HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-12-2006 Regular MeetingCity of Cape Canaveral
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD REGULAR MEETING
CITY HALL ANNEX
111 POLK AVENUE
APRIL 12, 2006
7:30 P.M.
Call to Order
Roll Call
NEW BUSINESS
1.
Approval of Meeting Minutes: March 8, 2006.
2. Recommendation to City Council Re: Site Plan Approval for Atlantic Animal
Clinic, Block 36, Lots 1, 2, 9 & 10, Avon by the Sea Subdivision, (Property
located between Tyler and Harrison Avenues) - Allen Engineering, Applicant.
3. Discussion Re: Coastal High Hazard Committee Final Report - Todd Peetz, City
Planner.
OPEN DISCUSSION
ADJOURN
Pursuant to Section 286.1015, F.S., the City hereby advises the public that: If a person
decides to appeal any decision made by the Planning and Zoning Board with respect to
any matter rendered at this meeting, that person will need a record of the proceedings,
and for such purpose that person may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the
proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is to be based. This notice does not constitute consent by the City for the
introduction or admission into evidence of otherwise inadmissible or irrelevant evidence,
nor does it authorize challenges or appeals not otherwise allowed by law. This meeting
may include the attendance of one or more members of the Cape Canaveral City
Council, Board of Adjustment, Code Enforcement and /or Community Appearance Board
who may or may not participate in Board discussions held at this public meeting.
Persons with disabilities needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings
should contact the City Clerk's office at 868 -1221, 48 hours in advance of the meeting.
105 Polk Avenue • Post Office Box 326 • Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 -0326
Telephone: (321) 868 -1222 • SUNCOM: 982 -1222 • FAX: (321) 868 -1247
www.myflorida.com/cape • email: ccapecanaveral @cfl.rr.com
PEANNINT& ZONING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 8, 2006
A Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on March 8, 2006, at the
City Hall Annex,. 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Soar-dChairperson Bea
McNeely called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The Secretary called the roll.
All persons giving testimony were sworn in by Anthony Garganese, City Attorney.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Bea McNeely Chairperson
Lamar Russell Vice Chairperson
John Fredrickson
Donald Dunn
Harry Pearson
John Johanson 1st Alternate
OTHERS PRESENT
Susan Chapman Secretary
Todd Peetz City Planner
Anthony Gargane8e City Attorney
Robert Hoog Mayor Pro Tern
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Approval of Meeting Minutes: February 22, 2006.
Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by Donald Dunn to approve the meeting minutes of
February 22, 2006, as corrected. Vote on the motion carried unanimously.
2. Recommendation to the Board of Adjustment: Special Exception Request No.
06-01 to Allow Residential Use in the C-1 Zoning District, Section 14, Township
24 South, Range 37 East, Lot D, Part of Lots A & C and Part of Tract A, CM
Weston Subdivision, (8817 N. Atlantic Avenue) - Allen Engineering, Inc.,
Designated Agent for Don W. Applegate, Petitioner.
Todd Peetz, City Planner, advised that the property is the existing South Gate Mobile
Home Park, which is located South of Portside Villas, North of Sea Spray
Condominiums, and industrial to the West; there are 93 to 95 existing mobile homes on
the site; the Petitioner is proposing to construct 102 condominium units; and the property
is zoned C-1. He advised that a traffic study will be required.
Anthony Garganese, City Attorney, questioned the applicant if the owner had notified the
residents of the mobile home park, per Florida Statute requirements. He noted a recent
Florida Supreme Court Case and asked if the Board would consider tabling the item until
he could read the Florida Statute and court case regarding the notification requirement.
Scott Wiederman, the Petitioner's Attorney, responded that he did not believe notification
was required at this point of the process. He assured that the required notices would be
mailed to the residents at the appropriate time.
Motion by Lamar Russell, seconded by Harry Pearson, to table this Special Exception
Request temporarily. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. The Board went on to
the next agenda item. 41IP
Planning & Zoning Board
Meeting Minutes
March 8, 2006
Page 2
- After-the Board-completed the action on the next agenda ircm a motion was made by
Lamar Russell, seconded by Bea McNeely, to remove Special Exception Request No.
06-01 from the table. Vote on the motion carried unanimously.
Anthony Garganese, City Attorney, advised that it was appropriate for the Board to
proceed with the Special Exception request at this time. He verified that notification
requirements are not required at this point in the process for change of property use.
Donald Dunn advised that he was not satisfied with the answers made by the applicant
on the submitted application. He voiced his concern regarding the proposed ingress and
egress on Anchorage Avenue and the traffic going onto N. Atlantic Avenue; there is also
no deceleration lane or any turning lane proposed for those who turn right going south.
He further voiced his concern that none of the residents were invited to voice their views
regarding the request to change the use of the property from a trailer park to multi-family
condominiums. John Allen, Designated Agent, responded that all the answers to the
questions on the application are "yes". He advised that the use of the road is needed to
reduce the traffic on N. Atlantic Avenue, and there is an agreement to use the road.
Harry Pearson commented that the applicant should not refer to the submitted drawings
to answer the questions on the special exception worksheet. John Johanson questioned
if the fire department's comments were addressed. John Allen responded that they will
loop two of the streets to meet the fire department's requirement. He advised that they
realize that there are many hurdles after the use is approved. He affirmed that every
concern on the submitted preliminary site plan would be addressed during the site plan
review process. He submitted a proposed site plan layout (Exhibit A). Discussion
followed.
Shannon Roberts, Business and Cultural Development Board member, stated for the
record, that the Planning & Zoning Board should not recommend granting this request in
the spirit of research being performed by the Business and Cultural Development Board,
along with their recommendation that special exceptions for residential use in
commercial be denied. She added that the existing trailer parks are a part of the City's
heritage.
1 - David Langstrom, Villages of Seaport, questioned if this project would increase the
existing traffic congestion on N. Atlantic Avenue. Todd Peetz, City Planner, responded
that there would be 10 to 12 additional units. Discussion followed regarding the increase
of traffic on N. Atlantic and Anchorage Avenues. John Allen advised that as soon as the
power poles are moved, N. Atlantic Avenue was scheduled to be widened to
accommodate the existing traffic congestion. Discussion continued.
Motion by John Fredrickson, seconded by John Fredrickson, to recommend approval of
Special Exception Request No. 06-01. Vote on the motion was as follows: Donald
Dunn, against; John Fredrickson, for; Bea McNeely, for; Harry Pearson, against; Lamar
Russell, against. John Allen asked the Board members for the rationale of the negative
vote.
e
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
Meeting Minutes
•
March 8, 2006
Page-3
Donald Dunn advised that his reasons to vote against this request were as follows:
Many questions on the application were not answered; he has some doubts regarding
the ingress and egress on Anchorage Avenue, and the residents getting out onto N.
Atlantic Avenue; and none of the residents were invited to voice their views about this
request to change the use of the property from a trailer park to multi-family
condominiums.
Lamar Russell advised that his reasons to vote against this request were as follows:
Waiting on this development would give the City a chance to get ahead of the traffic
increase by reconstructing N.. Atlantic Avenue; the City needs to address the constant
uncertainty of whether or not a residential special exception will be granted (a
speculation, not a vested right) by eliminating the residential special exception in the
commercial zone, this constant flow of special exception requests would then stop. If
different zoning is desired, then the applicant would then be requesting a straight
forward zoning change. Harry Pearson commented that he agreed. He added that
residential would be a good use for this property, but should go through the rezoning
process.
Bea McNeely advised that her reasons to vote for this request were as follows: The
property already has an existing residential use and the request would add only a few
additional units; the requested residential use is compatible with the surrounding
residential area; the Petitioner presented a well thought out concept; the property
already has access to N. Atlantic Avenue; the access concern by fire trucks were
addressed by adding a looped road. She questioned why the applicant should do a time
consuming and expensive rezoning process when the mechanism for a special
exception is allowed by the City code for the same thing.
John Johanson, alternate Board member, commented that the residential use already
exists; the Petitioner is not asking to increase only a small number of units than what is
existing; the project engineer is trying to minimize traffic on N. Atlantic Avenue by
utilizing Anchorage Avenue. He questioned if the members who voted against this
request would approve the use by the applicant rezoning the property, then why do they
not consider this a good project today; special exceptions for residential use in the
commercial zone has been allowed by the City Code for 20 years.
