Ready? >> Yes. >> Okay. I would like to uh start the uh meeting of the planning and zoning board uh dated uh December 3rd, 2025. It's 6 pm. Um so I want to call call the meeting to order and uh ask uh our secretary to
call the role. >> Susan Denny >> here. >> Nancy Jennore >> here. >> Michael Hartman >> here. >> Steven Strad >> here. Okay. Um, four of you, four of the four planning and zoning board members are
here. We have a quorum. Uh, first item is as usual, public participation. Are there any members of the public that want to participate this evening? And there are no members of the public present. Um, so there will be no public participation
other than our our interviewe. Um, there's no old business, new business. I would um ask uh that we add an item and that is the election of the chair and vice chair. If you recall at the last planning and zoning board meeting, our
uh chair u and vice chair um termed out rather suddenly so they're not here this evening. Um so at this point um it would be up to you to elect a chair and you all can uh nominate each one of you
would have the ability to nominate one one of the existing members for chair and then uh by majority vote you'll you'll select a chair. So at this point I'd open the floor to any nominees for
the position of chair. >> I nominate Mr. Straoud. >> Are there any other nominations? >> I would nominate Mr. Straoud. >> Second. >> Okay. With that, a motion would be in
order uh to um elect Mr. Shroud, the uh the chair of the planning and zoning board. [clears throat] >> I make a motion to have Mr. Straoud be the chair of the planning and zoning board. >> Second.
>> Okay. Any discussion? No discussion. Call the role, please. >> Susan Denny, >> here for >> Nancy Jennore for the motion. Michael Hartman, >> four. >> Steven Strad, >> four. >> Okay, we now have a a new chair.
Congratulations. >> Congratulations. >> Congratulations. >> Your first your first order of business is to get us through the election of a vice chair. [laughter] >> All right. Uh, first order is uh we need to uh have a nomination for a vice chair.
>> I'll nominate Susan Denny. >> Sorry, I knew it was coming. >> I uh second that nomination. >> Fine by me. >> Okie dokie.
I'm leaving soon. I know. >> [clears throat] >> Susan Denny >> for the motion. >> Nancy Jennore >> for the motion. >> Michael Hartman >> or >> and Chairman Straoud >> for the motion. >> Oh lordy.
>> We're going to move to the big boy chair >> or do you want me to move the gavl? >> Oh, here I can move the gavvel over. Oh, he got to get up and move it all over. >> You want me to move or just stay here, Connor? Make it easier on you so you
don't have to move too many people. >> You want to consolidate, you can that way you don't >> We're just kind of spread out here. >> Either way, >> you got my book. >> Yeah, I'm not going to move all my stuff. [laughter] >> All right. Now that we've got that out
of the way, that's want to do the next order of business, and that is to interview a board applicant, Miss >> Susan Ryder. >> We need to approve the minutes. >> Need to approve the minutes. Okay, I'll
back up. Let's uh have an approval on the minutes. Do I have a motion to approve minutes? >> I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. >> I'll second the motion. All right, ready to call a roll. >> Vice Chair Denny for the motion. Nancy
Jennore for the motion. Michael Hartman >> for the motion. >> Chairman Stra >> for the motion. All right, that's done. Now we will interview the board applicant and Miss Susan Ryder. >> Suzanne.
>> Suzanne, excuse me. I don't always put out what I what I'm reading here. [laughter] you'll step up to the microphone and uh tell us uh tell us about yourself. >> Press the button. Make sure the green light's on.
