Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
January 27, 2010 - Minutes
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 27, 2010 A Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on January 27, 2010, at the City Canaveral Public Library, 201 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 Todd Morley Susan Chapman Kate Latorre Robert Hoog NEW BUSINESS Chairperson Vice Chairperson 1 st Alternate 2nd Alternate Planning & Development Director Building Official Secretary Assistant City Attorney Council Member Approval of Meeting Minutes: January 13, 2010. Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by John Fredrickson, to approve the meeting minutes of January 13, 2010. Donald Dunn advised that he did not open his e-mail, and therefore did not read the draft minutes. He asked if he could give minor changes to the Board Secretary, if there were any, after he read them. Discussion followed. Harry Pearson withdrew his motion. Lamar Russell moved to postpone approval of the January 13, 2010 until the next meeting, so that everyone would have an opportunity to have read them. There was no second to the motion, however the Chairperson asked the Board Secretary to call the roll. All of the Board members voted in favor of postponing this agenda item until the next meeting. 2. Recommendation to the City Council Re: Cape Caribe Revised Site Plan - Michael Allen, P.E., Agent for Allen Engineering, Inc., Project Engineers. Barry Brown, Planning & Development Director, gave his staff report regarding the subject property, as follows: future land use and zoning designation(s): surrounding uses and zoning; history and description; and staffs recommendation. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 27, 2010 Page 2 Ken Ward, representative for the Cape Caribe Resort, outlined the benefits of the project; described the use; and highlighted the future development plan. He explained that one (5) acre parcel was added to the project, one of the buildings were removed to create a conservation area; one other building was removed to expand the pool deck; and the buildings footprints were revised. Discussion followed regarding: noise buffering, the distance to the closest tank at Coastal Fuels, stormwater plan, lighting plan, visual appearance, and traffic on George King Boulevard. Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by Lamar Russell, to recommend approval of the Cape Caribe revised site plan to City Council. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS 1. Recommendation to the Citv Council Re: Proposed 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 Resolutions - Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney. Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney, reviewed the additional changes she made to the draft platting ordinance, based on the Board's consensus at the last meeting. Following discussion, the Board members agreed to make the following additional changes: • Page 5, (c), that the first sentence read as follows:. "Topographic Survey showing ground elevations of the tract, based on ........................ • Page 5, (d) - (i), be re -numbered and re -lettered. • Page 113, Section 98-59, (3), add `Deciarabon of Restrictions' after the words "Articles of Incorporation". • Page 17, Section 98-63(h), read as follows: Upon approval of any lot split by resolution of the City Council, the resolution shall be duly recorded in the public records of Brevard County constant with the requirements of Section 68-62 and reflected on the appropriate ................................." • Page 18, Section 98-63(i), clarify the intent. • Article vs. Chapter - be consistent with the intent throughout the ordinance. Dat[y Brown, Planning g Direc; or, advised that staff was reviewing a submittal for a subdivision of a lot on Holman Road. He noted that it was applied for as a preliminary plat, under the existing code, and would be ready for the Board's recommendation on February 10th. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 27, 2010 Page 3 Motion by Donald Dunn, seconded by Harry Pearson to recommend approval of the platting ordinance, to the City Council, with the additional changes. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. OPEN DISCUSSION Barry Brown, Planning & Zoning Director, advised the Board that the City Council has accepted the Final Visioning Report. The City Council will be holding a Special Workshop on February 23, 2010, at 5:30 p.m., and has requested two members be appointed from each board to represent that respective board at that meeting. Following discussion, the Board members agreed to appoint Bea McNeely and Lamar Russell as the Board's representatives. Motion by Lamar Russell, seconded by Bea McNeely, to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m. Bea McNeetyhair , rson Susan L. Chapman, S cretary HARBOR OR A CORAL OR 2 tlCEA �DODS eI � l p d' G Jcl, rr 6 ZONING m x cENHtAL Blw E > C1 SURF OR .`RCleoK rnuMr -� C2 44 ....F ... q. > �C OBEY SABASHAV O ems, ® MF,A X21 V � TIYLORAV ." OLHt ST q A CNHiE 09— LA V V 4 CARCURE ST �BM'ON o T � R3 S� . LONG POINTRDs < r° 5wr«se,Av STREET LEGEND A Clara Elizabeth Lane+ M1 'MILLERG -RK-, an— Legend r rr ZONING C1 rnuMr -� C2 i 1V �` ® ems, ® MF,A TIYLORAV ." V V R3 CENTER ST r° 5wr«se,Av STREET LEGEND A Clara Elizabeth Lane+ B Maple Court C Palm Way D Croton Court E Oleander Court " City of Cape Canaveral F Coquina Lane Zoning Map G Camelia Court H Jasmine Court Map Prepared by Miller Legg 8r Associates, Inc. ' I Honeysuckle Way July 02 2008 J Intrepid Way ',; Data Source: Brevard County Property Appraiser Office. City of Cape Canaveral, Brevard County Government K Aquarius Way L Tranquilitv Wav - M Shuttle Way_ i ( I LJ LJ LJ tvtifes N Falcon Way -. n 0 0.050.