John Fredrickson inquired if the Special Exception to construct condominiums to replace
the existing Oak Manor Trailer Park was approved. Todd Peetz, City Planner,
responded that the request was approved approximately five months ago. Lamar
Russell stated that he has stopped granting special exceptions for residential use.
Discussion followed regarding traffic on N. Atlantic Avenue. John Allen reiterated that N.
Atlantic Avenue will be widened when the power poles are moved. Councilman Hoog
advised that City Council approved a $95,000 engineering study from George King
Boulevard to Central Boulevard.
0-v
•
—' —
Planning & Zoning Board
• Meeting Minutes
March 8, 2005
Page 4
3. Recommendation to the Board of Adjustment: Special Exception Request No.
06-02 to Allow Residential Use in the C-1 Zoning District, Section 23, Township
• 24 South, Range 37 East, Lots 4-8, Block 1, Avon by the Sea Subdivision -
(Washington Avenue) - Ken Wilson, Designated Agent for L. Joyce Carlton,
Petitioner.
Todd Peetz, City Planner, gave an overview of the request. He advised that the property
is located on the southwest corner of Poinsetta and Washington Avenues, and
surrounded by residential. He explained that the Petitioner was proposing to construct
eight townhouse units in one building, but the length of the building exceeds the
maximum length allowed by code, therefore, only seven units could be constructed. The
Board members reviewed the submitted preliminary site plan.
Ken Wilson, Designated Agent for the Petitioner, discussed the setback requirements.
He stated that he was not aware of the 185 ft. maximum length requirement. Todd
Peetz explained that he needs to reduce the length by 31 ft. He advised that the project
is compatible with surrounding uses; the property will be nicely landscaped; commercial
would not be compatible with the surrounding uses; he has performed a tree survey; the
property has one 27" Oak tree that may need to be removed; the project will have a
Homeowners Association; the project is townhomes, not condominiums. He verified that
he wants the Special Exception to run with the property.
Bea McNeely, Chairperson, suggested that the front entrances be placed closer to the
street to make the project look nicer.
Shannon Roberts, Business and Cultural Development Board Member, questioned if the
surrounding residents were notified of this Request. The Board Secretary verified that
proper notices were sent in compliance with the City Code. Ms. Roberts asked if the
City is still approving Special Exceptions in the C-1 zoning district. Lamar Russell
clarified that this request is for residential use in the C-1 zoning district. He stated that it
is time to stop granting Special Exceptions for residential in commercial. He advised
that if a property wants residential in commercial then they should rezone.
Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by Donald Dunn, to recommend approval of Special
Exception Request No. 06-02 to the Board of Adjustment. Vote on the Motion was as
follows: Donald Dunn, for; John Fredrickson, for; Bea McNeely, for; Harry Pearson, for;
and Lamar Russell, against. Motion passed 4 to 1 vote.
4. Discussion Re: Evaluation and Appraisal Report Process - Todd Peetz, City
Planner.
Todd Peetz, City Planner, provided a time line and proposed process for community
involvement for the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR).
5�
Planning & Zoning Board
Meeting Minutes
March 8, 2006 •
Page 5
The timeline-nutlined-thrA -wnrkchops that-would=have rf-inforr . - tfe kcy plan
elements would be set-up and arranged in different parts of the room. It would be an
open door format from 5:00 to 8:00 p.m. where people could provide input at each
station. They would be asked to provide three to five things they like about the issue at
hand and three to five things they least liked about the issue. Then they would move on
to the next topic and provide input. The various volunteer City Boards were encouraged
to be made aware of the meetings so they could provide input and have questions that
they would like to get feedback on.
The schedule discussed was as follows:
1st workshop - May 2006 - Community Information Gathering
2nd workshop - September/October 2006 - Provide then and now data (1999-
2006)
3rd workshop - January/February 2007 - Provide draft of proposed changes for
public comment and feedback.
March/April 2007 - P & Z approval
June/July 2007 - City Council approval
August 2007 - EAR due to DCA
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:57p.m.
Bea McNeely, Chairperson
Susan L. Chapman, Secretary
CO
Meeting Type: Planning&Zoning
Meeting Date:4/12/06
AGENDA
Heading Site Plan
Item #2
No.
AGENDA REPORT
THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL
•
SUBJECT: Atlantic Animal Clinic—Site Plan
DEPT./DIVISION: Building Department
Requested Action:
Review and recommend to City Council the proposed site plan for Atlantic Animal Clinic.
Summary Explanation&Background:
This request is for a site plan to construct a 4,060 square foot Animal clinic office building.
The site is located on the east side of AlA,.between Tyler and Harrison Avenues.
Exhibits Attached:
1) Application by applicant
2) Information provided by applicant
3) Site report by staff
4) Staff review comments
Planning Official's Office Department
APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIE
W
FEE: SD--- -- -- __
DATE: 1Z- •
PROJECT NAME: !,t C_.. G 41.E I NI . (_.- L �
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: .
A
OWNER(S) NA'4LE: i
OWNER(S) ADDRESS:
0 se. ^4.J er-• L_- 2/ o
PHONE NUMBER: tjr,
NAM OF ARCHITECT!ENGLNEER.: / ,
A. erlA
PHONE NUMBER: 3Z( - -7c�
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE:
OWER • AGENT
PHONE N UMBER:
1/95
SITE PLAN APPROVAL r F RMATION
SITE PLAN APPROVAL, PROCEDURE;
Step 1. . Site-Plan Submittal and Review-Required:
-_ -- - —
SZ New commercial building dingy or structure.
New residential structures with three or more dwelling
units?
Commercial additions exceeding 850 square feet?
If yes has been checked on any of the above, a site plan submittal and review
is required.
Step 2. Submit five (5) copies of the site plan signed and sealed by a
Professional Engineer, licensed in the State of Florida along with a
filing fee to the Building Department 30 days prior to the Planning and
Zoning Board meeting. (The Board meets the 2nd and 4th Wednesday
of every month.) .
The Building Department shall distribute the site plans to the following
departments and return comments to the applicant within 10 days of its
submittal.
1. City Engineer
2. Building Department
3. Fire Official
4. Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(if appropriate)
Step 3. The applicant shall return nine (9) copies of the revised site plan along
with written responses to all comments at least seven (7) days prior to
a Planning and Zoning meeting.
Step 4. Compliance with Stormwater Concurrency Management.
Step 5. The Building Department will return one (1) copy of the site plan to the
applicant marked with the Board's approval subject to contingencies (if
applicable.)
SITE PLAN CHECKLIST
-- LA3 INFpi TION: -
Yes No N.A.
Size, height, number of units and location of proposed and
existing structures.
Dimensions .
Total gross area andercentaQ
p �e devoted to structures,
parking and landscaping.
✓ Number of units
Number of parking spaces and loading zone.,s
P 4
Traffic flow diagram
✓ Density (units per acre)
/ Location and dimension for the following areas:
✓ Park(s)
Canal(s)
✓ WaterKav(s)
Boat slip(s)
Parking
Swimming pools)
Driveway(s)
Recreation
�0
SITE PLAN CHECKLIST (CONTINUED)
PAGE 2
1'
K
Trashl
✓ Sidewalks
c/ Dune crossovers
✓ Other (specify)
✓ Type of enclosure for communal trash container(s)
Fire alarm and standpipe data
✓
Vicinity map
Location of planned landscaping.
Finished grades for the followinz:
Entire parcel
Finished floors
✓ Streets
✓ Parking Iots
Sidewalks
✓ 10" of adjoining. property
Details. sections and specifications
✓ Street lights
Water and sewer
II '
SITE PLAN CHECKLIST CONTL SDI
PA E3
Yes
t/ _________
Paving and drainage
/
Curbs
Storm drains
Sidewalks
Engineer's seal on drawings
Sauare footage of building areas
1./ Living
Parking
Other_./ ____ _______
(specify) ( '5P.
Total under roof
Reuuired notes:
✓ Sidewall:
and sanitary sewers to be constructed to City of
Cape Canaveral standards
_Z._ ______
Water -lines to conform to City,of Cocoa standards
Fire alarm system to be installed and connect to City of
Cape Canaveral Fire Department standards
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
USC and G.S. datum plane
I/ Existing street lights
0
Page l of l
41 H
u i
I
,Alika x a !
43 k ,
fib.
