturning the Board's decision, the Board of Adjustment held another meeting and granted the special exception. The Board members reviewed the preliminary replat. Discussion followed regarding: minor typos, the north property line being off 100th of a ft., setback requirements, City code definition of lot width, minimum lot widths, required site data, and waste management pick-up. Motion by John Fredrickson, seconded by Bea McNeely, to recommend approval of the Preliminary Replat for Sea Shell Cay North Townhomes, with inclusion that the replat show the areas of each lot. Donald Dunn announced that he would not vote, because the applicant was a Planning & Zoning Board member who has a lawsuit against the City. City Attorney, Anthony Garganese, informed Mr. Dunn that unless he had a vested interest in the property, he was required to vote. The Secretary called the question. Vote on the motion was as follows: Donald Dunn, against; John Fredrickson, for; Bea McNeely, for; Harry Pearson, for; and Lamar Russell, for. The motion carried by a (4) to (1) majority vote. DISCUSSION 1. Discussion Re: Mixed Use Districts. Todd Peetz, City Planner, recapped that at the last meeting staff had prepared a nre-Pntatlnn of alreAri11 P.YiStinn miXerri i min di trios ±hat nnrfrnxrn+rJ fhn er ring elements that were important to the P & Z Board and the City of Cape Canaveral. After much discussion, it was decided that the Board would like to evaluate seven potential mixed use districts within the City. He advised that a brief was provided in tie Board packet of each area, which he would be giving an overview on. He announced that the desired goal was to identify key areas that would most benefit from the mixed use concept. Mr. Peetz gave his analysis on mixed use. He explained that he and his staff conducted an analysis of seven potential mixed use areas within the City. The potential mixed use area were evaluated in order to determine the pros and cons of each to assist the City in determining which site was more suitable for a mixed use development. He advised that the Board packet contained maps which provided a graphic depiction of the areas, which included: Area 1 — Located in the northern portion of the City from Shorewood Drive to the no ar-h-gfn City limits and from west of Solana Lakes to a couple of aarceIstienrH of Al A_ Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 14, 2008 Page 3 • Area 2 — Located in the north central portion of the City south of East Central Boulevard and north to Oak Manor Drive, centered at the intersection of East Central Boulevard and N. Atlantic Avenue. • Area 3 — Located west of Area 2, with N. Atlantic Avenue being the boundary to the east and Astronaut Boulevard being the boundary to the west. • Area 4 — Located west of N. Atlantic Avenue, from south of Arno Road to Cocoa Palms Drive. • Area 5 — Located west of Area 3 and Astronaut Boulevard, east of Bayside and Bayport, north of Columbia Drive. • Area 6 — Located south of Church Lane and north of Harrison Avenue. (This is the Al N. Atlantic split.) • Area 7 — Located all remaining C-1 and C-2 zoned property in the City. Mr. Peetz advised that according to the adopted 2007 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), there were approximately 1,372 acres of land within the City and of that, 106 acres (or 7.7%) was vacant. The EAR also stated that as vacant land became less available, redevelopment of existing commercial and residential areas would be further considered. Redevelopment trends in the City would require an increase in density in order to accommodate the additional projected population increase and housing demand. One technique discussed in the Future Land Use Element, EAR was the possibility for a mixed use district or districts within the City. The EAR further described proposed mixed use areas likely to occur around the Central Boulevard area between A1A and North Atlantic Avenue. Mr. Peetz broke down the mixed use potential of the seven proposed areas, as follows: • Area 1 — The largest of the six potential mixed use areas. This excluded Area 7, which was spread throughout the City. Area 1 included a mixture of zoning and future land use designations including: R-3, M-1, C-1, and R-2. Area 1 was located at the northernmost City limits, To the south were.nronertieS 7nR-ann-1- to the mAroc+ of 1Ainc f1A=1;land +r 1-._,---,-- 2,dng -V YYUVIVI GuI lV the east was C-1 and R=3. Description: Area 1 included 108.74 acres; 19 total properties (10 vacant, 4 industrial, 4 residential, and 1 commercial); 10 parcels, totaling 36.Q6 acre- were vacant; a 5 miniite travel time fnr npriactrinnc anti r .. bicycles was shown on tnc map to depict travel times for each; properties within a 5 minute travel time included: 37 vacant, 11 industrial, 10 commercial, 7 recreation/open space, and 350 residential units. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 14, 2008 Page 4 Pros and Cons: Pros — This was the largest of the potential mixed use sites. It was divided by N. Atlantic Avenue, which would provide visibility in marketing the project and provided access to the site. Cons — It was surrounded by and contained some existing industrial uses. It may be necessary to provide a greater environmental analysis to ensure protection of future residential uses. The City could work with the municipality to the north, however it could not control the potential uses abutting Area 1. An extensive screening and buffering plan may be required to ensure maximum comfort of the residents or commercial uses in that area. • Area 2 — This area was almost a visual continuation of Area 3. Area 2 was mainly zoned C-1 and C-2, with a future land use designation of commercial. Properties to the north of Area 2 were also zoned C-1 and had a Commercial Future Land Use designation. To the west of Area 2 was Area 3, which was mainly C-2 and M-1. To the east were properties designated R-1, with a Residential Future Land Use designation. Description: There were 28.75 acres, with a total of 8 properties (3 vacant, 3 industrial, 2 commercial, and 1 residential); 3 parcels totaling 15.79 acres were vacant; a 5 minute travel time for pedestrians and bicycles was shown on the map to depict travel times for each; within a 5 minute travel time, properties included: 49 vacant, 11 industrial, 