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Coconut ..'ay fff tjf CUL L('. € J i I, I IY lvq3q City of Cape Canaveral R-1 Low Density Residential Property Tnurino Our Tnwn TOTAL CITE' ACREAGE 1216.0 TOTAL R-1 ACREAGE 163.4 PERCENT OF R-1 ACREAGE 13.4% TOTAL POTENTIAL R-1 "Lot Splits" 10 HOLMAN ROAD POTENTIAL "Lot Splits" 6 Harbor Heights 0 Ocean Woods 0 Surf Drive & Ridgewood 0 Surf Drive South Side 1 Surf Drive North Side 0 Circle Drive 0 Central Boulevard East 3 Southwest Corner (Holman Road) h TOTAL: 10 City of Cape Canaveral R-1 Low Density Residential Property Tourang Our Town-- Methodoloy The attached five (5) -page document relates the methods used to generate the numbers presented in the Touring Our Town single - page document. Earl McMillin 397 Dolman Road Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920 City of Cape Canaveral R-1 Low Density Residential Property How rnuih R-1 j3'ropertv is there in the city? The City is 1.9 square miles in area. This is according to the recent, 2009 Visioning Report. There are 640 acres in a square mile. Therefore the City contains 1216 acres (1.9 x 640 = 1216). There are three R-1 Low Density Residential zones in the City. The largest is the northernmost one that combines Harbor Heights + Ocean Woods + Central Boulevard/Circle Drive/ Surf Drive Area. The total area is 143.4 acres. The smallest is the central one that is along a single street, Long Point Road. The total area is 1.8 acres. The third is the Southwest Corner, which is around Holman Road. The total area is 18.3 acres. How much R-1 property is there? Answer: About 163.4 acres. What percentage of the City is R4 property? Dividing the total R-1 acreage, 163.4, by the total acreage in the City, 1216, gives the answer. What percentage of the City is R-1 property? Answer: About 13.4%. How accurate are the above numbers? No allowance was made for the fact that roads cover a portion of the City nor was allowance made for property that cannot be used such as that along the "Canaveral River" and other drainage ditches. -1- I I C ..'1 . R-1 Low Density Residential Property The numbers were generated using a letter size printout of the Zoning Map. However, care was exercised in using a scale and accounting for the irregular shape of some properties. How accurate are the above numbers? Answer: All errors were made on the side of overstating the amount of R-1 Low Density Residential property. How many "Lot Splitable" R-1 Properties are there? Harbor Heights: Four vacant properties exist in Harbor Heights. (1) a wedge-shaped lot on Coral Drive between #381 and #389, (2) a lot near the east corner of Coral Drive and Harbor Heights Drive next to #389, (3) a lot near the end of Harbor Heights Drive between #1596 and the Pat Lee mansion, and, (4) a lot next to #203 Coral Drive near the west corner of Harbor Heights Drive and Coral Drive. No property in Harbor Heights is large enough for a "lot split" Ocean Woods: This is a gated, PUD development that has existed for many years to which lawful access could not be gained. It is highly unlikely that any property within Ocean Woods could be subdivided. Central Boulevard/Circle Drivel SurfDrive Area: Surf Drive & Ridgewood Intersection. There are two vacant bronerties on either side of Surf Drive; one next to #317 and one next to #318. One is 0.8 acres and one is 0.9 acres.* However, the Zoning Map shows these properties as both comprising several lots. Evidently these two areas have already been divided and are not considered "lot splitable". IM City of Cape Canaveral R-1 Low Density Residential Property Sy Dr,,,,e ,South S —e. Betwee #30R at��la i�31'1 there appear to be tvvo vacant properties. The one abutting #307 has a for sale sign that advises, "Call Norm" and gives a telephone number. It has about 170 feet along Surf Drive and is about 150 feet deep which makes it about 0.58 acres. It appears to be "lot splitable". The adjacent property abutting #315 has 100 feet on Surf Drive and is thus about 0.33 acres and probably is not "lot splitable". Surf Drive North Side. Between #302 and #308 there is a vacant property that has about 60 feet of frontage on Surf Drive. It is offered for sale by Kennan Realty. Rosalind & Lindsey Court. Both these streets are built out. Circle Drive. At the intersection of Circle Drive and Canaveral Boulevard there is an empty corner property that has 160 feet of frontage on the Boulevard and 100 on Circle Drive. It is 0.37 acres. The Zoning Map shows this property as comprising two lots. Evidently this property has already been divided and is probably not "lot splitable". It is offered for sale by Kennan Realty. Central Boulevard East. There is a vacant property on the north side of Central between 4250 and a large, white building of undetermined use. This has 150 feet of frontage on Central. It might be "lot snlitable"_ Beyond the large, white building there are two homes at 4112. Each has 100 feet of frontage on Central and there is a 20 -foot drive between them. Because they are positioned well back from Central both may be "lot splitable". -3- City of Cape Canaveral R-1 Low Density Residential Property On the south side of Central, between #173 and a home the address of which is #8590 Canaveral Boulevard, is a vacant property with 100 feet of frontage on Central. It is too small to be "lot splitable". Long Point Road. There is a vacant property at on the south. side of the road at #213 that is clearly not "lot splitable". A new home is being constructed at #223. At the end of the road at #227 there is vacant property that has about 70 feet of frontage on the road and is about 155 feet deep. It is adjacent to what appears to be a swamp and it does not appear to be "lot splitable". Southwest Corner. Where are six properties that are "lot splitable". How many "Lot Splitable" R-1 Properties are there? Answer: 10 Harbor Heights 0 Ocean Woods 0 Surf Drive & Ridgewood 0 Surf Drive South Side 1 Surf Drive North Side 0 Circle Drive 0 Central Boulevard East 3 Southwest Corner (Holman Road) 6 TOTAL: 10 -4- City of Cape Canaveral R-1 Low Density Residential Property Conclusions Only 10 properties zoned R-1 Low Density Residential in the entire City appear to be capable of further division. Of these 10 there are 6 ---that is 60% of the possible properties ---abutting the 20 -foot wide, dirt right-of-way known as Holman Road. The other 4 possibilities all have direct access to paved streets that have gutters, sewers and sidewalks. No easements are necessary to access the public rights-of-way. The City has failed to demonstrate a public need for the application of a "streamlined, lot split" ordinance