J
, 4,,..,.. 4,
,., K;„,, - `,: ,„' , .., 4.. esax. ' id 66
*. a
'Itt 1 47**6 1 1)1
Ato
0
http://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.com/scripts/esrimap.dll?name=Brevardl&id=200604... 4/4/2006
Page 1of1
aloe9.14, CFA
rty Appraiser Map. Search
264.1 —
" __________ - -
r 5 6 7 1
-1 1 __
—
289 +C`0
11 13 14 9
3>_....
z
‘kQQZ`sd,r` Aqc(— -
;T N
Li 3 4 5 5 7 8 1
'. ST. S 7 _ 1
7,/ .0112 13 14 15 16 9
271 270 290 269 % I - --_-
{121 G1_8 134 _ A I
1 4 5 7 1.0
4
9 13.0114 I= i 9
I
G
http://www.brevardproperryappraiser.com/scripts/esrimap.dll?name=Brevard1&id=200604... 4/4/2006
Page l of l
ForForfts SFA
' la,,, ®„ a! fr likt a W.a 2.1 °Aiyi Ap k s.e r - ['inapt - ..
-- — — —
-' ` \ _1 I \ L C__ —
..- Y
p
H#TrxN T1fiK41 OR I III lU
—11 ca
"'
-L __F- 9 NIM ME . —
1111 -
,`ff IS`t
171 IMIiii ibi '\ CARVERBT H _ — -�
1,41k1 i
I11 KA',�, IIu
sx p,; x HITCHING PONT PC, I _ ^ I _ I
__,_____IL:1— L—
.' 1,10;fr (--
RITCHIE,AV _ =_ I 1
qVtr g,
.01,,,,L1H I — T419_ f2.�.ti' _
I T1
�x. .- , �I _ _
i 'F1LLMOR.E kV }
lel ( 11 �--r=- II 4__L____
I L1I1--
I
I
0
http://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.com/scripts/esrimap.dll?name=Brevard 1&id=200604... 4/4/2006
City of Cape Canaveral
Site Plan
Atlantic Animal Clinic
Applicant: Atlantic Animal Clinic
Location: Range: 37E Township: 24S Section: 23
Existing Acreage: .57 Acres
Current Future Land Use: Commercial C-1
Current Zoning: Commercial C-1
Description:
The applicant, Atlantic Animal Clinic is relocating one block north between Tyler and
Harrison Avenues on AlA and has a special exception for a veterinary clinic.
North South East West
Zoning Cl Commercial Cl Commercial Cl Commercial Astronaut Blvd.
(A1A)
Comp Plan Cl Commercial Cl Commercial Cl Commercial Astronaut Blvd.
(A1A)
Existing Retail Store Existing Atlantic Residential Astronaut Blvd.
Conditions Animal Clinic (Al A)
Public Services and Facilities in Amendment Area:
The Level of Service for parks and recreation is one (2) acres of park land per 1,000
residents. Approximately twenty-four (24) acres of park land exist in Cape Canaveral.
This equates to a population of approximately 12,000 residents. The proposed special
exception for the sale of alcoholic beverages will have no burden or negative affect on
parks and recreation.
AlA is operating at Level of Service "A" with 283 available peak hour trips between
North City Limits to Central Blvd. AlA from Central Blvd to North Atlantic has a level
of Service is "A"with 325 excess trips. The peak hour trips for a clinic is 8 trips
The City of Cape Canaveral provides wastewater treatment. The wastewater treatment
capacity is 1.8 million gallons per day (MGD). The existing usage is 1.26 MGD with an
excess capacity of .54 MGD. The proposed veterinary clinic will have no burden or
negative affect on wastewater treatment.
The City of Cocoa has a total capacity of 56 MGD and currently provides 48 MGD.
Approximately 24.4 MGD of water is being used on an average daily basis, leaving 23.6
MGD available. The proposed veterinary clinic will have no burden or negative affect on
water.
does not foresee any deficiency_with their solid waste facilities_
Environmental Description of Amendment Area:
The site has Ga- Galveston urban land complex soil which is well-drained sandy soil that
has been reworked. There are no known wetlands, floodplains or endangered species on
site.
Historical and Archaeological Resources in Amendment Area:
There are no known historical or archaeological resources on site.
Population Projections and Trends:
The proposed special exception for a veterinary clinic will have no burden or negative
affect on population projections and trends.
•
MEMORANDUM
To: Todd Morley, Building Official
From: Todd Peetz, City Planner
Date: March 28, 2006
Subj: Atlantic Animal Clinic Site Plan
The following contains comments pertaining to the Atlantic Animal Clinic and the
intentions of the applicant to develop a 4,060 sq. ft., two-story veterinary clinic with
associated parking and utilities. The proposed site plan is consistent with the land
development code with the following exceptions with explanation. These exceptions are
permitted with a special waiver that is granted by the City Council Section 102-42.
1. The driveway separation from edge of intersection to initial driveway entrance
seems nonconforming in accordance with distance width, proper stacking, turn-
radius and access management requirements. The applicant wishes to be exempt
from the 30 foot separation requirement. The applicant has stated that meeting
the 30 foot separation requirement would result in the removal of an existing 36"
oak tree. The submitted site plan indicates that the existing 36" oak tree is
approximately six to seven feet from the proposed driveway. The applicant has
stated that the driveway separation from the edge of the intersection to initial
driveway entrance is approximately 28 feet, or two feet short of the required 30'
separation.
2. The applicant wishes to be exempt from the parking requirements. The proposed
building would require 14 parking spaces plus one additional handicapped space.
The applicant is proposing 13 parking spaces plus one additional handicapped
space. The applicant has stated that adding an additional parking space would
require the removal of the existing 36" oak tree.
3. There is a large tree that is growing more sideways than vertical and it appears to
be one of the mature trees in the parking islands in the front of the building. The
plan has done an excellent job of saving existing trees and providing new trees for
the site. If a tree that is 24" or greater needs to be removed, then it can only be
granted by the City Council. The applicant has stated that the tree growing
sideways is being reviewed by a certified arborist and a report will be submitted
on its condition.
All three of these comments can be addressed by special waiver and granted by City
Council.
Sec. 102-42. Special waiver provision.
In furtherance of tree protection and preservation and the related public purposes stated in
section 102-37 of this di • • . 1 .- • . • -1 u . -4 -- . imited waip ver-from
any provision o t e city s an. .eve opment_or zoning code upon submitting a written
zoning board, the city council may grant the waiver under the following conditions:
(a) The waiver may be granted during the site plan review process. Such waiver shall be
at the city council's sole discretion on a case-by case basis.
(b) The waiver must directly result in the preservation of a hardwood tree (e.g. oak)
and/or the implementation of an extraordinary landscape plan that goes well beyond the
minimum requirements of the City Code including, but not limited to, planting additional
and larger plant materials and trees,planting premium A-grade plants and trees,
incorporating decorative hardship features into the landscape design (e.g. fountains,
decorative fences and walls, trellises, lighting, etc.), and planting premium A-grade plant
materials and trees on public property.
(c) The waiver is compatible with the surrounding area and the minimum waiver
required to serve the public purpose stated herein.
(d) No waiver shall be granted which changes the list of permitted, conditional, special
exception, or prohibited uses or height restrictions set forth in any zoning district
category.
(e) The waiver must be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan.
(f) The waiver is not adverse to the public health, safety and welfare.
(g) Any waiver granted under this section shall automatically expire and be declared
null and void if the underlying development order for the project expires.
(Ord. No. 05-2005, § 2, 4-19-05)
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 407-629-8880.
Iq
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Morley,
--- ;lit s ng i ic-a -
TO: Todd Peetz
City Planner
FROM: Ed Gardulski
Public Works Director
DATE: April 4, 2006
RE: Animal Clinic
Site Plan Review, final
The Public Works Department has reviewed the above stated project and all
previously comments has been addressed. The Public Works Department does not have
any further comments or concerns.
2
CAPE CANAVERAL VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, INC.
Serving the city of Cape Canaveral & Canaveral Port Authority
Plan Review
To: Todd Peetz, City Planner
From: Shannon McNally, Fire Inspector
Re: Atlantic Animal Hospital
Site Plan Review
Date: 03/24/06
I have reviewed the plans and find that they meet the fire departments requirements at
this time.