>> It is. Yes. Um again, my name is Suzanne Ryder. I am a resident of Cape Canaveral. I have lived here um just under two years. um formerly um lived in New York and had
a 25 plus year municipal career um with a um planning and development office um as a project manager um slash quasi grant writer um here in Cape Canaveral
or in Breard. I am working for um the Brevard County Public Works Department as um a JPA writer slashcoordinator and grant writer slashcoordinator. Um I served on my hometown's
planning board um for just over three years before I moved here to Florida. and um I look forward to um serving the community that I live in now um in that
similar capacity. Um I've worked on various different projects over the years. everything from, you know, the creation of new parks to, you know,
multi- millionoll development, you know, multi-use development [snorts] projects. And so I'm familiar with um, you know, the process that a planning board goes through to um, make sure those projects
happen in a efficient and costly way. Um, and so I mean I'd love for you guys to ask me any questions that you might have for me at this point. I think um, you know, I'm
I'm a good candidate, I believe. So, if you guys have any questions for me, >> well, I have to agree with you. You you're you're I've read your resume here and yeah, you you've done a lot. You've done quite a bit and it looks like you might be a real good fit for us. Uh I'll refer to uh our other board members
here. Um >> so how big a town did you come in from New York? You know, Cape Canaveral is kind of a small place. >> Um so the the city that I worked for was
about 79,000 people. Um the town I lived in that I served on the planning board was much smaller, about 15,000 people in the community. >> Okay. So, do you like Cape Canaveral? I love it here. Yes. Good. Good. All
right. Thanks. >> Can I ask what brought you here? >> I have family here in in Cape Canaveral and um as I was ending my career in New York, I wanted to be closer to my brother and his family. And so I
naturally, you know, thought that being here in sunny Florida would be a, you know, a great way to, you know, continue doing what I love. And so I was fortunate enough to to get a job with Bvard County doing what I
love. So here I am. >> Well, it certainly looks like you'd be a real asset to the board. So >> thank you. >> Okay, Michael. you've uh kind of stolen all my questions already, so I think we've gotten the answers. But uh no, I
would agree that with your background, you would be an asset to this board. So, >> thank you. >> I'd like to ask you filled out uh through the um number of sequence here of the different boards that you wanted to apply for and you put us first. Did
was it just filling out the blanks and and putting [clears throat] something in them? uh or or was it you if you weren't going to get on this board, you were going to shoot for another board? >> Um no, this was clearly the board that I wanted to be a part of. Um and I know
Renee and Connor had had interviewed me earlier on and you know I did mention that this was where I wanted to be, but um I also am very civic-minded and so I figured however I can get involved in my community um you know would suit me. But
this is the board that I had most um experience with in you know in my past in New York. So this was definitely my number one choice. >> That's kind of the answer I was expecting to get from you especially with your background and everything.
>> So uh have any other questions? All right. you'd like to have a get a motion for >> I'll make a motion to uh recommend Suzanne to be on the planning and zoning board. >> I'll second that motion.
>> All right, Rene, you have a vote. >> Vice Chair Denny >> for the motion. Member Jennore >> for the motion. >> Member Hartman >> for the motion. >> Chairman Straoud >> for the motion. >> All right. Well, the next step in the
process is is uh your interview uh based on our recommendation to the city council. And I'll tell you what, we look forward to having you on our board. >> Excellent. Thank you for your time. >> You bet. Thank you. Thanks for coming. By the way, uh as we're going through our proceedings tonight, uh feel free to
chime in because you appear to be going to be a future with us and stuff. So, if there's something of interest, uh let us know and we'll give you an opportunity. >> Yep. And just one quick note, uh we do have her tenatively on the schedule to be heard at the December 16th city
council meeting. So we'll move quickly on that. Uh especially with your guys's recommendation to do so. So thank you. >> I think we're going to need to do that, too. >> Yeah. >> Anyway, all right. Uh let's see here.
Our next item is uh consideration of ordinance number uh 082025 amending chapter 110 uh site plan and chapter 22 community appearance board and uh revised review procedures
streamline approval process. So uh you want to go ahead and guide us through this? >> I'll do a quick run over. Um, this ordinance was brought about to kind of streamline the development process to revise, you know, procedures. Uh, just
cuz they were a little bit counterintuitive at times. Uh, so this helps clean it up a little bit. Uh, it aligns with the comprehensive plan. And I included two uh excerpts from our comprehensive plan as it relates to you know city boards and also uh guiding the
future development of Cape Canaveral. Um the major you know points that I'm going to hit uh it defines the difference between regular site plan review for larger developments and minor site plan review which would be uh you know reviewed through the building
permit process with staff and that's just for single family and duplexes. though everything above that would go through the regular site plan review process. Um, another major difference is uh where height approvals come from. As
it currently stands, um, the community appearance board is involved in allowing for heights that are greater than what would typically be allowed in code up to 65 ft. And that would streamline to have
the height uh increased height be considered concurrently with the site plan by city council rather than separately by the community appearance board. Um and it also makes sure that the site plan is reviewed uh concurrently with other
regulations like storm water and subdivision requirements so that those things aren't being considered after the board has already looked at it. Um really the overall goal of it is just efficiency and clarification. There are a few, you know, material changes. Uh
but I'm sure as you guys have gone through on your review, you've noticed that it's mostly just uh clerical stuff. So another big thing is timelines. Uh there was some recent Florida legislation and also just uh helping us have it be in our city code that there
will be clear review windows and that would mean that um 14 days after it was distributed to staff that they would have to return comments to the developer and then that would get sent back to the developer on that 14-day timeline. So, the only attachments on this one are the
ordinance itself and the proof of public notice, but uh staff recommends that the board recommend uh approval of this ordinance to city council in which they do two readings of it. >> All right. >> Anything else to add to that at this
point? >> Not right now, but we're happy to answer questions. >> All right. Super. Um I'm going to ask you to turn to Let me get to my marked spot. page nine of 17. >> All right.
