Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06-08-2005 LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY C MEETING MINUTES JUNE 8, 2005 A Local Planning Agency Meeting was held on June 8, 2005, at the City Hall Annex, 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Chairperson Bea McNeely called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. She introduced and welcomed Shawn Schaffner as a new member. The Secretary called the roll. MEMBERS PRESENT Bea McNeely Chairperson Leo Nicholas Vice Chairperson ;G Alice Filteau John Fredrickson Donald Dunn 1st Alternate Shawn Schaffner 2nd Alternate R MEMBERS ABSENT i Lamar Russell OTHERS PRESENT i i Susan Chapman Board Secretary Todd Peetz City Planner , Anthony Garganese City Attorney 1 Robert Hoog Mayor Pro Tern f Bennett Boucher City Manager Todd Morley Building Official i Chairperson McNeely outlined the rules of the meeting. 1 NEW BUSINESS: i 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes: May 25, 2005 Motion by Mr. Nicholas, seconded by Mr. Dunn to approve the meeting minutes of May 25, 2005. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. I OLD BUSINESS: 1. Recommendation to City Council: Proposed Ordinance No 08-2005 for j Transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs of a Lame Scale 4 Comprehensive Plan Amendment LS-CPA-05-02, Providing for Adoption of the j Future Land Use Map by Designating Certain Real Property Within the City, Containing 7.58 Gross Acres More or Less, and Located Generally Southeast of 5 Thurm Boulevard, from R-3 to C-1 - Rochelle Lawandales, Designated Agent for 1 j Mermaid Key LLC. Chairperson McNeely explained that this is a petition brought by an applicant. She pointed-out that this request was not a code change. The Board is an advisory board which makes recommendations to the City Council. She outlined different types of motions. She advised that the Board will consider whether or not the request is 1 consistent with the intent of the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. i : i t a 0 Local Planning Agency Meeting Minutes ! June 8, 2005 Page 2 1 J 1 Mr. Peetz, City Planner, outlined the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment / request. He advised that according to the City's Land Use map the property is currently 4 zoned R-3 multi-family residential. He explained that 113 residential units could be constructed on the property with the current zoning; the applicant desires to build a mixed use development; the property is currently surrounded by commercial retail to the North, vacant and residential to the South, commercial to the East, and single family residential to the West. He verified the level-of-service for parks and recreation, traffic, sanitary sewer, and solid waste. He noted that there are no known historical or archaeological resources on site. He advised that there is a small wetland on site and explained that the applicant would need to obtain a permit from St. Johns River Water I Management to build in the wetlands area. He advised that the City does not know at this point what is proposed to be built on the property. He outlined some of the permitted uses in C-1 and advised that adult entertainment is not allowed in the C-1 zoning district. J Mr. Pickles, Attorney representing the property owner, introduced Ms. Lawandales, the Designated Agent and Professional Planner for Mermaid Key LLC. He clarified his % request to change the order of the last meeting agenda. He explained that the City could 4 consider the idea of mixed-use developments before considering changing a specific land use designation on a certain piece of property. He advised that the City staff has reviewed the submittal requests. He pointed out that the applicant is not asking for all properties in the City that are currently zoned R-3 to be changed; the land use designation would need to be changed to C-1; 113 residential units could be constructed if the property remains R-3. He explained that if the intent of this property owner was to simply rezone his property to C-1, they would have requested the rezoning two years ago. He clarified that his client is requesting a mixed-use for both commercial and residential. Ms. Lawandales spoke about the Comprehensive Plan and it being a working document. She reiterated that the property can be developed R-3; they are asking the City to consider a new look and economic opportunity. She advised that mixed-use land uses are becoming more popular with a diversity type lifestyle. She I pointed out the existing land uses surrounding this property from the City's Future Land Use map. She noted that R-3 and C-1 zonings both have the same height limitations of 45 ft., and setbacks are more restrictive in the C-1 zoning district. She advised that the 1 property is located along A1A and Thurm Boulevard and is 7.58 acres. She explained a that three acres would remain R-3, and the current parcel zoned C-1 would remain C-1. Ms. Lawandales gave examples of existing mixed-use developments throughout the State. 9 Mr. Nicholas explained that the issue is to consider changing the zoning from R-3 residential to C-1 commercial, and the Board needs to consider if C-1 is compatible. He voiced his concern that the applicant is trying to combine the two agenda items. He explained that the property is located next to waterfront property which would allow anyone along the ocean and the river to do the same thing. Mr. Garganese, City y Attorney, explained that each request would need to be considered individually. He advised that the Board needs to look at and focus on this application and decide if it is compatible with the surrounding areas. He further advised that C-1 zoning under the code has a list of allowable uses. Chairperson McNeely pointed-out that the City has fought for years to keep its waterfront properties free of commercial uses. a , } 0 Local Planning Agency Meeting Minutes June 8, 2005 Page 3 Residents voiced their concerns about the