� a
Station#1 Station#2
190 Jackson Avenue • Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920 8970 Columbia Road • Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920
(321) 783-4777 • Fax: (321) 783-5398 (321) 783-4424 • Fax: (321) 783-4887 4110
www.ccvfd.org
ckSC
March 29, 2006 J V\` SSA�
Mr. Todd Peetz a� ,xs-GG�
Miller-Legg &Associates A�L1;ER�,p,.t '
Suite-200--
Winter Park, FL 32789
. RE: Site Plan —Atlantic Animal Clinic - Review#2 •
SSA Job No. 05-0025, Task 017-1004
Dear Mr. Peetz:
SSA has reviewed the above-referenced project and based on our review, SSA recommends
said plan for approval.
This review does not relieve the applicant from other local, state, and federal agencies having
jurisdiction over the project site. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please
do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Stottler Stagg & Associates
Architects, Engineers, Planners, Inc.
John A. Pekar, PE Andy irbach, PE
Sr. Vice President- City Engineer Project Engineer
City Engineer's Review Fee for Review#2—NIA
NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL FEES
As this project is being reviewed.under the original.City contract,
Engineering Fees for all reviews after 2nd review will be billed at $95.00 per hour.)
STOTTLER STAGG & ASSOCIATES ARCHIIECTS ENGINEERS PLANNERS,INC.
8680 North Atlantic Avenue P.O.Box 1630 Cape Canaveral,Florida 32920 Tel 321-783-1320 Fax 321-783-7065
J:ICIVILIProjects1CAPE11-atlantic animal review 2 APPROVAL.doc Lk.#AAC000329 #EB0000762 #LB0006700
Meeting Type: Planning&Zoning
Meeting Date:04/12/06
AGENDA
Heading Discussion Coastal High
Hazard Committee Final
Report
•-__ — — — — Item #3
No.:AGENDA REPORT
PLANNING& ZONING BOARD
THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL
SUBJECT: Discussion—Overview of Coastal High Hazard Committee Final Report
DEPT./DIVISION: Building Department
Requested Action:
Discussion on the Coastal High Hazard Committee Final Report February 1,2006.
Summary Explanation&Background:
The Coastal High Hazard Report discusses changes to how the state should consider land uses in the coastal high hazard areas. The
intent is to protect health, safety,welfare and property. Many of the proposed changes will affect what we do here in the City and the
overview is to keep the Planning and Zoning Board current with evolving and proposed legislation.
Exhibits Attached:
1) Coastal High Hazard Committee Final Report February 1,2006
Planning Official's Office Department
0
•
•
Final Report
February 1, 2006
COASTAL HIGH HAZARD STUDY COMMITTEE
FINAL REPORT- FEBRUARY 1, 2006
• Thaddeus Cohen, of Tallahassee, Secretary, Department of Community Affairs.
• Colleen Castille, of Tallahassee, Secretary, Department of Environmental
Protection.
• Denver Studer, of Tallahassee, Secretary, Department of Transportation.
• Ken Haddad, of Tallahassee, Executive Director, Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission.
• Craig Fugate, of Tallahassee, Director, Division of Emergency Management,
Department of Community Affairs.
• Dr. Rony Francois, of Tallahassee, Secretary, Department of Health.
• Kevin McCarty, of Tallahassee, Commissioner, Office of Insurance Regulation,
Department of Financial Services.
• Dr. Pam Dana, of Tallahassee, Director, Office of Tourism, Trade, and
Economic Development.
• Charlie Clary, of Destin, member of the Florida Senate.
• Holly Benson, of Pensacola, member of the Florida House of Representatives.
• Raul L. Rodriguez, of Miami, President, Rodriguez & Quiroga Architects
Chartered.
• Ronnie Duncan, of Tarpon Springs, Pinellas County Commissioner.
• Robert Godwin, of Winter Park, President, Standard Pacific Homes.
• Gary Appleson, of Gainesville, Policy Coordinator, Caribbean Conservation
Corporation.
• Joseph Formusa, of Tampa, Senior Vice President, State Farm Insurance
Company.
• Don Donaldson, of Fort Pierce, Director, Martin County Engineering
Department.
• Larry Schultz, of Rockledge, Mayor, City of Rockledge.
• Linda Cherry, of Tallahassee, President, Cherry Communications Company.
• William Buzzett, of Seagrove Beach, Vice President of Strategic Planning, The
St.Joe Company.
I
Page 2
COASTAL HIGH HAZARD STUDY COMMITTEE
FINAL REPORT-- FEBRUARY 1, 2006
•
v.:ccasc:ccv:v:v:9 --
In 2005, the population of the State of Florida was estimated to be approximately 16
million people and projected to increase to nearly 25 million by the year 2025.
Florida's 825 miles of sandy coast is an attractive asset, with an estimated 80% of
residents living within 10 miles of the coast and 35 million visitors coming to the State
each year.
Hurricanes also are a fact of life in Florida. Florida has the greatest probability of any
state in the nation to experience the landfall of a major — Category 3 or higher —
hurricane. During the past two years, Florida has experienced an unprecedented level
of tropical storm activity. In 2004, Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan and Jeanne
impacted our State. Hurricanes Dennis, Katrina, Rita and Wilma came ashore in
Florida in 2005. The total value of residential and commercial properties along
Florida's coastline is fast approaching $1 trillion, and property damage from
hurricanes and coastal storms has been in the billions of dollars. The State continues
to seek ways to mitigate future storm damage to its coastal resources.
On September 7, 2005, Governor Jeb Bush issued Executive Order 05-178, creating
the Coastal High Hazard Study Committee (Committee). The Committee is charged
with studying and formulating recommendations for managing growth in Coastal
High Hazard Areas (CHHA), which are defined as the Category 1 hurricane
evacuation zones. The 19-member Committee includes State Senator Charlie Clary
and State Representative Holly Benson; the Secretaries of the Florida Departments of
Community Affairs, Environmental Protection, Health and Transportation; the
Executive Director of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; the
Director of the Division of Emergency Management; the Commissioner of the Office
of Insurance Regulation, and the Director of the Office of Tourism, Trade and
Economic Development. In addition, the Committee has members representing the
Florida Building Commission; the Florida League of Cities; the Florida Association of
Counties; the Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association; the insurance
industry; an environmental advocacy entity; property owners; and home builders.
The Committee conducted meetings around the State: St. Petersburg (November 15-
16, 2005), Ft. Lauderdale (December 12-13, 2005), Ft. Myers (January 5-6, 2006),
Pensacola (January 19-20, 2006), and Tallahassee (January 27, 2006). The Committee
served as a forum for identifying and recommending land use policies that safeguard
the public from natural hazards, protect property rights, preserve coastal ecosystems
Page 3
2(0
COASTAL HIGH HAZARD STUDY COMMITTEE
FINAL REPORT- FEBRUARY 1 , 2006
--- 'WYnatf7..rai a WAN■1' STAIR iI1ifSra\i[.lMEM zI - . _QTS ►_TTS _• -•—=?�rl�- =- _-_- -m.`-- _-
management; public infrastructure; insurance; building design, construction, safety;
and the environment. In addition, the Committee received public comment both at
its meetings and in writing.
Tropical Events and Florida's Coast
A hurricane is an intense tropical cyclone, which generally forms in the tropics and is
accompanied by thunderstorms and (in the northern Hemisphere) a counterclockwise
circulation of winds. Tropical cyclones are classified based on their intensity as
follows:
• Tropical Depression: An organized system of clouds and thunderstorms with
a defined surface circulation and maximum sustained winds of 38 miles per
hour (mph) or less. Sustained winds are defined as a 1-minute average wind
measured at about 33 feet (10 meters) above the surface.
• Tropical Storm: An organized system of strong thunderstorms with a defined
surface circulation and maximum sustained winds of 39-73 mph.
• Hurricane: An intense tropical weather system of strong thunderstorms with a
well-defined surface circulation and maximum sustained winds of 74 mph or
higher. Using the Saffir-Simpson scale, hurricanes are further classified as
follows:
✓ Category 1: sustained winds between 74 and 95 mph;
✓ Category 2: sustained winds between 96 and 110 mph;
✓ Category 3: sustained winds between 111 and 130 mph;
✓ Category 4: sustained winds between 131 and 155 mph; and
✓ Category 5: sustained winds over 155 mph.
In addition to high winds, hurricanes can produce inland flooding, which accounts
for more than half of reported deaths; tornadoes; and storm surge. Storm surge is a
rise in water level that is pushed toward the shore by the force of the winds generated
by the storm. Water level also rises due to reduced atmospheric pressure. This
advancing surge combines with the normal rides to create the hurricane storm tide,
which can increase the mean water level 15 feet or more.