>> Item number 10. Uh the addition here uh is underlined and I'll just go ahead and read this. Whether the applicant has provided an acceptable testing and security plan for proposed establishment to be located on
the site addressed the safety and security needs the establish and its users and its employees and monitors and minimizes impacts on the neighborhood if applicable. >> So can you define to me testing
the word testing? Why is that inserted in there and what is the meaning of that? >> I think that my interpretation of that would be that there are certain things that you know may require a high higher level of monitoring and right now the way that the ordinance is written.
[snorts] It is set up to try to minimize impact and you know here's our plan to make sure it's safe but I don't really think it takes into consideration how you would do that. So, I think the testing piece of it and the monitoring piece of it kind of allude to that, but I'll let Anthony add on.
>> Uh, yeah. And normally if you've got testing, then you have a protocol. But I'm going to move a little further down to it. I want to go down to number 12. >> And I'm going to zero in on this. I'm going to go ahead and read this aloud also. Whether the applicant has demonstrated that the site plan has
designed incorporated testing and security systems. And I'm going to stop right there. So, Ne next next thing I'm going to ask is is what do we mean by security systems? When I look at security systems, I see those two words joined together. That
means one thing and one thing only. Something that's protecting the premise like an alarm system. And when I read that and when I see that, that's the first thing that pops into my mind. >> Uh now the reason for that is is I've been in that industry since 1985. So, I
read that and it just jumped off the page to me and it's like, well, wait a minute. Council is not reviewing the electrical system. They're not reviewing the plumbing system. So, I I I see a problem with that being in there stating security system.
>> Anthony, would you want to allude to maybe why it was included? >> Um, okay. So I mean the the context of the whole section is are the review criteria for um site plan approvals
under the regular site plan approval process. Those are the the factors or review criteria under which a site plan is reviewed. It sometimes the criteria is not relevant to the situation at
hand. So that review criteria is can we staff will check off and say okay this it's not relevant in this particular case. However, in some cases, um the issue of a security plan which is
currently in the code or or a testing need may may come up in the context of the site plan in terms of conditions that are that are imposed
um as a condition of approval for a site plan in order to mitigate against any adverse consequences. So testing was added because there may be and I underscore may be some situations where the particular development project
requires as a condition of approval some level of ongoing testing and monitoring in order to alleviate you know any adverse effects that may result from the development. Um so that's that. Um, with
respect to paragraph 12 criteria, um, same thing. Um, if there's a security system that would be required as part of a site plan, um, then that that particular
criteria would apply. >> So, >> but I don't there's no def there's no definition per se in there. I would be I would prefer to see security plan but not system. Um we did a uh we're working
on a project right now where our designer did a complete security plan. I mean it it's got card access. It's got cameras and everything. Went down and subh to submit it. They said that the municipality said oh >> we don't we don't review that. We don't need that.
>> And so you know at the most you would need a low voltage permit. I I know I'm kind of moving on subject here, but again, when I see that word system in there, that immediately keys up. We're talking about, you know, door contacts, infrared, motion detection, all that stuff.