27 commercial, 2 recreation/open space, and 571 residential. Pros and Cons: Pros - There vyere not as � � a� �y total pr opertles as some of the other areas, which could help in the development process. Also, a little more than half of the area was vacant or undeveloped. Cons — This may not be the best area for a mixed use development as it was bounded directly to the east by R-1, Residential properties which may be opposed to a higher density and intensity project near their location. • Area 3 — A majority of this area was zoned C-2 with a Commercial Future Land Use designation. The remaining portion of this area was zoned M-1 with an Industrial Future Land Use designation. To the west of this area was Area 5, which was mainly zoned C-2, to the east and south was C-2 and R-2 Description: Area 3 included 55.77 acres; there were a total of 21 properties (1 vacant, 7 industrial, 2 residential, and 11 commercial); one parcel totaling 3.5 acres was vacant; a 5 minute travel time for pedestrians and bicycles was shown on the map to depict travel times for each; Cll(ltlPttlPC \A(ItitlII a 5 minuite travel time inrl�i.Io�I• �7 .i-nr+r�� 1F;Industrial, : r. �.r. a Within a i, se- ,,,y,ulded_ �a..ant, e 5 47 commercial, 15 recreational/open space, and 310 residential. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 14, 2008 Page 5 Pros and Cons: Pros — This area was near the existing commercial and main transportation network of the City, and may provide good visibility and marketing for a mixed use community. Cons — It had a smaller amount of vacant area and designated industrial lands. • Area 4 — This area was similar in size to some of the other areas and was currently zoned C-2, with a Commercial Future Land Use designation. Across the eastern boundary of N. Atlantic Avenue, and to the north and south, the properties outside this area were zoned C-1 and designated as Commercial on the Future Land Use Map. The properties to the west of this area were zoned R-3, with a Residential Future Land Use designation. Description: Area 4 included 27.98 acres; there were a total of 15 properties (2 vacant, 2 industrial, 1 residential, and 10 commercial). Two parcels totaling 0.94 acres were vacant. A 5 minute travel time for pedestrians and bicycles was shown on the map to depict travel times for each; the number of properties located within a 5 minute travel time included: 20 vacant, 4 industrial, 26 commercial, 8 recreation/open space, and 280 residential. Pros and Cons: Pros — Since it was the southernmost proposed mixed use area in the City, it may function as an attractor to circulate people and uses within the City. Cons — This area has the least amount of vacant, undeveloped land totaling 0.94 acres. • Area 4. — The majority of this area was Zoned C-2 WIL11 a Commercial Future Land Use designation. Other parcels within this area were zoned R-3, with a Residential Future Land Use designation. To the east of this area was Area 3, which was mostly zoned C-2 with a Commercial Future Land Use designation. The properties north of Area 5 were zoned for Conservation uses. Description: Area 5 included 52.72 acres; there were a total of 19 properties (8 vacant, 1 recreation/open space, 1 residential, and 9 commercial). 8 parcels totaling 22.79 acres were vacant. A 5 minute travel time for pedestrians and bicycles was shown on the map to depict travel times for each; the number of properties located within a 5 minute travel time included: 48 vacant, 13 industrial, 31 commercial, 11 recreation/open space, and 219 residential. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 14, 2008 Page 6 Pros and Cons: Pros — Other than Area 1, Area 5 had the most vacant land and was easily accessible from A1A. Additionally, there were community parks near this proposed mixed use location. Cons — The majority of the City's residents lived on the east side of A1A, making pedestrian or bicycle crossing an issue. • Area 6 — This area was completely comprised of C-1, with a Commercial Future Land Use designation. The properties to the east were currently zoned R-2, with a Residential Future Land Use designation. The properties to the north and south were also C-1, with a Commercial Future Land Use designation; the property to the west was zoned C-1, with a Commercial Future Land Use designation and R-3 with a Residential Future Land Use designation. Description: Area 6 included a total of 31.18 acres; there were a total of 92 total properties (19 vacant, 2 recreation/open space, 51 residential, 17 commercial, and '3 industrial. There were 19 parcels totaling 3.58 acres vacant. A 5 minute travel time for pedestrians and bicycles was shown on the map to depict travel times for each; the number of properties located within a 5 minute travel time included: 44 vacant, 2 industrial, 21 commercial, 11 recreation/open space, and 720 residential. Pros and Cons: Pros — While Area 6 was currently a Commercial corridor, it was near enough to other residentially zoned properties which may provide a good location for a true mixed use development. It was bordered on the west by N. Atlantic Avenue, which provided good visibility for a project. Cons — There were I i any parcels it 1 Area 6, which may prove difficult to combine for development. • Area 7 — This area was comprised of all C-1 and C-2 designated properties throughout the City. This area may overlap Areas 1-6. Following the presentation, discussion was held regarding the areas identified by Mr. Peetz; establishing minimum acreage for a mixed use project; City's goal to create walk able communities; the possible need to widen N. Atlantic Avenue to four lanes; selection of a theme; types of mixed uses; how to control a mixed use development-, creating ways to decrease traffic within mixed use areas; how to implement mixed use in the Comprehensive Plan. The Board requested that City staff provide them a copy of the Business & Cultural Development Board's draft of there redevelopment plan. The Board also requested that the City Planner show them an existing overlay ordinance of mixed use. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 14, 2008 Page 7 OPEN DISCUSSION There was no open discussion. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. ' 1 7McNee r C Bea McNe fy ! --h-aar erson Susan L. Chapman, cretary