to R-1 property. It has the burden of doing SO. Recommendation The Planning & Zoning Board should recommend to the City Council that Ordinance No. 04-2009, Sec. 98-63, contain a provision along the following lines: "No property zoned R-1 Low Density Residential shall be subdivided under this Section. All property zoned R-1 Low Density Residential shall be subject to all the laws governing subdivisions " Earl McMillin 397 Holman Road Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920 (321) 783-8834 13 January 2010 NOTE: The property dimensions were determined by pacing off the distances; 2.5 feet to a pace. The dimensions were taken from the landside of the curb/gutter. No allowances were made for sidewalks, setbacks from adjacent property, etc. -5- Jan � Earl McMillin P.O. Box 1086 • Cape Canaveral, FL • 32920-1086.321-7 h 834 - ernmilhndl Lyah Master, Oceans, Unlimited STCW--95 Certified Port Canaveral Pilot (Retired) 21 December 2009 Katherine W. Latorm, Es,, Brown, Garganese, Weiss & D'agresta, P.A. 111 North Orange Avenue Suite 2000 Orlando, Florida 32801-2327 Re: City of Gape Canaveral, Ordinance No. 04-2009 Dear Ms. Latorre: oo.com Attorney -At -Law t Pennsylvania, Admitted 1969 Florida, Admitted 1974 DIS__!2TIQN I Mayor ' Civ - Uc,I , L City Mgr. City At1y. Pub.. Wotks Dir. Ltuitding " ff. hnance Dir. As you know I have a keen interest, as do my dolman Road neighbors, in the subject Ordinance No. 04-2009 that I believe you are in the process of revising in preparation for the January meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board. Would you kindly advise me when the revision that will be laid before Planning & Zoning is ready so that we can review it in advance of the meeting. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. Cc: City Manager V Citycl' -rir Planning Official ling Official Board Secretary Holiday best wishes, l Earl McMillin g�%City of Cape Canaveral Planning& ZoningBoar Relevant Item Before The Board Ordinance No. 04-2009, amending Chapter 98, "Subdivisions" is the item before the Board to which this document is addressed in general. In particular it is addressed to a wholly new addition to Chapter 98 i.e. Section 98-63 Lot Splits. Orizin Of This Document This document was prepared by, and presented to the Board by, Earl McMillin, who is, and has been for the past 15 years, a resident of 397 Holman Road, Cape Canaveral, 32920, telephone (321) 783-8834. Sunshine Law Both Earl McMillin and his wife, Nancy, are uncertain about whether all members of the Planning and Zoning Board are familiar with Florida's Sunshine Law. We are compelled to mention this because we are aware of an e-mail from one Board member to all other Board members dated November 30th that said in effect, "I cannot attend the meeting, but here are my thoughts." That certainly seems a harmless step to take, but it seems to be a violation. The Sunshine Law bars any Board member from communicating with any fellow Board member about any matter that may come before the Board outside of a properly noticed public meeting. A suggested way to avoid violation of the Sunshine Law ---and legal counsel to the Board can advise you ---is to send any "I cannot attend, but here are my thoughts" communication to the Board Secretary and ask the Secretary to deliver copies to the other Board members during the public meeting. The law also forbids third parties from acting as communication conduits between you and any other member of the Board. Be assured that neither Earl nor Nancy would ever violate the -law. U-4 This document may speak to what is perceived as a problem that in actual fact is not a problem. That is probably because the writer is not as familiar with the Florida Statutes, Comprehensive Plan, City Code and planning, construction and engineering as some others may be and because of the brief time that the writer has been able to devote to this matter. -1- Focus The focus of this document is the Comprehensive Plan. That is because the Plan is intended to set goals and policies. Ordinances and procedures are intended to achieve the goals and policies set by the Plan. Does the proposed Section 98-63 do this? Section 98-63, Lot Splits The proposed Section 98-63 removes many protections that currently exist in the Cape Canaveral ordinances. The opening language of the "lot split" ordinance says, "The City Council may, by resolution at a public hearing, grant waivers from the platting requirements of this Article ...." That sounds as though only the platting requirements are to be eliminated, but that is not the case. Concurrency: According to the Division of Community Planning, "A key component of [Florida's Growth Management] Act is its concurrency provision that requires facilities and services to be available concurrent with the impacts of development." The concurrency requirement is designed to involve other government agencies in land development, e.g. St. John's River Water Management District and the Department of Environmental Protection. Concurrency addresses 6 "critical" issues: (1) water, (2) sewer, (3) solid waste, (4) drainage, (5) roadways and (6) recreation. The current Comprehensive Plan in CM -11.1 declares that the developer is to finance and install all the items necessary to be consistent with concurrency management. Chapter 86 of the City Code establishes a "Concurrency Management System". The Building Department has a 14 -page Application for Concurrency Evaluation. Apparently, if Section 98-63 is adopted, the concurrency safeguard will not apply to lot Splits. Drainage: The current Comprehensive Plan D-1 states that drainage into the Banana River is to be minimized. D-1.4 and C-2.1 both say that ordinances for the management of stormwater are to be enforced. D-1.7 sets a standard that the first 1" of rainfall is to be I�Latii�i.i oii UIr, pa.icicular property and toiiowing a one hour storm in which J„ of rain falls the excess water is to be gone within three hours. When a new home was under construction adjacent to the McMillin home several years ago there was a question of water run-off. The City advised that if drainage adversely impacted their home, the McMillins could sue ---not the City ---their new neighbors. -2= What