>> So, I would prefer to see that word changed >> to plan >> to plan. >> Yeah. >> And Mr. Chair, if I can add something to what you said. Go ahead. >> Um, looking at it, and again, having been a developer for 32 years, I kind of
look at it from that perspective, too. And you seem to say that somewhere in our code we define um testing and security plan or security plan is somewhere defined because when
there's an undefined term that we have to meet, you know, we don't know if we need to spend do a simple plan that costs maybe $1,000 or we have to do a full-blown security
plan that costs $100,000. And if that's a defined term somewhere in that code, I think it would be good so that people would know here's the exact criteria. I've got I mean, it's just like the situation that you said, Mr. Chair. You
guys did a whole plan and it turned out you didn't need to do it. And you know, that that just cost money and time to do that. So, I don't know if it's defined somewhere else and maybe we need to capitalize this and reference where it's defined or
>> um I didn't I don't believe I said it was defined, but it it it it's going to have to it's going to depend on the context of the site plan that's under review. I mean, I don't I don't know. >> Okay. I'm sorry. Not defined, but required. I think you used
>> it. Yeah. It's a the paragraphs on page nine, right? is the list of criteria for the review of the site plan. And as I said, in some cases, an application when when you're reviewing the criteria may warrant testing or a security plan
um as part of the approval process. >> Yeah, >> I I don't have any particular development project in mind. Hypothetical would be on a testing front. Say hypothetically the um you know the um actually this is an
interesting hypothetical. If there's a certain level of discharge that may result from a specific project that's going to go into a city system such as a >> sewage system or a drainage system, >> affluence or storm affluence.
>> Maybe under special circumstances, >> the project is okay to move forward, but as a condition of that aspect of the project may warrant periodic tests and submission to the city just to make sure certain >> okay >> like criteria. So, it depends on
context. Um, and and and >> it may just be that we're reading it different because to the chairman and I when we think of security, we're thinking of a different type of system than something like what you just described. >> So, so there is another uh on page 10,
the word security system is used again and that might be appropriate to change the word system to plan in that area too. That's the very next page right at the top line one. >> Yeah. And I that's that's a good catch too. Again, I think I think plan works
well because the existing criteria uses security plan. >> So that makes it consistent. >> Mhm. >> And again, it's all going to depend on context of a specific application. It may or may not be relevant to the
particular application at hand. This gives the board the ability as part of the review criteria. Since it's in a review criteria, the board can probe, >> okay, >> that issue. That's what the criteria review criteria is all about is
establishing certain benchmarks to probe an application that under certain circumstances. You know, an an application may not be in compliance with the criteria or the criteria may scream out that the board
needs to impose conditions of approval. and conditions of approval are much easier to impose when the criteria >> directs the board and allows the board to review the application and that specific issue.
>> Okay, >> good good response to add to this one. >> You know, I really don't. To me, it just seems like almost a no-brainer to go ahead with this. It's efficient and it I don't think we're going to lose anything
in the process unless I miss that. >> Okay, Susan, >> I'm all for efficiency. >> Absolutely. >> Well, this is part of uh you know, this is a d council directive >> and um this pro site plan of course is
one of the critical application review that the city will will endeavor to to handle. And what the council's trying to do is streamline the development permit process so it's not in silos and that things can be funneled and reviewed more
comprehensively. >> And the way that the way they the council's directed that be done is that the council will ultimately have final approval on site plan doesn't change the role of the planning and zoning board. They're they're pivotal in all of this. But by allowing the council to make
decision, the council wants to be accountable for those decisions. But it allows certain changes to the process to be combined and consolidated and handled more comprehensively rather than have to go, well, I got to go to the PNZ board
for one issue, board of adjustment for another, community appearance board for another, and oh, I got to make a stop at the council, too, and have different components of a project approved. That's very inefficient. >> It's very timely for developers. >> No, absolutely. >> Developers want a one-stop shop.