As noted previously, Florida has an extensive coastline and is susceptible to tropical
cyclones. Tropical cyclones pose a risk to development, people and property.
Page 4
•
COASTAL HIGH HAZARD STUDY COMMITTEE
FINAL REPORT-- FEBRUARY 1, 2006
■=■ OLI ►s:_ov. r
=II nit rwTrsr=rssr��r_rwr_�iS - - _ - - - ---_ --- --- __-_-_-_
= = ====- _ —____--=--v_ .__._-L.- =«:- .i ce-r.�.i45=�e�����:.ii��.��.w�.w..�.w�.�w..• -' ..�.�...... ...w -
system, featuring preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation. This system
earned Florida the distinction of being the first nationally accredited state emergency
management program.
Another key component of Florida's efforts to protect its coast is its growth
management system. Since 1985's growth management legislation, all counties and
municipalities must adopt a comprehensive plan that is in compliance with the
requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and the minimum criteria of Rule
9J-5, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). These plans must obtain State approval
by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). Comprehensive plans are required
to contain elements that address future land use, housing, transportation, public
facilities and services, conservation, recreation and open space, intergovernmental
coordination, and capital improvements. Coastal communities (35 counties and 160
municipalities) are required to prepare a separate coastal management element (Rule
9J-5.012, F.A.C.). While Florida's growth management legislation has been refined
since its initial adoption in 1985, the Coastal Management Element (along with the
related elements in each local government's comprehensive plan) remains the primary
local government tool for guiding coastal development. This occurs within a
framework of other State laws and regulations, some of which also influence
development of private land and the development of public infrastructure within
hazardous coastal areas.
Another State law affecting coastal development is Chapter 161, F.S., Part I of which
is administered by the Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems in the Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP), and addresses the planning, management and
regulation of activities along the sandy beaches fronting the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of
Mexico and Straits of Florida. Part II of Chapter 161, F.S., authorizes coastal counties
to act as local beach and shore preservation authorities, establish taxing districts and
otherwise coordinate activities necessary to further protection of the beach and
coastal system. Part III primarily establishes a structure for more protective local
requirements in building or zoning codes, requires disclosure upon sale of property
seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL), and provides for local
control of vehicle traffic on the beach. The DEP, through the Office of Coastal and
Aquatic Managed Areas, also has administrative responsibility for the Florida Oceans
and Coastal Council, established by Part IV of Chapter 161, F.S.
Page 5
COASTAL HIGH HAZARD STUDY COMMITTEE
FINAL REPORT-- FEBRUARY 1, 2006
The CCCL rcpicse - :. — - . .. .
--.- -_._.._ 44m•y�i:/3.lT:i� [i�T•T.^iT.1 --- - 's�Te� _ dV . _... _ - -
Florida State University was contracted to re-establish the lines using a storm tide
model developed at the University of Florida by Dr. T.Y. Chiu_and Dr. Robert Dean.
All 25 coastal counties with sandy beaches had the CCCL reestablished by DEP rule
between 1981 and 2001.
The Committee represents one more tool in Florida's progressive efforts to protect
and manage its coastal resources. During its deliberations, the Committee determined
there are opportunities to augment and enhance Florida's current policy framework
and implementation. The following is an overview of the specific issues and
challenges identified by the Committee followed by recommendations for potential
solutions and policy considerations.
Recommendations and Policy Considerations
The discussion provided below presents the Committee's recommendations and
policy considerations in two sections. Section I recommendations focus on
improvements to technical resources through consistent modeling and high quality
data sets needed to supply greater scientific certainty in delineating areas impacted by
major coastal weather events and how that information defines the hurricane
evacuation area, including the CHHA, and impacts programs within the CHHA.
Improvements to technical resources and clear definitions will establish the
framework to accurately assess in part the utility of the policy considerations in
Section II. The Committee proposes to the Governor and Legislature that any
legislative changes necessary to implement Section I recommendations be
commenced this 2006 Legislative Session and implemented within State fiscal year
2006-2007.
Due to a need for improvements to technical resources and sheer complexity of the
issues, several of the policy considerations in Section II will require significant analysis
and refinement. Therefore, the Committee proposes to the Governor and Legislature
that the policy considerations in Section II are concepts worthy of further exploration.
Section I — Recommendations for 2006 Legislative Session Action
Recommended Improvements to Technical Resourres
Issue 1: A consistent methodology for modeling the impacts of hurricanes on coastal
Page 6
COASTAL HIGH HAZARD STUDY COMMITTEE
FINAL REPORT- FEBRUARY 1 , 2006
•
Explanation: At present, the hurricane evacuation zones depicted in the
regional Hurricane Evacuation Studies (HES) are based on storm surge
boundaries partly defined through use of the Sea Lake and Overland Surges
from Hurricanes (SLOSH) model developed by the National Hurricane Center.
While there are other models in use, it appears that SLOSH is the most
commonly used model and at the present time best serves the State's needs. In
order to establish a uniform standard throughout the State, the Division of
Emergency Management (DEM) recommends use of the same storm surge
model that the National Hurricane Center uses for determining storm surge
vulnerability. Consistent modeling requires standardized data collection and
the model results are dependent on the data supplied. The use of LIDAR
(Light Detection and Ranging) as a data collection methodology would provide
the SLOSH model with high quality intense data sets that could serve multiple
modeling purposes. Implementation of the SLOSH model with improved data
will provide a more accurate depiction of the areas actually subject to surge and
the extent of potential flooding.
LIDAR is a much more accurate method of determining the elevations of land
and near shore coastal features. The data is gathered via plane flying over an
area with a laser which sends and receives the laser from the plane. LIDAR
surveys can provide much greater accuracy than conventional survey methods.
GPS is used to further define the location of the aircraft and thus the point at
which the elevation measurement is taken. The current SLOSH model grids
are based upon older data with less accuracy. LIDAR data can improve the
base elevation data in the SLOSH and therefore provide more accurate SLOSH
model outputs.
Recommendation: In order to establish a uniform standard in Florida, use
the storm surge modeling tool that the National Hurricane Center (NHC) uses
for determining storm surge vulnerability and base this data on the most
accurate resolution for digital elevation mapping. The current tool is the
SLOSH model. In the event that the NHC changes tools, the DEM should
update to remain consistent with the NHC.
Issue 2: The HESs currently date from 1994 through 2004, and are updated on a
rotating basis. Typically, the studies are contracted for by DEM and are performed by
a variety of contractors including Regional Planning Councils (RPCs) and private
Page7
30
COASTAL HIGH HAZARD STUDY COMMITTEE
FINAL REPORT-- FEBRUARY 1, 2006
ntl$u • r• • • . •
- �iniuw:�cir.ww�:ww� •■au•uv. ra�•c�nr•c.u�ws.c.a r-�•_c�cc�c:►.a:: cc •rr_��rcrrrse�srr_w_sr
also does not provide for a regular schedule of updates, a consistent methodology,
and a designated responsible entity.
Explanation: The HESs provide technical and demographic data for counties
and regions so that evacuation characteristics can be better understood. In
addition to defining the Category 1 through 5 evacuation zones, the studies
provide local jurisdictions with an analysis of the evacuation roadway network
and identify critical links in the evacuation process that should be addressed
before an evacuation commences. Because Florida's coastline is continually
changing due to the impacts of hurricanes and other factors, updating the
models on a regular basis would provide for more meaningful and accurate data
upon which to base evacuation zones and mitigation efforts.
Recommendation: Amend pertinent Statutes to designate the DEM as the
responsible entity for managing the updates of the regional HESs. Require
periodic updates to all regional HESs. DEM will be responsible for
establishing an appropriate methodology for the HESs.
Issue 3: Some of the HESs do not specifically define each evacuation zone by
hurricane category but combine evacuation zones for multiple hurricane categories.
Combining evacuation zones does not provide precise information for emergency
response or planning purposes.
Explanation: There is no technical reason why each evacuation zone cannot
be explicitly mapped. For emergency management, it would be preferable to
do so. Furthermore, the additional clarity gained by showing each evacuation
zone enhances information available to decision makers, including public policy
makers, the development community, and property owners. In addition, the
Committee discussed the concept of adopting the CHHA (which is currently
defined as the Category 1 evacuation zone) by Rule. Due to the implications of
this designation on property ownership, this consideration was deferred to
Section II, Policy Considerations.