was done was to avoid the problem by (a) having Allen Engineering do a topographical survey and advise on measures to be taken, (b) communicating with the new neighbors, and (c) cooperating with the new neighbors in carrying out the work to prevent a drainage issue. Catch 22: The Comprehensive Plan and the (; ,, Code, create a Catcji 22 -P- property west of Holman Road. Developed property is to have proper drainage, but drainage into the Banana River is to be minimized. How can these conflicting goals be achieved? All the land slopes down from Holman Road toward the River. Where is the water to go? Discretion: The proposed lot split ordinance places great reliance on the expertise and discretion of the Planning Official. Apparently, the Building Official, Public Works and the Fire Department may be consulted, but then again, they may not. Is this sound policy? City Code Section 110-223 requires review of site plans ---not plats ---but site plans, by (1) the City Engineer, (3) the Fire Marshal, and --for construction adjacent to the Banana River ---(4) the Department of Environmental Protection. While being chary of leveling unwarranted criticism, it may be that a preview of coming attractions has already occurred. It is believed with some certainty that homeowners informed the City of their desire to place two more homes on the property on which they reside. Apparently, after a simple walk around the property by the Planning Official, the homeowners were informed that as soon as the lot split ordinance was enacted they would be allowed to place one additional home on their property. If this is true, it should serve as a wake-up call. The proposed lot split ordinance seems to place too much authority and discretion in the hands of one City employee. P&Z Review: In addition to the elimination of the safeguards of concurrency and review by all concerned City departments, review by the Planning and Zoning Board is also eliminated. The Board represents a total of about 67 years of experience in land management in the illy. At least one member has served for almost 30 years. Is it possible for a city employee, however dedicated or well-intentioned, to match the collective memory of the Board? End Runs: Nothing in Section 98-63 prevents a landowner from using lot splits in a step-by-step process. If adopted as written, it will allow a landowner to slice off pieces of property one by one and make an end run around the rules for creating subdivisions. -3- Lot split ordinances are not a recent invention. The City of Cocoa Beach has such an ordinance and evidently it has been part of that city's law for a considerable time. The Cocoa Beach ordinance, unlike the proposed Cape Canaveral ordinance, has the following protections: 1. Compliance with all standards for subdivisions. 2. Review by police and fire departments. 3. Review by the entire development services department. 4. Only lot splits which do not require sidewalk, bikeway, bridge, drainage facilities, screening walls or other required improvements are allowed. 5. End runs are forbidden. Need? According to the Minutes of a Board meeting of February 11, 2009, City staff suggested that the new ordinance was desirable because, in the past, property owners subdivided without review and approval by the City. This resulted in lots that do not have the size and configuration to properly accommodate future development and created access management issues. Since the City ordinances have long required that making two lots out of one is a subdivision and the established procedures are mandatory, how was property subdivided in the past without the City procedures being followed? The answer appears to lie not in the laws, but in the absence of communication. Information Age: No procedure exists whereby Brevard County notifies the City when a deed relating to property in the City is filed. Thus, in the past property owners have simply prepared a deed conveying a portion of their property and filed it with the County without the knowledge of the City. We live in the Information Age. This is the 21 �c Century. Would it not make better sense to establish a procedure whereby the County automatically_ notifies the City when a deed is filed? It would seem that computers communicating with computers could do this. Human intervention would only be needed if and when the data indicated to the City there was a need. -4- 3 i � Wide Open Spaces? Cape Canaveral is almost fully developed. that makes a lot split procedure a priority? to be is Southwest Corner of the City. Is there a large inventory of available land The one area where it could be used appears Southwest Corner-- A Unique Area The Southwest Corner of the City, particularly the area adjacent to the 20 foot wide, unpaved, right-of-way known as "Holman Road", is unique. Southwest Corner ---Flood Plain On August 17, 2008, a wedding took place in the backyard of 397 Holman Road. A few days later Tropical Storm Faye arrived. After Faye departed the newlyweds were able to canoe through the backyard to have photos taken on the spot where they had exchanged their vows. Much of the Southwest Corner is within the Flood Plain. The City Code has an entire article, Article 90, which speaks to the issue of floods and the flood plain. Code Section 90-93(4) says, for example, "Development requiring a building permit shall not cause a net loss in the flood storage area of the flood plain." Southwest Corner ---"Holman Road" Holman Road pre -dates the creation of the City by 7 years. It was created on August 2, 1956 when William and Gladys Chandler executed a deed in favor of Brevard County for a strip of land 20 feet wide from east to west and 564.5 feet long from north to south. The deed included the following proviso: "The above conveyance is made to the Grantee for right of way purposes, and the County by the acceptance of this deed does not obligate itself in any manner to construct, re- construct or maintain a road on, over and across said land. " Over the years this strip of land has been misrepresented on numerous documents. The current Official Zoning Map, for example, erroneously depicts it as extending farther south than it actually does. -5- Over the years