HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-22-1971 Zoning Commissionf +
MICROFILMED; 4 -24 -80 1 ;
ZONING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING
June 22, 1971 '.
The Zoning Commission held a Public Hearing on Tuesday,
June 22, 1971 at 7:33 P.M. in the City Hall, 105 Polk Avenue, Cape
Canaveral, Florida.
The meeting was called to order by Mr. Frank'Martin, tha`'r -'
man of the Zoning & Planning Board.
The roll was called by the City Clerk. Officials present
were Mayor George H. Firkins, Jr.; Councilmen Roger Graefe, Leo'C.``
Nicholas, and G. J. Salvaggio; Zoning Board members Frank Martian and
Russell De Veau; City Manager A. J. Francis; County Planners Lynn
Hansel and Ed Washburn; and City Clerk Anita Ostrom.
Mr. ;Martin announced the purpose of the meeting and noted
that letters had been sent to freeholders of the City and that a legal
notice had been published in the Today Newspaper on June 6, 1971.
The chair recognized Mr. Hansel, of the County Planning
Department. Mr. Hansel explained that the new ordinance was being:,
considered because the old ordinance was not comprehensive enough for
the area now, and that the meeting was for questions and comments from
the people. No final action was to be taken at the meeting.' Mr. Hansel
gave a brief explanation of each new classification,! pointing them °out
on the proposed map and noting those areas to be changed.
The floor was then opened to the public for discussion.
Questions, answers and comments were as follows:
Q- Why can the City tell us what we can dowith our propertyi
when our deeds set out the..restrictions?
A- If deed restrictions are more stringent than ordinance
i
then deed holds and any change.must be approved by owner.
f
Q- Why are you -putting T -1 zoning on the river instead of the
Beach? Inland is the wrong place for tourist cla4si icat I ion.
A -.The City tried in 1968 to guide the 4ea h area -toward
tourist development and the property owners fought a,yainst it. .What'
do you want on the Ocean? '
The reply to this was "we want'to be left lone-as we feel
you.are trying to squeeze us out and see'no reason '.t ':change R -4 to R -3.
Mr. Nicholas explained that thejuses wo d be the same, but
. P
i
PAGE 1, ON
tt ROE�tLN�ED 4»�24-84
with controls, just as�the present ordinance has controls.
Mr. Martin stated that the overall plan needed polishing
for the future due to new modular construction, motorized mobile
homes, new methods of construction, etc.
Q- Any chance of appeal of zoning?
A- Yes, by applying to the Zoning Board for a'conditional
use, variance, exception, etc.
Q- What about campers in the City and particularly in-the
area of the McIntire development?
A- Campers are not a specified use in any area and Mr. McIntire
would need special permission through the Zoning Board in Public Hearing
.the same as in the present ordinance.
Q- Why is Justamere Road still to be TR -1?
A- The lots are too small for any other use and they were
purchased by the owners for that use.,.
Q- What became of the other proposed zoning plan including,
the bulkhead area?
A- That plan was abandoned because the Internal Improvement
Board turned it down and refused to extend the City limits to fill
area. A developer would need to present a good solid plan for develop-
ment for re- consideration.
Q- Why is part of the M zoning including Belcher Oil Co.,
being changed to commercial use? It should be lefti.for industrial use.
A- The planners thought it would be a good place for a small
commercial development. Mr. Nicholas had objected to this change.
Q- Why not take a vote of the people present to see if they
want a change in zoning?
Mr. Nicholas stated that several hearingswere scheduled and.
that it was important to get the consensus of all the people-attending.
A request was made that the City should f rnish blown up-
charts with schedules of the changes, by comparison. Some small charts
were,passed out but they seemed inadequate. t
The problem of Beach erosion came up arid, some discussion
followed on this, but the meeting was brought back lo the question.of
zoning by Mr. tv:artin.
Many were concerned about the question of trailers an'd.'
campers, where they would be allowed. Air. Nicholas ointed out that• the
City has regulations on campers in an amdndment: Ord. 81 -64y and
-2- {a
{
PAGE 2 OF q-
r
MICROFILM 4-24 -80 4
that one purpose of writing a new ordinance was to consolidate all
zoning regulations into one good comprehensive ordinance.
Q- What about the 50 foot lot owner? Will theylbe'able to''.
build or will they be strangled with setbacks, etc?
A- You will be able to build anything that is permitted in '
your zoning classification if the setback requirements are,met or a
variance granted. A variance is required in the present ordinance.
Q- Will the changes condemn existing buildings?
A- They will be grandfathered in, however they will become
non- conforming and cannot be improved, expanded, etc.
It was the feeling of some that the City had enough trailers
and apartments, and that we should have more R -1 and even R -1 -A. It
was suggested that perhaps the proposed R -2 section be made R -1 to
curtail the future building of apartments..
Mr. Nicholas pointed out that when the'City was originally
zoned, there was great demand for apartments,which.made for•;higher
property values.
Q- Could a camping area be developed in the R -3 zoning
near Jetty Park and thereby offer competition to the park.
A- Plans could be submitted for conditional use.
Q- What is the feeling of the•City on camping facilities at
Jetty Park?
I �
A- Mr. Francis stated that the City was opposed to the use
of County recreational funds for the park,-but not opposed to camping
as such. He brought out that the primary reason for new and more
stringent zoning was for better future expansion ofthe City.
Mr. Nicholas stated that new construction in the proposed
ordinance would be required to include sidewalks, and underground
utilities; the ordinance would more clearly define uses, regulations
would be more flexible and streamlined and new proc�dure.s be set out
for special exceptions. ;
Q- Will Cocktail Lounges and package stir s in C -1 require
a public hearing in the new ordinance?
A- No, this requirement is eliminatedin he n w ordinance.,
Q- Any provision for a Yatch dilub with Ma ina in 'T-1 or R -31'•
A- This would be possible with a conditi nal use approval.
Mr. Martin stated that the proposed ordinance had been
worked on for two years with the assistance of County Planning
-3- JA
PAGE '3 ' OF
MPOOILMED 4!24-80:
Department; Council had reviewed it, and much thought had been given
to every detail. He then announced the dates.on which the County
Planners would again be in the City Hall, the date of the next Zoning,
.meeting and of the first and second reading of the ordinance by the
City Council. Everyone was urged to attend these meetings.
Mr. Nicholas asked that new compilation sheets be made up
for further clarification of the proposed zoning areas, and that these
be available for everyone.
Mr. Martin assured the audience that all commenfs and
suggestions would be considered, and recommendations given to Council.
By motion of Mr. Salvaggio; seconded by Mr. Graefe; the'
meeting was adjourned at 9:35 P.M.
APPROVED this 3o S' day of YfA + 1971.
i