Recommendation: Require all five of the hurricane evacuation zones to be
explicitly mapped within HESs instead of combining some zones.
Page 8
COASTAL HIGH HAZARD STUDY COMMITTEE
FINAL REPORT-- FEBRUARY 1 , 2006
Issue 4: Ensure that individuals acquiring property in the hurricane evacuation zones
are aware of the implications of owning property within these zones.
Explanation: The Committee concurred on the need to provide notice to
buyers of property within hurricane evacuation zones. This notice would allow
potential property owners to understand the fact that evacuation of these
properties may be required during certain storm events. Notice is particularly
important given the influx of populations that are not familiar with Florida's
evacuation requirements. It is consistent with disclosures under the CCCL
program and provides for enhanced consumer protection. Since evacuation
zones may change over time with changes to the coastal conditions, the notice
will need to recognize this fact. Changes in real estate transaction laws (which
are outside of DCA's statutory authority) may be appropriate to provide notice
to buyers. In addition, public outreach and education should be accomplished
through a variety of means.
Recommendation: Amend pertinent Statutes and Rules to require that
documentation be provided to disclose a property's location in an evacuation
zone (and specifying which zone) as part of real estate transactions. Direct the
relevant agencies to develop programs and materials for public outreach and
education.
Programs within the CHHA
Issue 5: Models Utilized to Establish CCCLs
Explanation: Structures sited seaward of the CCCL must comply with
stricter standards contained within the Florida Building Code in order to
protect life and property. All proposed construction and excavation seaward of
the CCCL must also be reviewed and permitted by the DEP. The permitting
review addresses proper design and siting in order to protect the beach and
dune system, native salt resistant vegetation and marine turtles.
The location of the CCCL line is established by using analytical/numerical
models to simulate storm tide inundation and dune erosion for the 100-year
return interval storm event. The technical/scientific studies used for CCCL
establishment (and reestablishment) were developed for the Department
Page 9
COASTAL HIGH HAZARD STUDY COMMITTEE
FINAL REPORT -- FEBRUARY 1, 2006
OC
Department.
There is a need at this time to evaluate data and information collected from the
recent storms to update the models used to establish CCCLs. It is also
important that the storm tide and dune erosion models applied are consistent
with current, state-of-the-art technology.
In July 2005, the Department tasked BSRC to begin this work by developing,
testing and evaluating dune erosion models for use in coastal permitting as well
as future CCCL reestablishment.
Recommendation: By October 1, 2006, DEP should update numerical
models used to establish CCCLs. Support legislative funding at appropriate
levels to complete this work.
Issue 6: Effectiveness of Established CCCLs
Explanation: CCCLs are subject to review at the discretion of the DEP, or at
the written request of officials of affected counties or municipalities, after
consideration of hydrographic and topographic data that indicate shoreline
changes have rendered established control lines to be ineffective for the
purposes of State law (Section 161.053, F. S.).
Preliminary evaluation indicates the established CCCL no longer defines the
impact of the 100-year return interval storm event in multiple areas of the
panhandle, including Gulf County (most notably the St. Joe Peninsula), Santa
Rosa, Escambia, Franklin, Okaloosa and Walton Counties. Both the technical
work required to evaluate the CCCL and the rulemaking process to reestablish
a new line is time and workload intensive. Because of this, the DEP has
proposed conducting the restudy of the CCCL for Gulf County and Santa Rosa
County during FY 2006/2007, and Escambia, Franklin, Okaloosa and Walton
Counties during the two subsequent fiscal years.
Anticipated budget requirements to conduct the recommended restudy efforts
are dependent upon the relative shoreline length; for the two areas listed above
to be tasked in FY 2006/2007, the Department would need an appropriation of
$160,000 for hydrographic data collection and controlled aerial photography.
Page 10
COASTAL HIGH HAZARD STUDY COMMITTEE
FINAL REPORT-- FEBRUARY 1, 2006
- .
Florida Panhandle, and reestablish the line(s) as necessary through rulemaking
in order to protect life, property, and the beach and dune system. Support
legislative funding needed to accomplish this work in a timely manner. In
order to minimize the potential for inappropriate coastal construction before
the CCCL line(s) can be reestablished, the DEP should, by May 1, 2006:
• Review and reprioritize, if necessary, the order in which the CCCLs for
the subject counties are reviewed. The priority should be based on the
degree of anticipated change of location of the line and the degree of
development potential within the area that may be added seaward of a
reestablished line.
• Evaluate methods for accelerating the review and reestablishment of the
CCCLs.
Issue 7: Lack of setbacks within the CCCL Regulatory Program
Explanation: All coastal states with developable beach/dune systems
have some form of state-mandated regulatory mechanism by which they
prohibit or restrict new development in designated portions of the shoreline.
The strength of the setback or coastal construction control laws depend on the
setback distance and the exceptions allowed. Setback laws have a dual purpose:
reducing the loss of life and property from storms, and protecting the natural
beach and dune system, which serves as a storm buffer.
Under the CCCL program, major development seaward of a predicted 30-year
erosion projection (setback line) is prohibited. Subsection 161.053(6), F.S.,
stipulates, "...the Department {of Environmental Protection}... shall not issue
any permit for any structure, other than a coastal or shore protection structure,
minor structure, or pier ... which is proposed for a location which, based on
the Department's projections of erosion in the area, will be seaward of the
seasonal high-water line within 30 years after the date of application for such
permit."
Some exemptions exist from this setback requirement. Most notably, a
statutory exemption exists for the construction of single-family dwellings where
Page 11
COASTAL HIGH HAZARD STUDY COMMITTEE
FINAL REPORT- FEBRUARY 1, 2006
_.____ _. __ _ • '._• _•- — 2. • -_ _ — � — �_ —� � \� �—�_._� ��._-• __ .. . 2 . ..
immediately adjacent to and landward of the parcel for which the dwelling is
proposed; the dwelling is located landward of the frontal dune structure; and
the dwelling will be as far landward on its parcel as is practicable without being
located seaward of or on the frontal dune. In practice, this exemption
frequently results in single-family dwellings being sited immediately landward of
the frontal dune. Such siting often results in excavation of the landward portion
of the natural dune system which can destabilize the dune feature, potentially
causing more damage to property during storm events than would otherwise
occur had the dune system not been impacted.
Dune impacts are not limited to activities on private property. In five Florida
counties, municipalities interrupt dune formation by maintenance of vehicular
access ramps. The ramps can allow water penetration and erosion of the dune
structure from behind, exacerbating erosion during a storm event.
In addition, structures destroyed by a storm are also generally allowed to be
reconstructed in their pre-existing footprint (Section 161.053(13), F.S.), even
when the rebuilt structure will be located seaward of the 30-yr. erosion
projection.
Strengthening the setbacks within the CCCL permitting program may result in
economic impacts, both by restricting a property owners' ability to construct
on a parcel and to the State through potential increased taking claims.
Recommendation: By May 1, 2006, DEP should develop a scope of work to
reevaluate setbacks and other dune protection criteria within the CCCL
regulatory program in order to provide greater protection to life, property and
the beach dune system, including an economic impact analysis of potential
changes. This re-evaluation should include consideration and an analysis of the
benefits and drawbacks of: revising the setback criteria to include the frontal
dune feature or the 30-yr. erosion projection, whichever is the most landward;
changes to the current exemptions from the setback and dune protection
criteria; and, revisions to the rebuilding policy.
Page 12
0
COASTAL HIGH HAZARD STUDY COMMITTEE
FINAL REPORT- FEBRUARY 1, 2006
Explanation: Section 161.085, F.S., empowers local governments to
authorize installation of temporary rigid coastal armoring structures for
protection of private structures or public infrastructure following erosion
impacts attributable to a storm event. The intent of the statute is that these
installations be constructed in a timely manner, in accordance with proper
siting and design criteria, while at the same time preserving public beach access,
and offering protection to the beach-dune system, native coastal vegetation and
nesting marine turtles and turtle hatchlings. This provision of the statute
further stipulates that such structures installed be deemed temporary,with strict
guidance on removal of the structure or application to the Department for
permanency within 60 days following completion of the installation.
While the intent of the current law should be maintained, it may be sufficiently
vague to provide local governments too much scope when issuing temporary
permits. The criteria to be considered by local governments when issuing these
temporary permits is general in nature and include:
(a) Protection of the beach-dune system;
(b) Siting and design criteria for the protective structure;
(c) Impacts on adjacent properties;
(d) Preservation of public beach access; and
(e) Protection of native coastal vegetation and nesting marine turtles and
their hatchlings.