Brevard County has maintained it, sought to pave it, refused to maintain it and sought to get rid of it. At a meeting of the County Commission on April 21, 1977, the County Attorney and Public Works Coordinator were directed to transfer all "roads located in municipalities and presently maintained by the County to the appropriate cities". Holman Road fell through the cracks; no transfer ever took place. Over the years the City has maintained it, sought to pave it and refused to maintain it. Not so long ago the City directed a contractor resurfacing streets to deposit the paving material removed from various City streets in preparation for resurfacing onto Holman Road. After complaints by residents the material was removed. An effort made quit a few years ago to obtain the 20' by 565.5' strip and place it in trust for the benefit of all property owners adjacent to it failed. Who has the power to control Holman Road and the responsibility for it? The answer is unclear. At one time some agency of government placed a 25 mph speed limit sign on the road. The sign is no longer there. Presently the City is maintaining Holman Road. Southwest Corner ---Subdivision As stated above, the City of Cocoa Beach has a lot split ordinance The lot split ordinances of Cocoa Beach and other jurisdictions seem to aim at permitting lot splits to take place in existing subdivisions. That is to say in areas that have already been platted. They are not aimed at areas outside subdivisions. After exploring the Brevard County Property Appraiser's website, visiting Titusville and the City Building Department, the only "plat" of the Holman Road area that was found is dated November 27, 1959, a half century ago and before the City became a city. The area around Holman Road is not a subdivision. The area is like Topsy in Uncle Tom's Cabin; it "just growed". Southwest Corner---Cut-de-Sac Some provisions of the City Code that illustrate that the area has been allowed to simply evolve with little planning relates to cul-de-sacs. Code Section 98-1, defines "cul-de-sac" as "a street having one open end and being permanently terminated by a vehicular turnaround." IM Since an unpaved, 20 foot wide strip of dirt hardly merits the title "street" perhaps Section 98-110(d) dealing with alleys is more apt. Section 98-110(d) declares, "Dead- end alleys shall be avoided where possible, but if unavoidable shall be provided with adequate turnaround facilities at the dead end ...." Holman Road terminates at a manhole marked by two posts. Vehicles such as garbage trucks have to either back down or back out of Holman Road. One of the FP&L power poles on Holman Road is heavily damaged. It is believed a garbage truck attempting to negotiate the road dad this. FP&L representatives visit the pole from time to time and once sprayed it with fluorescent paint. Perhaps they do this in the hope that the pole will be miraculously healed. The point is a 20' wide "road" is not something designed to support a subdivision. When a fire broke out on the property next to the McMillin, Earl McMillin had to run up to U.S. Highway AIA to direct the fire department to Holman Road. Once on the road, the Fire Department could not access the fire. On another occasion, when an ambulance was called to assist someone living next to the McMillin, the EMT personnel had to cut through the McMillins fence to access the adjacent property and render aid. Southwest Corner ---Sewers Because a number of homes west of Holman Road are lower than the sewer line, they are equipped with lift stations. On a number of occasions raw sewage has erupted from the manhole at the south end of Holman Road. Section SS -1 of the Plan says that access to a state -approved, properly functioning sewer is to be assured. Southwest Corner --Environment Past Recognition ---1990: The 1990 Comprehensive Plan stated: "Wetlands within the City are limited in number and size. * * * * On shore, across from Hall Island, exist several more acres of wetlands bounded by trees which is basically a wildlife habitat. These wetlands are good wildlife habitats. They should be preserved as such and no development should be allowed there." Comp. Plan, P.9-10, [Emphasis supplied.] This was recognition of the uniqueness of the Southwest Corner. Current Comprehensive Plan: Wetlands are mentioned several times in the current Comprehensive Plan, for instance: LU -4.1: "The City shall continue to enforce regulations which protect environmentally sensitive land (e.g. wetlands, beaches and dunes)." IM CM -1: "The City shall protect, conserve or enhance the two remaining coastal wetlands ... [and] wildlife habitat...." CM -1.1: "The City shall develop guidelines to protect, conserve and, where possible, seek restoration of ... wetlands ... [and] wildlife habitat...." CM -2.1: "The City shall work toward limiting the specific and cumulative impacts of development ... upon wetlands ... {and) wildlife habitat...." C-4.6: "The City shall enact an ordinance which provides for adequate upland buffering of the only shoreside wetlands in Cape Canaveral." Southwest Corner ---Wetlands? The location of the wetlands about which the current Comprehensive Plan speaks is unknown. So far as is known, the wetlands in the Southwest Corner of the City have all been filled in. This is an example of how the area has been mismanaged and allowed to change over time without planning and oversight by responsible government agencies. But, the past does not have to be prologue. Even though the wetlands have been destroyed the area remains unique and that uniqueness. can be preserved with proper land management. Southwest Corner ---Wildlife Hahitat The Southwest Corner remains an environmentally sensitive area because (1) it has the lowest housing density in the City, (2) it still has a high concentration of trees, and, (3) because it is on the Banana River. All the homes in the Southwest Corner are single-family, stand alone dwellings. Quite a few that adjoin Holman Road are on lots of an acre or more. This is one of the few places in Cape Canaveral that lots of such size exist. These lots support a range of tree types including a variety of palms, bay, live oak, mulberry, avocado, banana, citrus, mango, mangrove, gumbo -limbo, Simpson stoppers, mimosa, poinciana, and chiffilera. Sea Grapes also grow in the area. The area is, or has been from time to time, home to ospreys, gulls, pelicans (both brown and the migratory white variety that do not go to sea, but stay on the river), ducks, grebes, anhinga, cormorants, great and little blue herons, red-tailed hawks, great horned owls, woodpeckers. -8- Raccoons, opossums and moles are also on the list of residents. As for snakes, there are black snakes, red rat snakes and ring neck snakes plus the occasional pygmy rattler and coral snake. Other residents have included alligators, toads, frogs, turtles, land crabs and gopher tortoises. The resident .vho has laved in the area ube lo��gest---ifir imaiiy decades ---claims the alligator snapping turtle on her property has been around for at least 50 years! The area has hosted visits from bald eagles, wood storks and wood ibis. Earl and Nancy McMillin have attempted to use their property to keep the area critter friendly. Two years ago they removed a reinforced concrete driveway of about 120 feet in length and planted the space with fruit trees, banana plants and plants that attract butterflies and bees. The current Comprehensive Plan states in CM -2.1, "The City shall work toward limiting the specific and cumulative impacts of development ... upon ...wildlife habitat and living marine resources." As for "living marine resources", the current Comprehensive Plan at C-2.8 says, "The City shall maintain an ordinance which prohibits the removal of littoral vegetation from the Banana River." This is to protect creatures living in the river. The current Comprehensive Plan says in CM -1.6, "In cooperation with state and federal agencies and private developers, the City shall monitor development in those areas with overriding environmental limitations to development." History The current Comprehensive Plan also gives a nod to history. CM -10: "The City shall provide for protection, preservation, or sensitive reuse of historic resources ...." CM -10.2: "The City shall maintain a list of historic resource sites to be used to cross- check against proposed development." H-6: "The City shall take steps to identify and preserve all historically -significant housing. Holman Road is home to what was once a one -room school, the first school in Brevard County. One Holman Road property has a 19th Century grave on it. -9- Southwest Corner ---Vision of the Future The future looks grim for the Southwest Corner if the lot split proposed in Section 98-63 is applied to it. At present there are 11 residences in "e Holman Road area. There are 9 that use the dirt right of way to gain access to U.S. Highway AIA. Two vacant lots already exist. If they are built on, the total using Holman Road will rise from 9 to 11. The lot split ordinance opens the door for end runs that could create 15 more lots ---all of which will have to use the unpaved right-of-way. This jump could occur without any concurrency review; platting, advice from the Planning and Zoning Board or any involvement by all relevant City departments. Proposdal It is believed that the Board should recommend to City Council that Section 98-63 in its current form needs to be changed to assure that the following protections are afforded throughout the City: 1. Concurrency Review. 2. Review by all relevant City departments. 3. Review by the Planning & Zoning Board. 4. Platting required for any property not within an existing platted subdivision. Additionally, whether or not the above protections become part of any lot split ordinance, it is respectfully submitted that the Board should recommend to City Council that the property in the Southwest Corner of the City be exempt from the operation of any lot split ordinance so that proper, careful monitoring of this unique area can take place. The exemption proposal is not unprecedented. For many years Special Exceptions could be granted for the construction of residences on proper by zoned for commercial use anywnere within the City. Not long ago the City Council, in recognition of the substantial changes in commercial area in the northwest corner of the City along U.S. Highway AIA, changed the law. Special Exceptions for residential use of commercial property are no longer allowed in that unique area. -10- Invitation First time visitors to the Holman Road area are always amazed that such a place exists. Residents who have lived and worked in this locale for decades are surprised to learn about it. Such a unique area needs to be carefully managed, not just for the people and the critters, which 'live there now, but for generations yet to come. Earl and Nancy McMillin with to extend an invitation to any interested person, whether City staffer, Board member or resident, to call them at (321) 783-8834 and arrange to visit their property and be shown the Southwest Corner area firsthand. Thank You Thank you, not only for taking the time to review the foregoing, but also for your service to the City as a volunteer on the Planning and Zoning Board. 5 December 2009 -I]- a Susan Chapman From: Barry Brown [brown-cape@cfl.rr.com] Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 11:39 AM To: Chapman-cape@cfl.rr.com Subject: FW: 04-2009 Lot Split Ordinance From: Hartley Charles [mailto:Charles.Hartley@xlgroup.