Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 10, 2010 - P & Z PacketCity of Cape Canaveral Community Development Department ING 8s ZONING BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 2010 ;APE CANAVERAL LIBRARY 201 POLK AVENUE 7:00 P.M. AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: NEW BUSINESS: 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes: January 13, 2010 and January 27, 2010. 2. Discussion and Recommendation Re: Consideration to Allow Day Care Facilities (Child and Adult) in the Residential Zoning Districts. 3. Election: Chairperson and Vice Chairperson. OPEN DISCUSSION: ADJOURNMENT: 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 meeting. 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 www.cityofcapecanaveral.org • email: ccapecanaveral@cfl.rr.com Date: February 5, 2010 To: Planning and Zoning Board members From: Barry Brown, Planning and Development Director RE: February 10, 2010 P&Z Board Meeting The owners of Palms East apartments desire to start a child day care facility in the apartment complex. They intend to primarily serve the working parents who are tenants in their complex. They envision accommodating 25 to 40 children and house the day care in vacant space adjacent to the rental office. Our code does not currently allow for day care in the R-2 zoning district. However, in the past and evidently before the current R-2 zoning was applied to the property, there were various commercial uses in the complex, including: a beauty shop, barber shop, doctor's office, library, restaurant, and bar. The issue of allowing for day care in R-2 zoning was brought before the City Council at their meeting on February 2, 2010. The Council passed a motion to direct staff and the P&Z Board to consider and make a recommendation on allowing day care, both child and adult, in residential zoning districts. My initial thought is that, „what is old is new again". In recent years we have been returning to the days of mixed use development and having services such as loll cares near where people live. Staff has surveyed other local governments and prepared a summary of the zoning categories in which they allow adult and child day care, whether day care is a principal or special exception use, and if there are criteria to evaluate a day care use. We have had little time to research this issue, but we wanted to put the ball in play and start the discussion. I would ask you to do some of research of your own. The codes of most cities in the state can be viewed on www.municode.com. Click on Search Fr e Municipal Code Library under Access to Municipal Codes. Then select State of Florida and then city of choice. You will also need to select a chair and vice -chair for the coming year. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 13, 2010 A Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on January 13, 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 1. Approval of Meeting_ Minutes: November 18, 2009. Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by John Fredrickson, to approve the meeting minutes of November 18, 2010. Donald Dunn advised that a correction needed to be made on page 5, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence to read as follows: "Donald Dunn suggested having changes made in the city code to eliminate floor heights and building heights, and only count the number of floors." Discussion followed. Donald Dunn moved for an amendment to the minutes on page 5. Chairperson McNeely asked if there was a second. John Fredrickson seconded the motion. Chairperson McNeely asked the Secretary to call the question. The Secretary called the roll. The amendment passed unanimously. Chairperson McNeely asked Donald Dunn to state his amendment. Donald Dunn stated that on page 5, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence, to remove the period after the word height and add the words "and only count the number of floors." Lamar Russell questioned what the Board had just done. Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney, explained that a motion was made to amend the minutes as Donald Dunn previously stated. Unless the Board had questions, she didn't believe it needed to be restated. She clarified that they just passed a motion to amend, and now, if everyone was in agreement; there needed to be a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Lamar Russell questioned why the motion wouldn't be to approve the minutes, as amended. He asked if they needed to make amendments to amend the amendments. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 13, 2010 Page 2 Kate Latorre explained that that is how the motion was stated. She asked that the Board make a motion to approve the minutes, as amended. Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by Donald Dunn, to approve the minutes, as amended. Vote on the motion, as amended, carried unanimously. 2. Approval of Meeting Minutes: December 9, 2009. Susan Chapman, Secretary, advised that she made a change to the draft - minutes, as requested -by -Board- member John Johnson; and the changes were highlighted and provided to the board members at this meeting. Motion by Donald Dunn, seconded by Harry Pearson, to accept the minutes, as amended. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 3. Special Exception Request No 09-04 to Serve Alcoholic Beverages in the C-1 Zoning District (6615 N Atlantic Avenue Unit C) - Section 23, Township 24 South Range 37 East Parcel 511.0 - Brigitte Krause, Petitioner for Supra Color Enterprises Inc. Property Owner. Chairperson McNeely read the agenda item for the record. Barry Brown, Planning & Development Director, reported that this was a request for the on -premise consumption of alcoholic beverages; the property currently has a special exception that allows for beer and wine only; the owner would like to serve liquor and upgrade their alcoholic beverages license from 2COP to 4COP; the applicant is Brigitte Krause for Izzy's Bistro; the property owner is Supra Color Enterprises, Inc., Kurt Tezel, President; the subject property is located at 6615 N. Atlantic Avenue, Suite C; the future land use and zoning designation is C-1; the surrounding zoning to the North C-1, East County Commercial, South C-1, West C-1; Surrounding uses: North - vacant, East - commercial, South vacant, West - condominiums. Mr. Brown reported on the property history and description. He advised that Brigitte Krause, owner of Izzy's, wanted to be able to serve liquor; Izzy's is within 2,000 ft. of another establishment serving alcohol; city code calls for a minimum of 200 seats for a restaurant to be exempt from the requirement of a 2,000 ft. separation from another establishment selling alcohol; Izzy's requested that the city revise the code to require that a restaurant have only 150 seats to be exempted from the distance requirement. City Council adopted the ordinance revision on August 4, 2009; on June 23, 2009 staff met with representatives of Izzy's Bistro regarding the proposed code amendment; in preparation for that meeting, Todd Morley prepared the memo dated June 22, 2009, contained in the Board packet; the memo identified the Issues to be addressed once the code was revised, specifically parking and sewer impact fees. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 13, 2010 Page 3 The Planning & Development Director advised that on September 1, 2009, he met with Kurt Tezel, property owner, to discuss the parking situation. He was provided parking calculations and was apprised that if parking cannot be provided on site, the city code allows for parking to be provided off-site within 500 ft. of the establishment; also, a parking agreement signed by each party is required. Staff was not aware of any other option, short of a variance, to provide relief from required parking. City- coderequiresthat a special exception ___be__granted by the Board of Adjustment for a restaurant to serve alcohol; Izzy's current special exception allows for beer and wine only. On November 4, 2009, staff met with Brigitte Krause and Gary Kirkland in a special exception pre -application meeting, where requirements of code and the special exception worksheet were discussed, as well as parking. He clarified that the city code allows for parking to be provided off-site parking. He explained that subsequent to the meeting, it was brought to his attention that additional seats (76-150 seats) had been installed. However, the impact fees addressed in Todd Morley's memo of June 22, 2009, had not been paid. Also, at some point, the question was raised as to whether all impact fees had been paid for the existing 75 seats; to this point, staff's research confirms that impact fees for 25 seats were paid, but does not show that impact fees for the expansion from 25 seats to 75 seats were paid. He advised that staff has discussed the possibility of an impact fee payment plan with the applicant. The Planning & Development Director stated that all special exception recommendations and final decisions shall be based on the following criteria to the extent possible. He gave a report regarding the special exception worksheet and staff analysis. Regarding land use and zoning, he advised that the requested special exception was consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, in that C-1 commercial land use classification allows for restaurant uses; the requested special exception would be consistent with the intent of the zoning district in which it is sought, because restaurants are principal uses in C-1 commercial zoning; the requested special exception would meet all the requirements of the zoning district in which the request is to be located, such as: lot requirements, building setbacks, lot coverage, height, buffers, off-street parking, signs, storage, and landscaping, etc., with the exception of off-street parking. The Planning & Development Director reported on special conditions for establishments serving alcoholic beverages. He verified that the establishment was not within 300 ft. of any existing church, school ground, or playground; or within 300 ft. of the mean high water line of the Atlantic Ocean or of the Banana River. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 13, 2010 Page 4 The Planning & Development Director reported on the impact to surrounding properties. He advised that the restaurant is an established use, currently serving beer and wine, and is compatible with the surrounding area; as the establishment is currently, the scale and intensity of the proposed special exception is compatible and harmonious with adjacent land uses. He advised that the request does not change the nature of the current operation, and would not create any adverse impacts to other properties in the surrounding area, through the creation of noise, light, vibration, odor, stormwater runoff, or other offsite impacts that would not have been created had the property been developed as a principle use; there was adequate screening and buffing; off- street -parking would need to -be -addressed per city code, but actual impact of additional seating can be handled on-site, as long as the hours of operation of other uses in the building remained daytime hours; the size and shape of the site, the proposed access, internal circulation, and design enhancements will be adequate to accommodate the proposed scale and intensity of the special exception requested; signs and exterior lighting is designed and located so as to promote traffic safety and to minimize any undue glare or incompatibility with adjoining properties; the hours of operation