>> Onetop shop. That's right. We don't want to have to go through four hearings. We want >> We're trying to create a onestop or relatively a one-stop shop. >> Here's my money and I want to build build. >> Right. >> So, that's what we're attempting to do at the council's direction. This is this
is just step one in that process. >> Absolutely. >> All right. Um, I had a couple of things, Mr. Chairman, if I could bring up questions and comments. >> Um, and yes, I do appreciate it. The fact I think it is good because when you
have those silos and you have to go in order, people don't understand, well, I can't go to the planning zoning board until I go through the community appearance board. So, if the community appearance board doesn't meet this month, then I can't get to the planning zoning board until next month, which
means I can't get to the city council until the month after that. In the meantime, the project is sitting there not benefiting the city in any way, shape, or form because it's tied up in in the timing of the process. So, I appreciate that. Um, couple things. Um,
on page six of 17 on 3A, I wanted to see if we could add a some language after the words 10 in of adjoining property, comma, I want to say and finish grades for adjoining roads,
comma, and the reason I make that comment is is that I've seen in the past when we when you drive down North Atlantic You can see that there's a dip down into all the
developments. Okay? And I've gone through there many a time where that dip is flooded. And I'm talking about a foot to two foot of water because it dips down 3 feet below the crown of North Atlantic Avenue. And
I I think that's a safe a fire safety issue because if somebody's having a heart attack, can the ambulance get through two feet of water? Can the fire department get through two feet of water? I mean, it it's something to think about and that's why I would like
to see if we could add those words in that sub. >> Can you run that by by us again? >> Okay. After 10 in of adjoining property, comma, add the words finished grades for adjoining roads, comma,
or unfinish grades for adjoining roads. Yeah, I think that's logical, especially because we're already asking it for the whole parcel and the neighboring property. I think you're right that roads are a very important part of our infrastructure and they do flood. So, >> so
>> just again just using kind of experience from living here for years. Um question on page 8 of 17. Am I reading section 22.45
the striketh through on that that we're not going to have the concept of a concept plan anymore? We're going to go straight to a regular >> the line number on that. It's page eight line. >> Um the legislative >> section 110.222.2.
>> Mhm. city council consideration of development agreement and conceptual site plan prior to site plan approval. Well, further on in this ordinance, we strike out section 22.45 which deals with um con concept concept plans.
>> Mhm. So, if we're striking out concept plans in one area, should this entire section be struck out because it appears that we're not going to have concept plan approvals anymore prior to site plan? >> This this um because there there was I I
don't know where that other uh reference to concept plan is, but it >> I think it's back on page like 14 or 15. >> What page? Page 15 of this ordinance. Section 22.45. >> 22.
>> Page 15. Oh yeah. Okay. >> We're striking out concept plans completely. >> Yeah. It was stricken because um that section
is under the community appearance boards. um um u jurisdiction. It was about um concept plans that are submitted to the community appearance
board. >> Okay. >> So that is when we get to that that's being proposed to be um stricken um number one because it's not necessary. This the new section that's being added
on page 8 and that's line nine. That's section 110-222.2 Two is to actually put clarity in the code. When there are situations where
a de a a developer comes and wants to negotiate a development agreement and a concept plan >> early on in the process before they get into engineering, site plan, review and all that. >> I understand that. I just saw the the
striketh through of 22-45 on page 15 and I thought okay are we getting rid of concept plans? So sure we're getting rid of then that's fine then we should keep this section that's >> yeah because I can give you a different better a more
thorough explanation is that um you know this the cab community appearance board one of the clarifications is that its jurisdiction is only going to be related
to aesthetics. Okay. >> And as a condition of even getting to the community appearance board on aesthetics, assuming the council even wants to keep the community appearance board, they have an applicant will have to get
their site plan approved first >> and then go to the CAB. >> Then go to the CAB. and you want to talk about pretty colors of a building or things like that, the planning and zoning board would have already reviewed and recommended site plan, landscaping
plan and all of that. The council would have already approved the site plan and landscape plan and then the CIB CIB's function is simply going to be to review aesthetics of the building. The problem we have had for years has
been staff presenting development projects to the community appearance board first. And community parents board sitting up there going, "All right, you're proposing a six-story hotel and there's no site plan that's been approved. Their
job isn't to approve site plans and they're being asked to review aesthetics and concept plans and layouts of a development project that hasn't even gone through the planning and zoning board and city council. >> Okay. >> It creates created a lot of tension at
least lately with the community appearance board because you know we didn't even know whether the project would fit on the site because it hasn't gone through site plan review. >> Well, you don't know if it's going to fit the criteria for that. You don't know if you have exactly the utilities to be able to
>> utilities right away >> if you need a lift station yada yada. >> So we striking concept plan out of chapter 22 CAB makes a lot of sense when you think about they're not going to be looking at things if this all gets
approved until after the site plan is approved. That's why >> but under our purview we still have a concept plan. >> It's being added on page eight which you pointed out. >> Okay. The process is you want a concept plan, right? You need a development agreement, have your concept plan, you
go to the planning and zoning board, go to the city council. All right? And that's the only way that you're going to be able to get a concept plan approved before um you go through formal site plan approval. You're not going to be going presenting aesthetics and and a development concept plan to a CAB that
only looks at aesthetics. >> No, that makes and perfect. [clears throat] when we come How many times have we come to the planning and zoning board and you're like, "All right, well, they've already approved approved aesthetics." >> And you're looking like, "How does all this thing fit?" Right? I mean, it just was backwards. >> True.