These criteria vary significantly in their application based on the site specific
conditions at each project area and require adequate expertise in ecological and
coastal engineering disciplines to reasonably ensure they are met.
Unfortunately, not all local governments retain staff with this experience, and
permits are often issued that result in harm to the beach and dune system,
adjacent properties, or to nesting marine turtles and their hatchlings.
To ensure that emergency armoring does not result in these negative impacts,
there should be additional and specific guidance that provides siting and design
criteria as well as statutory revisions that create incentives for local
governments to follow the statutory criteria when issuing permits for
emergency coastal armoring. To help reduce the need for emergency armoring,
the DEP should continue to study a wide range of technologies, including
Page 13
COASTAL HIGH HAZARD STUDY COMMITTEE
FINAL REPORT- FEBRUARY 1, 2006
protection to structures and dunes while also protecting the beach/dune
system, native vegetation and marine turtles.
Recommendation: To help prevent damage to the beach and dune system,.
adjacent property owners, and marine turtles from inappropriate coastal
armoring following storm events:
• By June 1, 2006, the DEP should develop interim guidance for
temporary coastal armoring. By March 1, 2007, DEP should develop
specific siting and design criteria for temporary coastal armoring that
clarify the existing statutory criteria.
• Legislative changes should be pursued that encourage compliance with
statutory requirements for issuing emergency coastal armoring permits
by providing that only local governments who follow the statutory
provisions may retain authority to issue emergency armoring permits.
• DEP, in consultation with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission (FWCC), should continue to examine the methods and
technology for protecting structures and building and/or stabilizing
dunes, and educate property owners about the best management
practices to enhance and protect their property.
Issue 9: Consistency between DOH onsite system and DEP permitting standards
Explanation: The Department of Health (DOH) has no statute or rule
language that specifically addresses the CHHA or the CCCL. Section 381.0065
F.S., requires a 75 foot setback from onsite systems to the mean high-water line
of tidally influenced surface waters. This section further references the
establishment of the mean high-water line by the DEP's statute (see Section
177.25(15), F.S.). Lots and subdivisions recorded before 1972 are
grandfathered by Section 381.0065, F.S., and only require a 50-foot setback.
The mean high-water line is determined by elevation and is impacted by beach
erosion.
Page 14
COASTAL HIGH HAZARD STUDY COMMITTEE
FINAL REPORT- FEBRUARY 1, 2006
department has issued a construction permit for the onsite system. As such,
obtaining an onsite system construction permit is generally the first step in the
building/development process. Section 381.0065(4), F.S., also states the
department "shall not make the issuance of such permits contingent upon prior
approval by the Depaiunent of Environmental Protection." Because the DOH
has no authority to enforce the DEP's statutes or rules in regard to location of
facilities in the Coastal Zone, and has no specific authority of its own in this
regard, systems are often permitted seaward of the structure where they are
most vulnerable to damage from storm surges. Placement in compliance with
DEP rules is encouraged but cannot be enforced by the DOH.
In addition to disrupting service to the owner, damaged systems are a sanitary
nuisance and an economic impact to the owner, local government (clean-up)
and tourism.
Recommendation: Amend statutory provisions in Section 381.0065(4), F.S.,
to allow coordination between DOH and DEP on permitting issues. Require
DEP permitting prior to DOH permitting.
Section II — Policy Considerations Requiring Further Evaluation and
Assessment based on Section I Results
Many concepts discussed by the Committee warrant further analysis and have the
potential to become valuable planning tools to assist the State in protecting life,
minimizing property damage, and enhancing protection of the beach dune system.
While appropriate review and analysis will surpass the timeframe of the Committee,
hopefully, these concepts can assist in mapping out a course of action for future
administrations seeking innovative legislative remedies to Florida's unique growth
challenges. Recognizing that implementation of these concepts could affect a wide
array of stakeholders, including property owners, local governments and State
advocacy groups, the Committee requested their involvement in any further
discussion and development of these concepts.
Seeking to better define the CHHA the Committee considered whether the CHHA
should be defined as the area no smaller than the Category 1 storm surge Maximum
of Maximums area rather than the Category 1 evacuation area. The term "Maximum
Page 15
COASTAL HIGH HAZARD STUDY COMMITTEE
FINAL REPORT-- FEBRUARY 1, 2006
considered to be the worst case scenario of storm surge possible. The Maximum of
Maximums represents the maximum surge expected to occur at any given location,
regardless of the storm track or direction of the hurricane. The only variable is the
intensity of the hurricane represented by category strength (1-5).
Statute currently designates the Category 1 evacuation zone as the CHHA. Rule
provisions then require that population concentrations be directed away from the
CHHA and that public expenditures for infrastructure be limited in this area. The
current practice in preparing evacuation maps is to confer with county emergency
management officials to modify the boundaries of the storm surge zones to define
evacuation zone boundaries that are more easily understood by the public. Typically
this is done by extending the surge zone boundaries further landward to the nearest
street or highway. With a more accurate delineation of the storm surge boundary,
made possible through technology such as LIDAR and with the enhanced mapping
described in this report, this policy consideration could allow for a separation of
evacuation implementation versus planning applications of storm surge modeling.
Separating these important functions could provide for a more accurate and equitable
application of the various planning requirements that apply to the CHHA.
Furthermore, in order to ensure that the delineation of the CHHA is recognized
within the larger context of the local government's comprehensive plan, the CHHA
should be depicted on the local Future Land Use Map (r'LUM). There was also
discussion of adopting the CHHA but not the evacuation zones by Rule.
Review of enhanced mapping capabilities led to a discussion of the State examining
the feasibility and advisability of establishing more accurate statewide flood maps,
using LIDAR and other available technologies. This approach, already used in North
Carolina, might provide for a more accurate assessment of vulnerability than the
FEMA's current mapping. These maps are in the process of being updated but the
speed of this process is dependent on funding. It is necessary to ensure coordination
of the methodology with the DEP and the Water Management Districts to ensure a
consistent Statewide product.
Many of the Committee's deliberations centered on life safety issues and how to
address challenges with respect to evacuation times. Currently, there exists no
hurricane evacuation clearance time standard to guide regional evacuation planning
efforts or State and local consideration of density increases in the HVZ. The DEM
reports that 12 hours or less (one full daylight cycle) should be the target goal for
Page 16
COASTAL HIGH HAZARD STUDY COMMITTEE
FINAL REPORT-- FEBRUARY 1, 2006
the hurricane vulnerability zone (not just the CHHA) could be measured. A limited
number of communities establish hurricane evacuation clearance time standards in
their plans. When no evacuation time has been established, the DCA has taken the
position that the statutes and rules allow no significant increase in evacuation time as a
result of increases in density in the CHHA. The DEM reports that the majority of
Florida communities have evacuation times greater than 12 hours. If a target time
were established, it could be a consideration in determining whether additional
densities could be approved for a particular community. The Committee recognized
that there are a number of policy implications in the application of clearance time
standards and these implications must be fully explored with affected communities.
Hurricane evacuation by its very nature is a regional issue. Currently, there is some
level of regional coordination on these issues, but many members of the Committee
felt efforts should be enhanced. In some cases, the evacuation of a region will be
affected by simultaneous evacuation of other regions that are using the same
evacuation routes. For this reason, Committee discussions explored the desirability of
requiring regional evacuation models to factor in the traffic generated by other
regions, where this traffic would use the same evacuation routes. In order to better
coordinate these efforts the Committee considered using the RPCs to maintain a
computerized regional hurricane evacuation model for several reasons: (1) First,
maintaining such a model is complicated and may be beyond the capability of smaller
local governments; (2) Maintaining such a model would require that data regarding
future land use plans and approved development orders be collected from all of the
local governments in the region; (3) Maintaining the model at the RPC level would
ensure that its use is consistently and fairly applied throughout the region; and (4)
Maintaining the model at the RPC level would help ensure that land use plans and
approved development in other jurisdictions are taken into consideration, when
• hurricane evacuation and shelter impacts are evaluated.
Continuing its concentration on life safety issues the Committee made note of the
potential to encourage the siting and relocation of unique land uses such as hospitals
and nursing homes outside of the CHHA. Current State regulations governing land
use in CHHAs focus on residential uses and do not provide guidance for the location
of other types of uses that might be particularly impacted by being located in CHHAs.