City setting a precedent if this request is approved; traffic flow and congestion; safety; not being able to see what is proposed before making a recommendation; this property being located along a waterway; nothing preventing this property owner from building a hotel if the property is rezoned C-1; environmental impact; removal of Mangroves and hardwood trees; destroying wetlands rather than protecting them; and protecting what is in the best interest of the City and its residents. Discussion followed. Chairperson McNeely voiced her opinion that this request is not compatible with the area Mr. Dunn voiced his opinion that commercial uses should not be located anywhere along the water and explained that he is not against mixed use, but it does not belong on this property. Mr. Nicholas asked the Board to consider what is most beneficial to the City and did not believe that this waterfront property being rezoned commercial is in the best interest of the City. Ms. Filteau did not feel comfortable with the City shutting the door on mixed use and believed that an R-3 development with 113 units will create a traffic problem. Mr. Schaeffner advised that he does not support changing the zoning from residential to commercial. Brief discussion followed. Motion by Mr. Dunn, seconded by Mr. Nicholas to recommend denial of Proposed Ordinance #08-2005. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 2. Recommendation to City Council: Proposed Ordinance No. 09-2005 for Transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs of Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments, Amending the Future Land Use Element, Obiectives LU-3 and LU-8 - Policies, to Allow for Mixed-Use 1 Development - Rochelle Lawandales, Designated Agent for Mermaid Key LLC: and the City of Cape Canaveral. Mr. Peetz, City Planner, advised that the City is requesting the amendment to Objective LU-3, and the applicant is requesting the text amendment to Objective LU-8. He explained that the request from the City is to amend Objective LU-3 by adding Policy LU- 3.4 to clarify consistency with the City's special exception application requirements. Motion by Chairperson McNeely, seconded by Mr. Nicholas to recommend approval of proposed Text Amendment LU-3. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Peetz, City Planner, advised that this proposed Text Amendment to LU-8 was put forth by the applicant. Mr. Peetz read the proposed text changes. j Mr. Fredrickson questioned why the agenda items were not reversed, as requested by the applicant, at the last meeting. Mr. Peetz responded that the rationale behind the order of the agenda was so that everyone within 500 ft. of the property would have time to speak. He advised that the applicant can withdraw their request up to the time of adoption. Mr. Nicholas advised that there are no mixed-use developments in the City, and this request, brought by the applicant, is to allow mixed-use in the City. The Board members reviewed and held discussion regarding the proposed text. ' o i 3 0 i Local Planning Agency Meeting Minutes June 8, 2005 Page 3 i Due to the late hour, Chairperson McNeely asked for consensus of the Board members t to continue the meeting past 10:00 p.m., which requires a unanimous vote. Mr. Fredrickson agreed, Mr. Nicholas disagreed. 4 4 Motion by Ms. McNeely, seconded by Mr. Nicholas to deny Text Amendment LU-8. Vote I did not carry with (3) members voting against and (2)voting for the motion with members voting as follows: Mr. Dunn, against, Ms. Filteau, for; Mr. Fredrickson, against; Ms. McNeely, for, Mr. Nicholas, for. Discussion followed regarding the agenda item. Mr. Nicholas left the meeting at 10:10 p.m due to another commitment. Attorney Garganese pointed-out that the Board only makes a recommendation and advised that the City Council has the authority to take the application away from the Board if recommendation on a request is delayed by the Board. Ms. Lawandales, applicant, advised that the conditions discussed by the Board were agreeable. Motion by Mr. Dunn, seconded by Mr. Schaffner to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 p.m. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. t Ms. Filteau made a motion to recommend approval with certain conditions. The motion died for lack of a second vote. Discussion followed. Mr. Dunn suggested that the Applicant, and City Planner, clarify the words in the application. Mr. Pickles, Attorney for the applicant, responded that any more time delays would not be feasible for the Applicant. Discussion followed. Motion by Ms. Filteau, seconded by Chairperson McNeely, to recommend City Council h consider amending the text to Future Land Use Element, Objective LU-8 with the following revisions: • Policy LU-8.2 (3) read as follows: All commercial must be contained within 1/4 mile or less of the adjacent arterial roadway, but not within 300 feet of the Banana River, 1 or 2,500 ft. of the Atlantic Ocean shoreline. • Policy LU-8.2 (5) read as follows: The MUD shall be permitted by a special exception within the C-1 commercial zoning district contained within the City's land development regulations. • Policy LU-8.10 (h) read as follows: MUD's shall be required to submit a master development plan for all lands under common ownership to be included within the I MUD, although it may be developed in phases; and the property shall be maintained by the owners associations. ) j • The property must be a minimum of 7 1/2 acres. t' 1 • There shall be a executed Development Agreement. • The property use shall be a maximum of 80%/20% split. 1 Motion carried by a 3 to 2 majority vote as follows: Mr. Dunn, for; Ms. Filteau, for; Mr. Fredrickson, for; Ms. McNeely, against; Mr. Schaffner, against. 1 1 C a 1 Local Planning Agency 1 Meeting Minutes June 8, 2005 Page 4 1 IThe meeting ended at 10:26 p.m. A 7O-1-'t --- Yile/R-Z€3/ Bea McNeely, Chairperson NUIPI■" ►� Sus.n L. T. . , :.ar• Secretary i r j i J I I 1 i j 1 4 1 i A I 1 A A A A 4 I 1 i i 4 1