HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05-16-2006 WorkshopCITY COUNCIL JOINT WORKSHOP
MEETING WITH THE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
CITY HALL ANNEX
111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida
TUESDAY
May 16, 2006
5:00 PM
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL:
Council Members Present:
Mayor Pro Tem
Bob Hoog
Council Member
Jim Morgan
Council Member
Leo Nicholas (Arrived at 5:30P.M.)
Council Member
Buzz Petsos
Mayor
Rocky Randels
Board Members Present:
Chairperson
Bea McNeely
Vice Chairperson
Lamar Russell
Dr. John Fredrickson
Donald Dunn
Harry Pearson (Left at 5:45 P.m.)
John Johanson
Others Present:
City Manager
Asst. City Clerk
Building Official
City Planner
DISCUSSION
Bennett Boucher
Virginia Haas
Todd Morley
Todd Peetz
1. City Code Review: Article VI Site Plans 110 -221 through 110 -339.
City of Cape Canaveral, Florida
Code Review Workshop
May 16, 2006
Page 2 of 4
ARTICLE VI. SITE PLANS*
Sec. 110 -221. Submittal and review re quired.
Under this chapter, site plan submittal and review are required for the following:
(1) New commercial buildings or structures.
(2) New residential structures with four or more dwelling units.
(3) Commercial additions exceeding 850 square feet of gross floor area.
(Code 1981, § 645.05(A)
Mr. Morley stated that section 110 -122 is consistent with the Florida Building Code but
the time restriction is one year. Mr. Peetz explained that Canaveral Bulk Storage
challenged the city on where the code states requirement of a site plan. Mr. Peetz
continued that industrial buildings should be added to this section. Mr. Morley stated
that an owner /builder might improve a commercial building once per year provided the
costs were under $25,000.
Attorney Garganese stated that section 110 -221 is covered fully under Florida Statutes.
City Council agreed to insert additions exceeding 850 square feet within a one -year
period to eliminate multiple commercial additions over the 850 square feet.
Mr. Russell questioned why the city does not review all site plans. Mayor Randels
asked for Council's input on reviewing all site plans. Mr. Morgan and Mr. Petsos
concurred that if owners /builders were completing additions without permits then they
certainly would not file a required site plan.
Mr. Morley explained that the building code allows several exemptions for example,
replacing 25% of your windows; however any structural work requires a permit. Ms.
McNeely stated that the Community Appearance Board reviews new single - family
homes. Mr. Pearson asked where the 850 square feet was adopted. Mr. Morley
explained that McDonald's is currently proceeding through a small -scale administrative
review that does not require approval of the Planning & Zoning Board. Mr. Russell
asked if the Attorney knew of any other communities that review all site plans. Attorney
Garganese replied that some communities do require small -scale administrative plan
reviews. Mr. Russell reminded that soon the city will be built out and permits will be
pending for additions and redevelopments and further how gravely should these
additions be regulated by the city. Attorney Garganese stated for clarification purposes
that a section could be added called small -scale administrative plan review conducted
by staff members.
Mayor Randels clarified that section 110 - 122(3) will include a time limit within one year
and "Industrial" will be added to items 1) and (3) after the word commercial.
Mr. Morley stated that you might have instances where developments are not clearly
governed by the written code. Mr. Morley suggested an item number (4) "All other items
City of Cape Canaveral, Florida
Code Review Workshop
May 16, 2006
Page 3 of 4
that the Building Official deems necessary for review by the Planning & Zoning Board."
Attorney Garganese concurred that the code should list in detail those projects that do
not proceed through a full site plan review. Attorney Garganese stated that he would
confer with Mr. Morley regarding examples and exemptions to follow a small -scale
administrative review. Item number (4) might list deciding factors for what the Building
Official can handle and what items need review by the Planning & zoning Board. Mr.
Russell inputted that any areas of uncertainties could be referred to the Planning &
Zoning Board.
Sec. 110 -222. Criteria required.
Mr. Peetz noted the four areas to be added that might be beneficial during the site plan
review. 1) Existing trees with four inch diameter breast height (dbh) or larger be
overlaid or superimposed onto the site plan along with any new improvements (item L).
2) Elevations of the building for overview and appearance, and to ensure structures are
compatible (artists rendering). 3) Signs - location, number and height (N). 4) Fences
and Walls - location, elevation and type (0). Mr. Peetz added that these items might not
be required at this stage; however, he believes it would be helpful to the board
members from an ingress /egress standpoint.
It was noted that the Community Appearance Board would approve any fences. Mr.
Morgan stated that it is more sensible to get site plan approval initially by the Planning &
Zoning Board rather than approval by the Community Appearance Board first. Mr.
Morgan stated that the site plan only approves the footprint for the project. Mr. Morley
clarified that it is not required that the applicant proceed to the Community Appearance
Board prior to the Planning & Zoning Board. Mr. Nicholas noted that Mr. Venable came
to the Planning and Zoning Board not knowing if he wanted to build 6 or 8 units.
Mr. Morgan stated that Roger Dobson presents conceptual drawings to the Board,
which could be added as a requirement in this section. Mayor Randels asked if Council
wanted to add a new letter (P) "Conceptual Drawings ". Mr. Petsos suggested that the
City require the applicant to proceed to Community Appearance Board first.
Ms. McNeely stated that the problem with elevations is the depth and flatness: In a
rendering you can see the setbacks. Mr. Morley read the requirements for a
Community Appearance Board submittal package. Mr. Morley added that the
requirements from the Community Appearance Board Packet could be passed along to
the Planning and Zoning board along with a recommendation.. Mr. Morgan asked for
clarification on 22 -14 regarding ingress and egress of facilities. Mr. Peetz asked if
council wanted to combine sections (M), (N), and (0).
Attorney Garganese suggested item "(P) All elements included within the Community
Appearance Board packet and the final approved development order under the
aesthetic review ordinance, if decision was appealed to City Council." Attorney
Garganese expressed that developers appreciate a concurrent review process.
City of Cape Canaveral, Florida
Code Review Workshop
May 16, 2006
Page 4 of 4
Mayor Randels asked City Council and the Planning and Zoning Board members if they
would like to combine the Community Appearance Board with the Planning & Zoning
Board. Mr. Russell stated that the task of determining compatibility with the surrounding
area should remain with the Community Appearance Board. Council concurred.
Attorney Garganese questioned which board would the city like approval from initially.
Mr. Russell noted that, in the end, the board gets the information needed to make a
solid final decision. Mayor Randels stated that the code is not clear as to which board
to apply to first.
Mayor Randels noted that the next code review workshop would begin at section 110-
122(L).
ADJOURNMENT:
EYf
Due to.`a subsequeiitlyscheduled City Council Regular Meeting, the Chair adjourned
the meeting at 6:401P.1 '
Virgins Haas, Assistant City Clerk
C
9