Nursing homes, hospitals, and similar uses serve populations which by definition have
unique needs which create significant logistical challenges to achieving a safe and
timely evacuation of their clientele. There are also public uses which provide essential
Page 17
40
COASTAL HIGH HAZARD STUDY COMMITTEE
FINAL REPORT-- FEBRUARY 1, 2006
__-
Location of these uses in theCHHA_ma ' _ _ . --.' . .__. -_ -
services. - ese co • include public facilities such as administration buildings, court
houses, and water and sewer treatment plants.
While the Committee recognized the challenges of dealing with the concentration of
any population, not just those with special needs, it also recognized a need for local
governments to attain flexibility to allow for increases in density where the impacts of
such increases on hurricane evacuation clearance times, shelter space, environmental
resources, and other appropriate considerations can be mitigated. A variety of
mitigation options should be available, including additional shelter space, improved
infrastructure, and sheltering in place. Sheltering in place may be an option for
consideration depending upon the category of a storm, the distance the building is
located from the CHHA, and the building code standard to which the structure was
built. Under the proper circumstances, sheltering in place provides adequate safety
while also reducing demand on critical evacuation routes which are needed by
residents who live either within or closer to the CHHA.
Local governments need the ability to pursue density increases where necessary to
accomplish urban infill and redevelopment, fiscal health and economic development,
and to protect community character. The Florida Statutes do not directly speak to
density levels in the CHHA. There are provisions to direct the avoidance of public
expenditures for transportation improvements which encourage or subsicli7e
increased development in the CHHA, but no reference is made to private
expenditures. However, under Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)(6), F.A.C., DCA has required
Local Coastal Management Elements to direct population concentrations away from
known or predicted coastal high hazard areas. DCA takes this requirement into
consideration when reviewing development applications in the CHHA that require
Comprehensive Plan amendments. In the absence of locally adopted density limits,
DCA conducts a case by case review of Comprehensive Plan amendments without
any defined numeric limit. Rule modifications and additional planning tools could aid
in DCA's review when it considers the amount of the density increase. These tools
could help mitigate for or could reduce the possible impacts on life safety and
property damage through a variety of criteria.
One possible tool for allowing such flexibility could be a "Coastal Lands Stewardship"
program, modeled after the Rural Land Stewardship program. This program could
allow density increases in exchange for the protection of coastal environmental
resources provided that development incorporates other important standards such as
Page 18
0
COASTAL HIGH HAZARD STUDY COMMITTEE
FINAL REPORT-- FEBRUARY 1, 2006
---. -._-- - : .. i47.51 L.u .....s..nut p...E .=.._Y..cv.��_��. -' .�.:� - - _ - __.-
-_cute■ •_ ! I / -. •. t�S--`_�` _• s ®- ` �_'-_-• ses_, a •l
which might be more suitable in urbanized areas. The Committee envisioned such
approaches being enabled through statutory changes. Local plans could then be
amended to incorporate appropriate policies and criteria for density increases
consistent with the new criteria and programs provided for in statute.
In attempting to address some of the most egregious properties, the Committee
considered the more traditional tool of acquisition. Coastal lands are expensive and it
is not feasible to use acquisition as the primary means for restricting development in
the CHHA. Nevertheless, certain properties may warrant fee simple or easement
acquisition. A dedicated funding source, which requires a statutory amendment,
would allow for public acquisition of lands. Additional study is, however, required to
fully explore the details of such a program. For example, in view of the high cost of
coastal land, it would be critical to coordinate the program with other initiatives, such
as transfer of development rights initiatives, repetitive loss mitigation programs, and
other State incentive programs.
Currently, the Department does not review small scale amendments that increase
densities in the CHHA. Substantial increases in density may occur incrementally
through the small scale process. It may be beneficial to have DCA review small-scale
amendments that result in increases in density in the CHHA, unless the local
government has amended its comprehensive plan to include some of the previously
discussed mitigating policies.
Intricately tied to the life safety discussion is the ability to minimize damage to
property. While analyzing practices around the State, the Committee noted a conflict
between DCA rule and State fiscal policy. Traditional interpretations of DCA's rules
discourage development in CHHAs; however, the State's fiscal policy does not
support this direction because it provides the same State match for post-disaster
assistance in the CHHA as in less vulnerable areas. The Committee discussed
requiring local governments in the CHHA to pay a greater share of the cost of
recovery from storms as a disincentive to permit development in the CHHA. This
principle could be applied by the State paying progressively smaller portions of its
historical match within the CHHA after local infrastructure is destroyed by separate
storiii events. Some Committee members believed that if State funding were reduced,
State revenues from the area should also be reduced.
The degree to which the State has a role in paying for recovery costs depends upon
Page 19
42
COASTAL HIGH HAZARD STUDY COMMITTEE
FINAL REPORT-- FEBRUARY 1, 2006
continues to •a for redevelo•mentof coastalin£rastructur- •_•• •• - , •• •• • _ _ --
coast, areas oug a stric y regulatory construct. In other words, the State's
interest in life safety and minimizing the taxpayer burden would be achieved by
regulating the type, siting, and density of new development. On the other hand, the •
State could also approach development through a less regulatory and more market-
based construct. In that case, more flexibility would be extended to local
governments to allow redevelopment of coastal communities. In the event of a
disaster, however, the cost of replacing public infrastructure and paying for other
clean up costs would be addressed by local governments assuming a greater or full
cost.
Implementation of the above policy consideration must recognize that some facilities
(such as State scenic highways in coastal areas and other publicly owned facilities that
provide access to the waterfront) serve important public purposes, such as tourism
and economic development. Consideration would also need to be given to
grandfathering in or gradual implementation of these changes for existing public
infrastructure. The Committee recognized that there would clearly be a need to
involve local governments in an assessment and full discussion of the implications of
any such changes in fiscal policy.
To avoid costly redevelopment expenses, new development within the CHHA could
consider utilizing increased density mitigating options. Such options could be
established to reduce risk to life and property by basing requirements on more severe
storms (storms characterized by longer return intervals) than required by current
policies (100 year storms). Such requirements would result in buildings built to
withstand the hazards of stronger storm surges, more severe flooding, and higher
winds. Special consideration should also be given to the corrosive effects of the
coastal environment on construction materials and to the enhanced effects of winds
near open water on buildings, including greater wind forces and the risks related to
wind-borne debris. Buildings within the CHHA are on the front line and take the
strongest water and wind effects of hurricanes as they move onshore and continue
across land. Higher standards will reduce damage costs and speed recovery while
providing for more adequate shelter in the more frequent storms.
Additional thought was given to the protection of septic systems in the Big Bend
portion of the State and other areas where there are no sandy beaches or CCCL. The
Committee expressed interest in DCA, DEP, and DOH combining efforts to
formulate a solution to safeguard such infrastructure and prevent impacts on adjacent
Page 20
43
COASTAL HIGH HAZARD STUDY COMMITTEE
FINAL REPORT-- FEBRUARY 1, 2006
In an effort to protect the coastal environment and public safety, the Committee
explored the possibility of conducting a study to assess the impacts and benefits of
restricting vehicular traffic on coastal beaches, except where necessary for cleanup,
repair, public safety, or State or Federal-permitted wildlife conservation. The study
should consider the doctrines of customary use, dedication, and prescriptive
easements, as well as relevant case law.
Under current law and pursuant to several of the recommendations contained in this
report, there are provisions affecting development of property in coastal areas. The
Committee discussed whether individuals acquiring property in the CHHA should be
made aware that these provisions apply to and may affect use of the property.
Changes in real estate transaction laws may be appropriate to provide notice to buyers
of regulations and laws that pertain to property within the CHHA. Public outreach
and education should be accomplished through a variety of means.
All the different planning and implementation tools explored by the Committee help
to frame a larger policy question facing the State. Is there a need to set State
evacuation standards and performance criteria for new development within the
CHHA to better protect life and minimize property damage?
One thing all the members of the Committee could agree on is that while Floridians
must constantly strive to improve their coastal policies, few states could have
performed better than Florida during the most recent hurricane seasons. The strength
of Florida's building code, the detail given not only to emergency response, but also
emergency preparedness, and the emphasis on sound coastal planning are a testament
to the foresight and dedication of Florida's Governor,Legislature, and citizenry.
Page 21