Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP & Z December 9, 2009 - MinutesPLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 9, 2009 A Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on December 9, 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 Barry Brown Kate Latorre Duree Alexander Todd Morley Chairperson Vice Chairperson 1 st Alternate 2nd Alternate Planning & Development Director Assistant City Attorney Recording Secretary Building Official All persons giving testimony were sworn in by Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attnrn ey, NEW BUSINESS Approval of Meeting Minutes: November 18, 2009. The Board members held discussion regarding agenda item 4 of the minutes. Following discussion, a motion was made by Donald Dunn, seconded by Harry Pearson for the draft minutes to more specifically reflect the recommendations agreed to by consensus of the Board members regarding item 4; and that approval of the minutes be postponed until the next meeting. Vote on the motion carried by majority, with members voting as follows: Donald Dunn, for; John Fredrickson, for; Bea McNeely, against; Harry Pearson for; Lamar Russell, for. 2. Recommendation to the Citv Council Re: Prouosed Ordinance Amendin Chapter 98, Subdivisions, Relating to Plats; Amending and Clarifying the Criteria Required for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plat Review and Approval; Providing a Procedure for Review and Consideration of Lot Splits; Providing for the Repeal of Prior inconsistent Ordinances and , r�CSUIULIUI IS - r\dLd LdLUIIU Assistd-nt lily tALLUrileY. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes December 9, 2009 Page 2 Barry Brown, Planning & Development Director, advised that the first item on the agenda was additional revisions to the platting ordinance No. 04-2009. He explained that the proposed revisions were brought to the Planning & Zoning Board on February 11, 2009. With modifications, the Board recommended approval of the proposed revisions, and the ordinance went to the City Council for first reading on March 3, 2009. The Council approved the ordinance at the first reading, with the stipulation that the staff creates flowcharts of the platting and lot split procedures. He commented that it became clear that additional revisions to the ordinance were necessary. He further advised that the new version of ti ie ordinance ice adds back t1 ie pre -applications meeting ai ed makes it mandatory for preliminary plat and lot splits, unless determined it is not necessary by the Planning Official. Mr. Brown proposed adding back the pre - application meeting, because it was at this stage that access management issues, including driveway locations and cross -access can be addressed, as well as easement and right-of-way dedications. He further explained that the current code did not delineate between the submittal of plat copies for review by city staff and the submittal of copies for the Planning & Zoning Board and the City Council and explained same. He noted that the number of copies to be submitted was removed from the code, as it may change over time and would, therefore require an amendment to the ordinance. He also advised that the code did not have staff review procedures for lot splits; therefore, the review procedures for preliminary plat were incorporated into procedures for lot split. Mr. Brown outlined the platting and lot split processes. The Board members reviewed the proposed revisions to Ordinance No. 04-2009, dated December 4, 2009; and corresponding flow charts. Mr. Brown clarified that the Board members were reviewing changes to the ordinance since the Planning & Zoning Board reviewed it last. Discussion followed. During discussion, Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney advised that City Council had made some changes to the draft ordinance after the Planning & Zoning had made its recommendation. Barry Brown verified that changes had been made to Section 98-47, General criteria for approval. He noted that some of the items would be subjective. Discussion continued. Barry Brown advise the Board members that there were two letters received, one from Mr. McMillin and one from Mr. Hartley, which contained a lot of good points and issues. He advised that they were both at the meeting to address the Board. He noted that they had worked from the version of the plat ordinance after it went to the City Council for first reading. They did not have the benefit of the latest version that the Board members had. He noted that some of the issues were already addressed (i.e. the pre -application meeting, and staff review for lot splits). Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes December 9, 2009 Page 3 Earl McMillin, 397 Holman Road, addressed the Board. He questioned where the burning need for a lot split ordinance was. He commented that the City was heavily developed. He voiced his opinion that if property owners were dividing pieces of property and the city did not know about it, the answer was not for the city to create a lot split ordinance, because the city already had laws that say they can't do that. The answer was to get a means of communication from Brevard County to tell the city every time there is a deed filed that affects property within the city. He advised, as he said in his letter, that there were many reasons why to ie southwest corner uI the city should be excluded frons rile lot spilt ordinance, if that is what the City Council was going to approve. He advised that his letter stated reasons why that area is unique. He noted that the city adopted the Florida Building Code and a person can apply for a permit with the application being valid for 180 days, and then the application can be extended by the Building Official. Under the Florida Growth Management Act, anybody who has a problem with an action by the city that is not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan only has 30 days to raise that issue. He did not want to see the special neighborhood in the southwest corner of the city impacted unnecessarily. He advised that the city's 1990 Comprehensive Plan said that there shouldn't be any development in that area. He noted that the current Comprehensive Plan talks about wetlands. There are no wetlands, because everything has been filled-in. All they have now is a very low density neighborhood that has a special wildlife habitat, as he pointed out in his letter. He advised that the City of Cocoa Beach's code states that lot splits are not allowed, and he questioned why the residents of Cape Canaveral don't have the same protections. Mr. McMillin reviewed the city's flow chart for lot split. He pointed out that anyone that wanted to make a claim that the City has not acted in accordance with its Comprehensive Plan, because 30 days is long gone even before notice of the City Council meeting. He viewed this as a major lot split. He advised that the expertise of the Planning & Zoning Board being taken out of the process may save the city time and money, but with all the Board members experience, that removing them from the process was not a good idea, particularly for the properties in the southwest corner of the City. Mr. McMillin clarified that there would be a lot more experienced and intelligent people reviewing a plat, than a lot split going to the City Council. Charles Hartley, 399 Holman Road, addressed the Board and voiced his concerns. He noted that in reviewing the ordinance revisions that the Board members were considering this evening, he was not convinced that the new draft ordinance eliminated their concerns. He believed that there was nothing in the code that prevented two people from buying two parcels of property and each of them would still have the right to do a lot split. He pointed out that Chapter 98 is for subdivisions, and plats are covered by Article. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes December 9, 2009 Page 4 Mr. Hartley voiced his opinion that the problem with the way the lot split ordinance is written is its approach to the planned land use development; the implementation of the proposed ordinance, as written, runs into a collision course with the city's Comprehensive Plan and would appear to violate the requirements of Chapter 177, regarding subdivision platting; the confusion begins with combined usage of survey and plats. He explained that a survey is a conveyance of ownership or entitlement to property rights; it pertains to a single lot or parcel, and shows the graphic physical dimensions of the property; it is often referred to as the metes and bounds boundary survey. On the other hand, a plat is a survey of more than one lot or parcel of land; it includes all dimensions and features of the tract, such as: parcel size, streets, roads, and dimensions. A plat from the city's own definition of requirements has easements, street and road dimensions, easement widths and purpose, utility right-of-ways, historical monuments, and control points, river(s), stream(s), wetlands, minimum setbacks, and other conditions on adjacent property. He advised that for example, a subdivision requires a plat map, which tells the city and the county how the tract is to be developed, and meet all the code and ordinance requirements for planned community development, and that it complies with the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map, and is compatible and harmonious with the surrounding community. He advised that the lot split ordinance focuses on surveys, not plats. Mr. Hartley gave examples of same. He advised that it grants waivers from the platting process, and says that the lot is to be previously platted or have a legal description of record. He noted that a legal description is nothing but a description from a boundary survey. He further advised that the code states that it must meet the criteria elsewhere in the Article. He noted that the Article refers to plats, but it is already stated that its purpose is to grant waivers from the platting process; therefore, it waives the platting process and then complies with that waiver. He clarified that the only thing that is required to create a subdivision of any parcel, anywhere in the city, is a survey and a set of construction plans. He noted that the number of required copies and review by the department was at the discretion of the Planning & Development Director. If a subdivision is created there are no provisions for referral to the Planning & Zoning Board. That denies notice to