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 3:25 PM To: klatorre@oriandolaw.net Cc: beazzycape@cfl.rr.com; famruss376@cfl.rr.com; dsamudrazupta@aol.com; harrymp@cfl.rr.com; rfriendman999@bellsouth.net; brown-cape@cfl.rr.com -- Subject: 04-2009 Lot Split Ordinance Kate, I not only agree with Earl McMillin but I don't see how the City can adopt this Lot Split Ordinance and remain in compliance with Florida's laws and its own Ordinances. No matter how one attempts to turn the definition of subdivision, this is still a division of land and it's still a subdivision. If it is a subdivision, the issue becomes whether a City can waive the platting process for the subdivision of lots or parcels. Under the laws of Florida and the City, it cannot. The question then becomes, whether by giving something a new name (Lot Split), it changes its substance and character (subdivision), namely, by calling the subdivision of a lot or parcel a Lot Split, does it change its substance and character. The City's definition of subdivision is clearer in its reading than the state's and I would presume the forefathers did so intentionally. The City's definition was taken verbatim from The Department of Commence Standard City Planning Enabling Act (SCPEA) of 1928. The SCPEA had this footnote: "Every division of a piece of land into two or more lots, parcels, or parts.is, of course, a subdivision. The intention is to cover all subdivision of land where the immediate or ultimate purpose is that of selling the lots or building on them. The object of inserting a definition in the text of the act is to avoid the inclusion, within the planning commission's control, of such cases as a testator's dividing his property amongst his children, partners' dividing firm property amongst themselves on dissolution or cases of that nature." State — "Subdivision" means the division of land into three or more lots, parcels, tracts, tiers, blocks, sites, units, or -any ocher di i sio t of land; and includes establishment of new streets and alleys, additions, and resubdivisions; and, when appropriate to the context, relates t,0 the pr cess of subdividing or to the lands or, arf2a subdivided. City - "Subdivision means the division of a tract of land into two or more lots or parcels for the purpose of transfer of ownership or building development car_ if a near gt,-r-.-t ic i„y,,,i:,a a nH<, - ---- � "- •` -"-=== -�, uii�% iiiViSivii lIi it LrZi.Ca, of land. The term `subdivision' includes rsu,t�dizrisi©n.. and_repatti_n.g, and when appropriate to the context, shall relate to the process of subdividing or the land subdivided." As I read this, any dividing is a division of land and constitutes a subdivision. It a question of what was the size to begin with? Any subsequent division of land is a subdivision. The issue is really, how does a subdivision change the plat for a lot or parcel and when is a plat review needed by the governing body. That brings us to the statutory requirements for plats and plat review. FS Chp. 177 states: Chp 177 - "Plat or replat" means a map or delineated representation of the subdivision of lands, being a complete exact representation of the subdivision and other information in compliance with the requirement of all applicable sections of this Dart and of any loons nt tiinornn� FS 177.041, _ _ : when the replat affects any boundary of the previous platted property or 01/08%2010 when improvements which may affect the boundary of the previously platted property have been made on the lands to be replatted. 177.011 Purpose and scope of part I. --This part shall be deemed to establish consistent minimum requirements, and to create such additional powers in local governing bodies, as herein provided to regulate and control the platting of lands. This part establishes minimum requirements and does not exclude additional provisions or regulations by local ordinance, laws, or regulations. 177.021 Legal status of recorded plats. --The recording of any plats made in compliance with the provisions of this part shall serve to establish the identity of all lands shown on and being a part of such plats, and lands may thenceforth be conveyed by reference to such plat. 177.071 Approval of plat by governing bodies.-- (1) Before a plat is offered for recording, it must be approved by the appropriate governing body, and evidence of such approval must be placed on the plat. If not approved, the governing body must return the plat to the professional surveyor and mapper or the legal entity offering the plat for recordation. For the purposes of this part: (a) When the plat to be submitted for approval is located wholly within the boundaries of a municipality, the governing body of the municipality has exclusive jurisdiction to approve the plat. Now, please read the section: 177.091 Plats made for recording. --Every plat of a subdivision offered for recording shall conform to the following: (1) It must be: [Which is too long to insert] If the City waives the platting requirements to allow for subdivisionswithin pre-existing R-1 Low Density Residential Districts, i submit that they are in violation of the requirements of Florida Law for plat review and their own Ordinances, and they run the risk of omitting and overlooking important development issues that would otherwise be reviewed during the platting process. We believe we have vested rights in reliance upon the existing laws and ordinances that were in place and upon which we relied when we purchased our property. The City has not demonstrated any substantial need or reason to make this change. Rather, thereis better logic and significant reason to exempt the City's R-1 Low Density Residential Districts from the Lot Split Ordinance. Thanks, Charlie Charles Hartley 399 Holman Road ,ape Canaveral, FL JLSLU Res: 321-783-8367 cell: 321-431-5704 Fax 321-783-9073 chartleyat7cfl_rr com __.. ........... _ _ ._..._ . CONFIDENTIALITY: This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, or distribution or the taking of any action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this communication and destroy all copies. _ 01,10812010 January 2010 ME" Susan Chapman Secretary, Planning & Zoning Board City of Cape Canaveral P.O. Box 326 -Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920-0326 Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 04-2009 Dear Secretary Chapman: Kindly advise the Planning and Zoning Board at its next meeting, on Wednesday, January 13, 2010, that we strongly suggest that it is in the best interest of all the citizens of Cape Canaveral that the Board recommend to the City Council that all R -i Low Density Residential property be exempt from the operation of any streamlined, "lot split" ordinance. Only a small portion of the City is zoned R-1 Low Density Residential and most of the City is already developed. Sincerely v Vito Caputo, C 7 January 2010 Mr. Ronald B. Friedman 742 Bayside Drive No. 405 Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920 Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 04-2009 Dear Mr. Friedman: My wife and I hope that you and yours had enjoyable holidays and we wish you and yours the very best in the New Year. On December 28, 2009, the City Attorney completed a new draft of Ordinance No 04-2009. In my view, somewhere in the proposed Sec. 98-63. Lot Splits additional language should be inserted along these lines: "No property zoned R-1 Low Density Residential shall be subdivided under this Section. All property zoned R-1 Low Density Residential shall be subject to all the laws governing subdivisions. " In other words, exclude all R-1 property from the "lot split" procedure. This is in the best interests of the entire City because: 1. R-1 Low Density Residential is scarce in the City. 2. It continues the protections afforded unique areas such as the one in which I live, the Southwest Corner. 