Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Minutes 01-13-2010
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 Chairperson Lamar Russell Vice Chairperson John Fredrickson Donald Dunn Harry Pearson John Johanson 1st Alternate Ronald Friedman 2nd Alternate OTHERS PRESENT Barry Brown Planning & Development Director Todd Morley Building Official Susan Chapman Secretary Kate Latorre Assistant City Attorney Robert Hoog Council Member NEW BUSINESS 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 code requires that 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 1 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 services; 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 lzzy'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 10 p.m.; 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 does not restrict them from always having access to 44 parking 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 the requirements of 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 abut Holman Road; 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: • Pages 1 - 4: No additional changes. • Page 5: Separate the information on the plat from the Topographic requirements. Therefore, (I) through (N) become Topographic information, and are re- lettered (example: (I) 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 (j). 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 McNe Ly -Chair e on (7\ - ----- , - 1)cptietCP— Susan L. Chapman, Secretary Cia t of Cape Canaveral \/... t- = -- 11 MILLER LEGG Zoning Map IMPROVING u ..rin “ *.. 7Y 127"1,:., 1 � 71: 7--- : ..„9„,... a[.roRrNLw �� rviR ANCR ORAOE -- I WIOOIIM I OANU �� R'.dGL E11 J , OCEAN CARDER Ul � ' ,; / � 4 e •rte gI �E>� i YDw; R� K t � SURF DR 4.. F � w :I �I D L e+ sT f c_o wxu > C.MNYAA �>, � < 1 CARIX11E ST 't ww�NNroN g .._ A .A. ......... N1 ,,,,.. LONG FONT RD 4 4 N. . . ' - .. ' r _.__ ,.__. Legend II -,..... ZONING CARVER STN, _I - S._, - CARVER ST IS C1 :. - I ,„.rte .RND RD R1 `A' C 4 ' — o-. R2 VV C I 11111 NII R3 s S ST u LNS d N .. �_ + j STREET LEGEND s. - ,„,, .i rii — : " J� -2-1-- I 2'r, V CAPE SHORES CiR A Clara Elizabeth Lane n�' M B Maple Court . Y C Palm Way © o — D Croton Court City of Cape Canaveral E Oleander Court F Coquina Lane t t Zoning Map i AMINO., G Camelia Court ( 1 Map Prepared by Miller Legg & Associates, Inc. H Jasmine Court r July 02 2008 I Honeysuckle Way J Intre id Way Data Source: Brevard County Property Appraiser Office, p y r City of Cape Canaveral, Brevard County Government K Aquarius Way ..w L Tranquility Way M Shuttle Way a Miles N Falcon Way j- 0 0,050.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 O Coconut Way # f . . X I h I �s pro v Lckd b y Eml I‘ite 1illIn@f, Z - 9 on Sall, 13, 20in (N► City of Cape Canaveral R -1 Low Density Residential Property Touring Our Town TOTAL CITY 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) 6 TOTAL: 10 pa a • City of Cape Canaveral R -1 Low Density Residential Property Touring Our Town -- Methodolozv 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 Holman Road Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920 p� 3 • • City of Cape Canaveral R -1 Low Density Residential Property How much R -1 property 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 R -1 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- • • City of Cape Canaveral 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 Drive/ Surf Drive Area: Surf Drive & Ridgewood Intersection. There are two vacant properties 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 ". -2- P15 • City of Cape Canaveral R -1 Low Density Residential Property Surf Drive South Side. Between #308 and #315 there appear to be two 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 #250 and a large, white building of undetermined use. This has 150 feet of frontage on Central. It might be "lot splitable ". Beyond the large, white building there are two homes at #112. 