Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04-04-2006 WorkshopCITY COUNCIL JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CITY HALL ANNEX 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida TUESDAY April 4, 2006 5:00 PM MINUTES CALL TO ORDER A joint meeting of the City of Cape Canaveral City Council and Planning & Zoning Board was held on April 4, 2006 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Hall Annex, 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. The Assistant City Clerk called the roll. ROLL CALL: Council Members Present Mayor Pro Tern Council Member Council Member Mayor Council Members Absent: Council Member Bob Hoog Jim Morgan Buzz Petsos Rocky Randels Leo Nicholas Plannino and Zoning Board Members Present: Chairperson Vice Chair Regular Member Others Present City Manager Assistant City Attorney Assistant City Clerk City Planner Building Official DISCUSSION Beatrice McNeely Lamar Russell Dr. John Fredrickson Bennett Boucher Kate Latorre Virginia Haas Todd Peetz Todd Morley 1. City Code Review: Draft Ordinance Article V. Nonconformities. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Code Review Workshop April 4, 2006 Page 2 of 4 CHAPTER 110. ZONING ARTICLE V. NONCONFORMITIES Section 110 -191. Intent; rules of interpretation; building and fire codes; definitions. Mayor Randels read the intent section. Mr. Morgan asked about continuation of lots and brought forth the example of a 50 x 125 foot lot with a house located in a commercial zone. The house is destroyed and now the owner wants to tear down the structure and upgrade. What does this code tell us? Mr. Morley replied that part b in the existing code, stated that the house could be replaced by a special permit of the city council. Mr. Morgan replied that this section means that the sitting council could deny the request. Attorney Garganese noted that 110 -196 on page 10 covers a single family lot of record. Mr. Morgan asked if that section conflicts with the intent section. Mr. Morgan stated that this code does not flow. Mr. Peetz explained existing duplexes which aren't consistent with the draft code. Mr. Morgan questioned an old building with no special permit in a commercial zone, noting that person could not rebuild. Mr. Morgan emphasized that rebuilding should be legal until the owners want to change the use of the property. Mayor Randels asked if Mr. Morgan was speaking of the original owners or anyone who purchases the property. Mr. Boucher noted that there are three issues in this section; continuance of use of structure, continuance of the use of land and land /structure use. Mr. Boucher suggested putting aside questionable instances and proceeding through the entire draft code. Ms. McNeely stated that this code is an avenue to rid some of the older structures, such as some of the old fishing shacks. Mr. Russell explained that an owner can build the structure back as long as it is built back to city code standards. Mr. Peetz noted that the city would like to protect the single family dwellings but asked about those properties that have high density. Mr. Peetz was under the impression that a rebuild would be to the previous footprint. Mayor Randels inquired about 405 Tyler Avenue, where the owner wanted to recondition 27 different units and was not allowed. Mr. Petsos replied that instance was a redevelopment. Mr. Russell asked the Council to decide what the city really wants to accomplish through this code. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated the example of a 1960's house with a 6 -foot setback. The house is destroyed. Can you build it back with the 6 foot setback? The house must be built to the present code which is an 8 foot setback. Mayor Pro Tern Hoog stated that the revised code requires that you build to present code which includes density and setback Mr. Boucher noted that this section deals with two issues, Illegal or unlawful structures and legal or lawful structures. Mr. Boucher continued that the City Attorney can separate these two issues into different sections for clarification purposes. It was noted that the definition of "destroyed or destruction" would need clarification to include tortuous acts committed "not by the owner". There was discussion regarding City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Code Review Workshop April 4, 2006 Page 3 of 4 the market value or fair market value of the structure by a licensed appraiser, whichever is higher. Mr. Morley noted that the structure value is obtained by the Brevard County Appraiser's web site or by the fair market value of a licensed appraiser. Mr. Morley also suggested that the city council adopt the 2004 Florida Building Code regarding the definition of "Structural materials ". Mr. Russell explained that through the nonconformities code, the City is attempting to upgrade the overall appearance of the City. Mr. Peetz inputted that section 110- 193(c) is much stronger language than the previous ordinance. Mr. Morgan expressed his concern regarding taking away rights from the people. Mr. Russell replied that if section 110- 193(c) is removed that you may as well throw out the entire ordinance. Mayor Pro Tern Hoog stated that there are buildings which the city does not have special exception records. He noted the example of Chuck Applegate's property that has no special exception. Mr. Russell interjected how does the city know there was even a special exception granted? Mayor Randels replied that the owner states that fact. Mr. Russell replied that if he understands correctly, the council is agreeing not take any nonconformities away. Mr. Russell recommended adding to the code that the Planning & Zoning Board should review special permits. Mayor Randels asked if there were any illegal use of buildings at the time this code was passed. Mr. Boucher stated that a new form is being used in the Finance Department when applying for an occupational license. Potential applicants must check with the Building Official for any code related issues. Mr. Boucher reiterated that Council should review the bulk of the ordinance and return to the actual intent later. Section 110- 195(a) Mr. Peetz suggested exempting residential structures on Section 110- 195(a). "This section applies only to non - residential structures." Mr. Morley stated that he has had no problems enforcing this section. Section 110- 195(b) Mr. Morley responded to Mr. Morgan that a second story could be built above an existing home as long as it matches the footprint or "envelope ". Section 110- 195(c) Mayor Randels explained that this section states that at one time a structure was not permitted; then the structure was altered to be conforming. An owner cannot revert back to the nonconforming structure once it has been corrected. Mr. Morley stated that there is a conflict with the mobile home parks section 110 -192. Mr. Morley stated that if you remove the structure you are curing the problem. The mobile home cannot be put back in place. Attorney Garganese stated that section 110- 192 is more specific. Mr. Morley asked if the Attorney could clarify the language to include "Mobile homes not withstanding ". Discussion continued regarding parking City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Code Review Workshop April 4,2008 Page 4 of 4 spaces and seating at the Mexican restaurant. Mr. Morgan stated that he believes the use should only change by the owner's choice. Attorney Garganese stated that if you are going to allow nonconforming uses to continue, what is the purpose of the ordinance? He continued that structures get worn and policies change. These nonconformities should be phased out and a new direction set for council. Attorney Garganese stated that he understands the concerns for property rights and asked if the council would consider a middle ground for residential nonconformities. He explained an example that upon removal of a structure, the code allows the property owner a period of time to file an application to build within the footprint and should the owner not act, the nonconformity is removed. Mr. Morgan stated that all cities are different and currently there are businesses without sufficient parking. Mr. Morgan believes that changes will evolve without taking from the people and pointed out the example of Cocoa Beach. Mr. Morgan reiterated that he has a real problem in taking away from the people. Mr. Morgan stated that there are many instances in Mississippi where people are still awaiting their insurance checks and questioned how much time is really enough. Attorney Garganese stated that if the city adopts a comprehensive plan policy that results in nonconformities the city cannot issue development agreements. He stated that if the city code is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, the city cannot issue a permit. Future plans that include nonconformities can affect the city's comprehensive plan policies. The next code review workshop will be held on April 18, 2006 at 5 PM in the City Hall Annex. The code review will begin with section 110-195 (d). ADJOURNMENT: Due to a subsequent City Council Regular Meeting, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 6:50 P.M. Virginialiaas, Assistant City Clerk II 14v,, k „ , t : ° \ --- C 2