will be 4:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday; and would have no impact to surrounding properties. The Planning & Development Director gave a report on traffic and parking. He advised that per city code, the site is 35 parking spaces short. He commented that in practice, as long as other users in the building continued to operate during the daytime, there should be adequate parking on site; there is adequate ingress and egress, with particular reference to auto and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow, and emergency access; there would be more traffic, but it was not quantified; and there was adequate loading and unloading areas. The Planning & Development Director reported on public services. He verified that there are adequate utilities available; the proposed special exception would not create any unusual demand for police, fire, or emergency set -vices; the proposed special exception would not have an adverse impact on public service, including: water, sewer, surface water management, parks and recreation, streets, public transportation, marina and waterways, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities; and there was adequate refuse facility for the use. The Planning & Development Director advised the Board on miscellaneous impacts. He verified that the proposed special exception would not have an adverse impact on the natural environment, including: air, water, noise pollution, vegetation, wildlife, open space, noxious and desirable vegetation, and flood hazards; the special exception would not have any adverse impact on historic, scenic, and cultural resources including: views and vistas, and loss or degradation of cultural and historic resources; the proposed special exception would not have any adverse impact on the local economy, including governmental fiscal impact, employment, and property values; and would not have an adverse impact on housing and social conditions, including a variety of housing unity types and prices, and neighborhood quality. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 13, 2010 Page 5 The Planning & Development Director gave staffs recommendation. He advised that city staff recommended approval of the requested special exception with the conditions that parking be provided, per the city code; and that sewer impact fees be paid. Burton Green, Esquire, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He advised that if he understood staffs report, two issues needed to be addressed. One was the parking issue, and the other was impact fees regarding seating. He advised that the applicant was not denying their liability for the impact of the 75 to 150 seats; the issue -was -whether or not the -applicant -was -liable -for _ the impact fees that were not paid, by prior occupants of the building, who added the extra seats, from 25 to 75 seats, there position was that they should not be liable for what someone else should have paid and did not. That was an issue that the City should have addressed when the seats were added by previous owners. He asked that the impact fees from 25 to 75 seats not be required of the current owner. The current owner only pay for the 75 to 150 seats that they wished to put in to meet the requirement of the city code to allow them to serve alcoholic beverages. Unless there was case law that says that the current occupant is required to pay what a previous occupant should have paid. If so, the current occupant would ask the city to waive that requirement for I=y's; and just require that she pay the impact fees for the actual addition that she is putting into the restaurant. Discussion followed. Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney, advised the Board that they have no authority to waive impact fees; it would need to be worked out administratively, and could not be a condition of the special exception. Attorney Green stated his position regarding parking. He believed that they only needed six additional parking spaces. He explained that the city code Section 110-171, states one parking space for every three seats. With 150 seats, they would need a total of 50 parking spaces to meet the requirement of the code. City staff has confirmed that the premises have 44 parking spaces. He submitted a copy of the current Lease between the applicant and property owner (entered as Exhibit A). He advised that there was nothing indicated in the Lease that restricted the applicant from using all 44 parking spaces. He explained that it may have been a problem, realistically, is the restaurant was open during the daytime, competing with the other businesses that were open. However, the restaurant was open from 4 p.m. to '110 p.l 1 I., therefore, not having access to all 44 parking spaces was not an issue. He advised that there was not time to obtain a signed agreement from the adjacent property (Mr. Porter), however, he acknowledged in an e-mail (entered as Exhibit B), that he was giving them permission to use 10 parking spaces, in the foreseeable future. They also obtained a verbal agreement from another property owner (King Fireworks), which is located within 500 ft. of this establishment, permission to use approximately 15 to 20 parking spaces, after 5:00 p.m. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 13, 2010 Page 6 Attorney Green advised that he understood that the parking agreements must be in writing. He clarified that with Mr. Porter's permission to use 10 parking spaces, and that only 7 additional spaces were required, the requirement of the city code would be met. He assured the Board that in addition to the 10 spaces, they would also obtain a written agreement for an additional 20 spaces from King Fireworks. John Fredrickson asked Mr. Green if he understood that in order to meet the requirements of the city code for parking, that the restaurant would never be able to be open for-lunch.