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. There 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- ri r � • 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 13 January 2010 397 Holman Road Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920 (321) 783 -8834 * 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- • add e� a5 pack 3Uin 0,1i Box 1086 • Cape Canaveral, FL • 32920 - 1086.321 -78 -8834 • em dmillinjdC ahoo.com Earl McMillin 1' o. p m � Master, Oceans, Unlimited Attorney 57 CW 95 Certified Pennsylvania, Admitted 1969 Port Canaveral Pilot (Retired) Florida, Admitted 1974 21 December 2009 lzzzey- -//z- DISTRIBUTION Katherine W. Latorre, Esq. mayor city Council v " Brown, Garganese, Weiss & D'agresta, P.A. City Mgr. 111 North Orange Avenue City Atty. L � Pub. Works Dir. V Suite 2000 Building Off. Orlando, Florida Financ`i /7 +� 32801 -2327 Y2/3 Scy 64delh.*s Re: City of Cape Canaveral, Ordinance No. 04 -2009 fz ® 9 Dear Ms. Latorre: As you know I have a keen interest, as do my Holman 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. Holiday best wishes, / , Earl McMillin Cc: City Manager /City Clerk Planning Official Building Official ti��4ccuR44, ; , Board Secretary �A 1 P`P rrr r1C� i n mativtq of Cape Canaveral, Planning m � o � S OE3a , 1121010 City p a , a ng &Zoning Boar Y1 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. Orijiin 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 30 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. Apo1ojy 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- f 10 C re 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 retained on the particular property and following a one hour storm in which 3" 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- Col 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 City Code create a Catch 22 for 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 City. 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- 1 la 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 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- 1 3 • 0 Wide Open Spaces? Cape Canaveral is almost fully developed. Is there a large inventory of available land that makes a lot split procedure a priority? The one area where it could be used appears to be is Southwest Corner of the City. 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—Cul-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." -6- Ca 15 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 did 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 McMillins, Earl McMillin had to run up to U.S. Highway Al A 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 McMillins, 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)." -7- Crof j 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 Habitat 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- irr Col .14 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 who has lived in the area the longest - - -for many 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 19 Century grave on it. -9- Pa. 18 *o/ ter/ 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 the 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. Proposal 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 property zoned for commercial use anywhere 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 A1A, changed the law. Special Exceptions for residential use of commercial property are no longer allowed in that unique area. -10- j 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 -11- • • Susan Chapman From: Barry Brown [brown- cape @cfl.rr.comj 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 @orlandolaw.net Cc: beazzycape @cfl.rr.com; famruss376 @cfi.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 owns 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 other division of land; and includes establishment of new streets and alleys, additions, and resubdivisions; and, when appropriate to the context, relates to the process of subdividing or to the lands or area 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 or, if a new street is involved, any division of a tract of land. The term `subdivision' includes resubdi vision and replotting, 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 part and of any local ordinances. FS 177.041, ... when the replat affects any boundary of the previous platted property or 01/08/2010 al when improvements whiay affect the boundary of the piously platted property have been made on the lands to be replatted. 