3. It allows the City a means of dealing with situations such as occurred with respect to Burger King through the "lot split" mechanism. 4. It avoids all concerns that some may have about unequal treatment or taking. -1- - ca all After reviewing the work of the City Attorney it is apparent that diligence was exercised in attempting to address concerns voiced by Members of the Planning & Zoning Board and the audience. Still I am uneasy . It is conceivable that in trying to create a list of protections in the revision some important aspects of concern has been overlooked. What they may be I have no idea. But, the hair on the nape of my neck is telling me that there may actually be monsters under the bed. For instance, the proposal says, "(d) No further division of an approved lot split is permitted under this section, unless a plat is prepared and approved in accordance with this Article." That does not say one lot split per parcel. That says after one lot split a plat is necessary. It seems to leave the door open to using lot splits to evade the usual subdivision requirements. So, I hope to see you on January 13, and thank you again for your time and effort. Sincerely, Earl McMillin Cc: Susan Chapman Secretary, Planning & Zoning Board IM January 2010 Susan Chapman Secretary, Planning & Zoning Board City of Cape Canaveral P.O. Box 326 Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920-0326 Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 04-2009 Dear Secretary Chapman: Kindly advise the Planning and Zoning Board at its next meeting, on Wednesday, January 13, 2010, that we strongly suggest that it is in the best interest of all the citizens of Cape Canaveral that the Board recommend to the City Council that all R-1 Low Density Residential property be exempt from the operation of any streamlined, "lot split" ordinance. Only a small portion of the City is zoned R-1 Low Density Residential and most of the City is already developed. Charles Hartley Sincerely January 2010 Susan Chapman Secretary, Planning & Zoning Board City of Cape Canaveral P.O. Box 326 Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920-0326 Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 04-2009 Dear Secretary Chapman: Kindly advise the Planning and Zoning Board at its next meeting, on Wednesday, January 13, 2010, that we strongly suggest that it is in the best interest of all the citizens of Cape Canaveral that the Board recommend to the City Council that all R-1 Low Density Residential property be exempt from the operation of any streamlined, "lot split" ordinance. Only a small portion of the City is zoned R-1 Low Density Residential and most of the City is already developed. Gary Zaj aclk Sincerely Carolyn Zajack January 2010 Susan Chapman Secretary, Planning & Zoning Board City of Cape Canaveral P.O. Box 326 Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920-0326 Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 04-2009 Dear Secretary Chapman: Kindly advise the Planning and Zoning Board at its next meeting, on Wednesday, January 13, 2010, that we strongly suggest that it is in the best interest of all the citizens of Cape Canaveral that the Board recommend to the City Council that all R-1 Low Density Residential property be exempt from the operation of any streamlined, "lot split" ordinance. Only a small portion of the City is zoned R-1 Low Density Residential and most of the City is already developed. Conrad Wilson Sincerely It Lindsey Wilson C Z J Q •-o � Q W W z 0 QZ U 0 J C+C� U) a0 U N bA a ° F- 00 0��� U® w 0 w o0 ct ZO O DO ° ® o° Q Qa LLCL o4) o 4-4 C° 0 0 0U U U � o ail � •� �, •-o � M C+C� U U N bA 00 ct ° o° o4) o 4-4 C° 0 0 ¢ O �, O atcd o . o o v fl o �w �' 71 u, a3 rA m 0 a o � a 0 tt I 0,� p N 46 p } Cd cn t4 cl) 03 cd I N CIS 41.1 N wl .-f: U �U i° U— torA t C� U U Ln .H .a c3 it Q U • O U U .� "� �•+ Cd cd I -o �n CIH °�' s� ~ U p o U C.) N +r" U '0'3 U . II C/) J z > az U _z a z E— UES 0- a° 0 J U) � LUL.=O 0CLF--Cl) U O Z C Q O LL � W m 0 U a LL. 0 O U 0 0 0 ct a� +� C13 U C.) ;-.4 O ct O rJ U a3 p r O ¢+U +U- n O^d O O U y 'O oC13tt o a' bi a, .— � ° a '4 >— 4 I �— *� m Ocrj c . > W O US W -o . o a c rA clWn ,,y a, ,O � P64U w CA O a U L v A �= ca bi C� EEM f- 15 ell 0 a O U O a En. O O °cn Ln a, o cd tj cn In cn un � °' Qn ( -�� 3) W s-. W M 0 0 o flcd Lt � N CIS cl ci t+ o C�j 0 C4 'q)� p 0 � ami d C�3 .r� Cd O C13 0 N O o O to cd as o M = Cd 0 o 0 ° s� A�zs a.) — oct o �bDo C�3 cd Cd E— o m U N C a] Q� Q 'C3 s0. w w w ° u 6 ct tjU N ul ID U 0 tD C- n .,, cd + bIJ sU-741N . o U U �bn ~ �� a� 3 Q, rs � ~'��� Y ''N " N b01, Ct U �.;11 >, 0 a) O En s; c,3N ~ U 5 - `t �' O >-b � - C)— cn ct o �s .� C o _ �. M Cj a� o ZI ~ C"o " U cn 70r- Cn ' ~ ... • °a1 Qi it Rj mvi C/] �� Cd Zil1 cn cd cn Im" M J > C? Z Q Q Z U� W �- O U~ La OCl) H � Uo oW Z O0 Cl)O EEW CL a.0 U H LU U Q _z O O H J a O J a m Q O U LLO U al _CIS ( v U 7_1 cn v U by O cd ;:3 O v cd �' C3 Ct � v .-r V] cd r "(l U v a) En r- c+C 0 Elf) ct U s ct 75 rn" ct as°H-�Z �vU Z ZC's o � � s ° o o to cn 3 -ECt 7:1 4- 7:1 75 cn ° o v U o � vs ..-. "O � " �" ' + ice" O ? v v v � ® 75 Q�0 cn (D IC5 a 'Cf "Cf a = v U v 24 y}A�yayf' a3 cn . v I� pn C : I� CC3I I � � ��q $(-yj U � � �II �I Vi�) �-+ ,F..> i-1 V) •.�1 H +�-il `VI Tj eil V—+ v S�•1 �I S�.i�F-1 i -•I -i U) _! > � zQ <t U� U Z z UJ U Z Z_ J �' 0 a o 0 U) 0- Q ° 1- U— O LL J = J 0 U) U U oW 0 W m 0 0 O n, ti cn0 0 a. LL a O U '.� cd 41.1 0 U � � U � O � LIM