--Mr.-Green acknowledged that that was correct, with the exception that if the current owner who is only interested in a night time business wishes to sell the business to someone who wants to be open for lunch, he presumed that the owner could remove seats in order to meet the parking requirements; however, with agreements for off-site parking, they could meet that requirement. He advised that the current owner had no interest in opening the restaurant prior to 4:00 p.m. Donald Dunn commented that the fireworks property was located outside the city limits. Mr. Green responded that the city code did not restrict them from obtaining off-site parking agreements from establishments outside the city limits. Mr. Dunn asked if they were going to obtain an agreement for indefinite use of the property. Gary Kirkland, on behalf of the applicant, testified that the applicant was speaking directly with the property owner and it was understood that if the agreement was to expire, they would have to go to another property owner and obtain an agreement. Barry Brown clarified that they would always need an agreement from somebody to meet the parking requirements to be in compliance with the special exception. Discussion continued regarding parking agreements. Kate Latorre advised that there needed to be a provision in the agreements that the city would have to be notified in the event that the agreement would be terminated. She noted that if they lost their off-site parking, the special exception may be revoked, because it would no longer meet the requirements, and therefore, the special exception would not be valid. Attorney Green requested that in the approval of the special exception that it be noted that the city acknowledges that all they need is six off-site parking spaces to meet the parking requirement of city code. Mr. Green reiterated that the lease 1.;� does not restrict the. i from i � always having access to 44 parking �g spaces, He noted that regardless, they would still have over 30 parking spaces available to them off-site. Discussion followed. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 13, 2010 Page 7 Barry Brown clarified that 79 parking spaces were required for the property, as a whole, and only 44 parking spaces were provided, therefore they were short 35 parking spaces. He commented that it appeared the applicant was calculating the parking spaces as if they were the only use on the site. Mr. Green responded that he did not want to get into whether or not the entire building complied with parking requirements. He noted that with the exception of the Co- op, all the other businesses were closed by 4:00 p.m., so they were not competing with the other uses. Following discussion regarding parking calculations, it was agreed that 35 additional parking spaces were needed to meet therequirementsof the city code. Harry Pearson advised that the special exception application did not include a seating plan, which was necessary to show the required minimum of 150 seats. Mr. Green responded that they provided a drawing, but did not know if it met the requirement of the submittal. Mr. Pearson suggested that they find out if it met the requirement, and if not, provide the diagram. Mr. Russell commented that they could provide the drawing to the Board of Adjustment, and staff could simply verify the seating. Mr. Pearson responded that it should have been provided to the Planning & Zoning Board. Barry Brown advised that per the city code, the number of seats were to have been provided, in a tabular form, and they were to provide a floor plan, which they did. He did not believe that the code required an actual seating plan; they would need to provide that when seeking approval from the state, to increase their seating from 75 to 150, but not at this point. Mr. Pearson advised that he must see the seating plan. Todd Morley, Building Official, advised that staff did talk to the applicant about needing a seating plan. He referred to his memo, dated June 22, 2009. He noted that they even asked for it back then. He advised that it still has not been provided. He clarified that the reason staff asked for a seating plan, was to verify that they could fit 150 seats, and be able to fit them in accordance with the egress code, and the handicap accessibility code. However, these were not conditions of the special exception approval, which was a use approval. He clarified that these were more compliance issues that anyone would have to comply with. Kate Latorre inquired if staff has seen any evidence that they could seat 150. Todd Morley and Barry Brown replied that they hadn't seen anything yet. Gary Kirkland advised that they received approval from the State for 150 seats, based on approvals from the city fire department. He noted that all the seats would not be located indoors. They were proposing 120 seats indoors which fits into the fire department's calculation, plus 30 seats outdoors which brings them 150 seats. They did provide a sketch of the floor plan showing 120 seats indoors and 30 outside, but they did not have the specific arrangement of tables. Discussion was held regarding outside seating. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 13, 2010 Page 8 Mr. Kirkland testified that they were fairly confident that they could fit 120 seats inside, based on a floor space calculation. He advised that the occupant load allows for 133 seats inside. He confirmed that 150 seats is a requirement by the State to approve the 4COP license. They were confident that they would meet the seating requirements, and confirmed that if they could not meet that requirement that the special exception would be revoked, and would not qualify for their alcohol license. Discussion followed. Mr. Green confirmed that they would provide a seating plan. Motion by Lamar Russell, seconded by Bea McNeely, to recommend_ approval of Special Exception 09-04 to the Board of Adjustment, with the following conditions: • Parking agreements shall be in place to provide parking in accordance with city codes. • Provide a dimensional drawing showing the main assembly area of the restaurant, as well as any exterior seating, with the proposed number of tables and chairs. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. Chairperson McNeely called for a break at 8:18 p.m. She called the meeting back to Order at 8:30 p.m. 3. Recommendation to the City Council Re: Proposed Ordinance Amending 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, advised that she made changes to the draft ordinance based on the Board's recommendations at the last meeting. John Johanson made several suggestions for more changes. The Board held discussion as they reviewed and discussed those proposed changes. Earl McMillin and Charles Hartley addressed the Board. They requested that all documents they submitted at the last meeting and this meeting be made part of the official record. Discussion followed regarding Mr. McMillin's letter dated December 21, 2009. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 13, 2010 Page 9 Motion by Donald Dunn, seconded by Lamar Russell that all letters and correspondence received at this meeting, and the previous meeting, from Mr. McMillin, Mr. Hartley, and others are included in the record. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. Mr. McMillin and Mr. Hartley made the following comments: There was not a lot of R-1, low density residential in the city; of the city's 1,112 acres, only 163 acres or 13% of the city is R-1; 93% of the city is built -out; a survey performed by Mr. McMillin revealed that of all the R-1 properties throughout the city there were only ten potential lot splits, and six of them abutHolmanRoad; certain characteristics of Holman Road made it a unique area; city should exempt R-1 properties if they were going to allow lot splits; there was no public need to include R-1. Mr. McMillin asked that a motion be made to exempt R-1 from any lot split ordinance. The Board Secretary read a letter into the record, dated January 2010, signed by six residents of Holman Road. Discussion was held regarding applying the same criteria for a preliminary and final plat into one application for a lot split. Following the Board's discussion, by unanimous consensus, the Board members agreed to the following additional changes to the draft ordinance, dated January 8, 2010: Pia es 1 - 4: No additional changes. • Page 5: Separate the information on the plat from the Topographic requirements. Therefore, (1) through (N) become Topographic information, and are re -lettered (example: (1) becomes (c) and the rest of the factors fall as subsections under (c). • Pages 6 - 10:No additional changes. • Page 11: Keep letters (a) (b) (d) and 0). All other letters are eliminated. Page 12: No additional changes. • Page 13: Remove new sub -section (1); reword new sub -section (2) regarding dedication for public use; and move items (3) & (4) to Section 98-59, on page 14. (3) becomes (c), and (4) becomes (d). Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 13, 2010 Page 10 • Page 15: Remove criteria (3) (4) & (5) • Page 16: Remove criteria (6) (7) (8) & (9); Division 5. Lot Splits remove the first sentence; and combine preliminary and final into one application and approval process. Brief discussion followed on whether or not to review the new revised draft before making recommendation to the City Council. Motion by 'Bea McNeely, seconded by Donald Dunn to postpone recommendation until the Board reviews the revised draft again at the next meeting. Vote on the motion carried by majority, with members voting as follows: Donald Dunn, for; John Fredrickson, against; Bea McNeely, for; Harry Pearson, for; and Lamar Russell, for. OPEN DISCUSSION There was no open discussion. Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by Donald Dunn, to adjourn the meeting at 9:59 p.m. Bea McNeely, Chairperson Susan L. Chapman, Secretary 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 1. 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 EngineeringInc. 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 Recommendation to the City Council Re: Proposed Ordinance Amending 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 13, Section 98-59, (3), add "Declaration 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 98-62 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. Barry Brown, Planning Director, 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 thehe n1 - tin- ordinance t the- hita� Council, vVith +h. additional 4......ges V /--te (. - "' iy ordinance, �u� w�., �o the- v�t�/ iwul It�11, VViU 1 tI IG aV ItIVI ldl changes. Il�. CJ. V VlC V! I 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 McNeely, Chairperson Susan L. Chapman, Secretary DAY CARE FACILITIES (CHILD & ADULT) Various Cities that Allow Day Care Facilities (Child and Adult) by Zoning Districts: Cape Canaveral: C-1 and C-2 as a principal use. Cocoa Beach: Multi -Family, Neighborhood and General Commercial by special exception. Rockledge: General Commercial and Industrial as a principal use. Neighborhood Commercial Retail, Light Industrial, and Industrial Park Districts by special exception. Brevard County: Retail Commercial as a principal use. Titusville: Residential Estate, Single and Multi - Family, and Residential Manufactured Housing Park as a principal use. Cocoa: Neighborhood Commercial as a principal use. Multi -Family, General and Core Commercial, Urban Mixes -Use, Central Business by Special Exception. enoo_