the property owners, which prevents their right to be heard. As the code is written, the city would be waiving its entire responsibility for review and approval of the planning process for subdivision development, therefore the city would be creating subdivisions by lot splits without having conducted a formai plat review for a platted subdivision in violation of Chapter 177. He advised that it would promote a bad practice of unplanned development and permit denial of the constitutional rights of the property owner. That is why they were urging the city to look more deeply and carefully into the language of the ordinance. The language needs to be clear and ambiquous. He commented that when you are writing something into law you don't leave areas open for iudgment; and things that are not clear only create dispute, strife, and lawsuits. v Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes December 9, 2009 Page 5 Mr. Hartley voiced his opinion that the city did not want a procedure that bypasses the city's responsibility for plat review process for the creation of subdivisions. The city should want to ensure compliance with its Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 177, and all codes, laws and ordinances. Most importantly, the city should have a procedure that affords protection to the interest and rights of the citizens. Mr. Hartley highlighted the main issues when applying such an ordinance to a community like Holman Road. He advised that every single parcel from when it was created is on some plat somewhere. He explained that the Holman Road community was platted before the city became a city. The Hailey's have been living there for 3v yrs.; the community is an established community; it has an historical nature, including the oldest school house sitting on Holman Road in Brevard County. He commented that to come in 50 years after this community was developed, to come in and say we are suddenly going to create subdivisions simply by lot split does not make any sense. He advised that the creation of a subdivision increases all of the levels of services provided by the city, which should be taken in consideration. Discussion was held regarding lot splits of commercial property; the possibility of excluding certain areas from the abbreviated lot split process; recommending approval of the proposed ordinance, minus the lot split section; applying the criteria of Section 98-61, General Criteria for Approval into Section 98-6, Lot splits. Following discussion, the Board agreed by consensus, that language be added to the flow chart as to what happens after a preliminary plat is approved; page 16 of the proposed ordinance under lot splits, that the language regarding "The City Council may, by resolution at a public hearing, grant waivers from the platting requirements...." be worded to clarify that the City Council may waiver "some" of the platting requirements; add criteria to the lot split section similar to plat criteria; add criteria for notification requirement for a lot split; and include review of lot split by the Planning &Zoning Board. Motion by Lamar Russell, seconded by Donald Dunn that the City Attorney make additional changes to the draft ordinance as discussed at this meeting for consideration at the next meeting. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 3. Review of Final Visioning Report. Barry Brown, Planning Director, advised this agenda item was the Board's review of the Final Visioning Report. He explained that the City Council requested that all advisory boards review the Visioning Report and provide their thoughts and comments. He announced that the Visioning Report can be downloaded from the City website or a CD of the report could be picked up in the Community Development office. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes December 9, 2009 Page 6 Barry Brown, Planning Director, advised that the City had a very successful visioning process, which included six workshops, with great citizen participation. A few weeks ago the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) presented the City with a draft of the Final Visioning Report. The Citizens Visioning Committee held a meeting with Phil Laurien, Director of the ECFRPC, who facilitated the workshops. At that meeting, the Visioning Committee adopted the report, with revisions, and approved forwarding the report to the City Council. On January 19, 2010, at a regularly scheduled City Council meeting, the Visioning Committee, as a group, will present the report. Additionally, Phil Laurien will attend that meeting to discuss the report with the City Council. Subsequently, City Council will schedule a wnrkshnp that will cnlely he about the visioning. At that workshop, it will be decided which of the recommendations and outcomes the City wants to implement, in what order to achieve them, and how much money the City is willing to spend. Staff will provide City Council with an action plan for each recommendation that will include: processes, timelines, and estimated costs associated with implementing the various action items. Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by Bea McNeely, to adjourn the meeting at 9:41 p.m. X4 h Bea McNeely,._Chairper on Si igan I (-hnnman $erreta �'