177.011 Purpose and scope of part L- -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 recordin 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 Cape Canaveral, FL 32920. Res: 321- 783 -8367 • cell: 321 - 431 -5704 Fax 321 - 783 -9073 chartley @cf 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. 01/08/2010 r� 2a coo • January 2010 NEMIEMII 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. Sincerely Vito Caputo 39 n / T Pia a3 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- 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 -2- 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. Sincerely I Q J t AIL Charles Hartley K. en Hartley a6 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. Sincerely ( Gary Zajacb Carolyn Zajack p�. 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. Sincerely 60Ain- Conrad Wilson Lindsey Wilson P8 a8 L o � +, cu N O +� .d - p •.- N • • Q 0 p 62 �O S 0 4...0 �-d ,.. 0 = N r , O cn cn U al 'd r� +-. .r ;� co cd U pa Q U 0 a) on ct �� ° • o2 ti 0 0 3 a ) +. O cd U U (/� W A i o ,. o N O O v ° cd • 4 ° o ov O J Z V a b U N c v d 2 s O W W V o O o" o h ^, a o a' r' v1 a. Ce Z O wa) y U. j O � 4 v i c � a) t. < Z Q) 0 1■• 4 p a. ' ...0 ' 0 O 0 1 " C/] a•, u I. cd v V] ca U E - ' • a) U 6 W Ce a O D S V j O a o L.0. a) I-- = c .y a a 0 F ^0 a cl U --I W a LL 0 CO o Z Q .. O a V a, V 0 4, 3 TC) a) may �EII o a' a) a a'on U— + a a'U yy V i�1 'a qj p • ri . cd •-• .0 •-o } J . 5 .9 L. O cc: .V . 4 a . s a) o c o o ° o a 5 .... 3 rn 5 v , o a C% rn E .b i� c . ..0 o a ' W V Q • c 0 • E E ms ' • c a d 0 .0 0 aCI. a� o� 8 0 o a� a o V) 0 -- o �" y r , -' v cat el) w 0 .1 cat 0 al Wi ~ma o TA v, cd,� O Cd N +' p a��". p et W "� V >C O � a) o cQ 0 •..l Z b p er" p a) Q Q o U °" • o .1... o 16 w 0 CI U 0 a n T O p N p o O p p A 0 Q Z - -0 Q 2:). H °? W cd c..) v, .5 U0 J WQ a QO H o ■ U i_.„, O o 0.) O J a w at a U Q �v ILO W '� `� 6 as to 0 w oD A o a rl on. O 0 �W U c .y•!"! 3 a a ' - 6 § - 0 a,oraE 5 � 5 CL O O . g O N r > z 0 b.0 O 0 .0 " .--+ s, rz p r C: r+ .5. u ° C) 5 o p`., 45• ID ›,--- a) 0 ' �' +- ■ G' bA p 0 _ cs N 8 a) D U 10 . <1.) 0 c ' a d .. cd > 5 3 E ao > 4 ° o ac 2 . . 1) vi > v , 1 +' C... • > O — s ay . v i z +- aA ; - 4� 5 'Li TS O c ts • z S •.. - •,, ..-i ..r ,'�~_ p ,,� al • • > O d " '� W p 0 7 :J 4 0 0 . v v p to . - 0 [� cn v, E --4 N b ' C W N 1-4 " " "p U W N CI d p U • .-. 4, Pg c J� L a) o g .5 as (i) --'-: (A 0 cd v 4 0 v N • U 3 c . ca+ - p > 'A p O C6 Z in ' "0 a) a) (1, c O U r, � � 't3 U O 64 y O U a) U 0 Ci MI . -'+ V "45 V U a) a) c,) j ''' p cd � O 0 O p Q+ U) w > .� O ~^ O + b4 3-' 'C7 cn • U o cn N - ›, 2 p , al p V] Cd Cn � , b +. O LL Z +-.+ .� O•~ 4 5 . v� U y 0 O U id . m MI LLI I— H 0 6-- N � a) 2 5 -c -t Z.', , ' -a = w '41...,) '6 0a J a O � � C) F = O co rJ hi O o a 11—, 4 a 11J L. U LL w CO CIA z o 0 O a 0 . — O O �o�o ,- 0' 0 L. 0 �� >� 0 a 0 ; >,w °3 +' , `' moo 0 • 5 :.. . • -0 E — ag , T • 4 , czt U bo •,7 v '3 a. 0 a) as oA 5 �, o a) '" o a) L �' cd 03 � a • �, U � 0.4 i 4;1 -,-. •,--• ...5 0 ,g c d U ti to a) bA a) "L3 U a) g CI .4. � = 0 0 al0 o c • 0 o P.. o VI 4., 0 — a 0 o v o 0 0 0 0O a) 0 ( O 8 :4.4,4 a) O r4 0 E fs+ , a) (4 V] 'r3 A , cn t1 er n CQ cn c U cn Pa 3( L O • v 0 O e. O 4 • .2 •r. - .� 'C O , r V O to p f � ) t, Q. - a) Q.. 4 " " C7 ^• y 1 O 4.-. - • Q ° � • •,I 54 CA O cd C1.) a) 0 0 .1 40 > .0 154 al crl ° •3 • 0o cc ° 3 ..J Z a) o . - ,4 4, o - v t.. cd 1-r ° ° O 'd a) O g V y • j , U IX W W Z �� 0 3 O° V cd 0 o .� � - �sa ti .4 S 0U) a • E o Z ,. u,v 0 o ,> O 0 0 0 0 Q Z F— 0.' ° gH z Q �U •5 z z a as U 0 J W Ce O. CO .— al .5 Q H 0 o w al al) �a =—' a 0 - ›- I•• ' _ o • CJ c A F_ p 0 0 .. U J Q o a O p m 1 s 5 w a Z O O 0 0. 0 o cd �'4: Q a) 'w 4-1 a) 'C cd s-, O O " 4 ' • O O 4 0 a) ° cat - 0 Cil id a) 0 ° a) a) -. a) cd cd o 4, V] U ,. "Cy 2 1� a) > En F. 0 CI) r. o a, cu g cn o o a. • -. • O �' a) En a) w. > O a) cn c� > Q, 0 c.1 a) s , '_. 5 'rs cd o o- ' > ' 5 '> cn .O 4 2 - i • — 6 rn cd sa, c a) O O ° -0 E� H = . as -10 U � a, �, a cn i. Z Q. cn P W r; ( U _I z Q Z W 111 0 zQ 0 • < Z U6 J Q O H LL 0 ! °' H U U W O w m z 0 Ci) O C aa' LL U U 3 � ° O U N •