>> Right. So, we're fixing that hopefully. >> Um, Sydney, do you'all have any comments to make about this? Anything you want to add to this conversation? No, I think that Anthony is correct that uh a lot of the times that it would make more sense
to review aesthetics at the end once we already know where things are going to fit on the property. So, I think in general this will help uh make it easier on staff and just more logical. >> And when I said and I brought up the
staff presenting because you had developers time and time again telling staff, "We want our aesthetics approved first. We want our aesthetics approved first." And there's nothing in the code that currently addresses that,
right? And so, you know, they're they're they're trying to be applicant friendly and putting these things before the CAB, but it's the cart before the horse. >> No, I would agree with you. I just didn't understand when I saw >> I'm glad you brought eliminated in the
one section. And it seemed like, okay, are we getting rid of concept plans? So that was in my head that just is it do we have an inconsistency there? That's >> I mean, I love the comment because it gives us an opportunity to elaborate why those changes are being made.
>> Like again to streamline the process making it >> we're painting a car and we don't have a car yet. [laughter] >> Yeah, >> that's a good customer service to you know paint that car record exist. >> Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. Absolutely
agreed. >> U any anything else? >> One more comment, Mr. Chair, if I could. Um >> section 110.624 building height on page 13 of 17. On
1B, we talk about height mitigation measures such as a building stepback as illustrated in figure 2 and figure 2A shall be required. Buildings exceeding 45 ft shall provide
a step back of at least 14 ft along all sides facing a public roadway. Um, I guess my question is if I, you know, why do we need height mitigation measures? And let me go through my whole
thing and then Connor, you could talk about it, you and Anthony. Um, I mean, how many people look at the top floors of a building as opposed to the bottom one or two floors? And how many people really notice the height of a building, whether it's 45 ft or 65 ft,
just in my experience, I would contend that probably 1% of the people might really look at it and worry about the difference. Um, and I look at this as something looking at function over form because
when you're trying to build a building, let's say it's whether it's uh a hotel or whether it's apartments or condos, the whole idea is is that [clears throat] you want to stack like kind units on top of each other. So, you
want all the three twos to be stacked on each other because you want the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing chases to all be in the same area for all those units going down through the stack. Okay? You don't want
pipes going sideways between floors. And if you have a step back, and I've seen this on a building that I had to build in another jurisdiction, we ended up having to turn the units sideways for the top three or four
floors. And what that did was number one, it it cut down the number of units that could be built in the footprint. And number two, now you've got chases that don't just go straight up and down through the building. You've got maybe
the top three floors where all the chases are together, but then you've got to route the electrical, the plumbing, and the mechanicals for the AC crosswise and then down through the next set of chases. So, it's it just creates an efficiency.
And I went around and I looked and I just want to give some examples of buildings that are taller and 45 ft with no step back in our city. Um, Porta Del Rio Condos does not have a step back. Bayport Condos does not have
a step back. Bayside Condos does not have a step back. Um, Springs Spring Hill Suites Hotel doesn't have a step back. Town Place Suites Hotel doesn't have a step back. Hilton Garden in doesn't have a step back. Hyatt Place
doesn't have a step back. And Homewood Suites doesn't have a step back. And so, you know, there's a lot of ways to do aesthetics to make a building look nice other than just doing a step back. And
to me, having it be an the way this is written, it's shall be required. To me, that's an absolute thing that staff and the city don't really have any leeway there. If it says shall,
unless I'm wrong, Mr. uh Mr. That's a must to me. So >> correct. >> I you know I think it's I I I would like to just see a couple sentences here taken out about the step back and that
way give the latitude to the architects and the developer to come to us and say hey I want to build this building. It's going to be 65 ft high but here's how I'm going to make it look nice. It's like if you look at the hotels, they did frontages
that while it's not a step back, it's still like little projections here and little decorations here. If you go to Porta Del Rio on the front of all of our buildings, we have styrofoam structures on the fronts that give them aesthetics.
You have the same thing on Bayport and Bayside, the same type of aesthetics without a step back. And you know, I think the buildings look very good without the step back and and just to give
it I I wouldn't want to have it be there as an absolute that you have to do this. That's all I'm saying. South well I think I don't know the dates of constru exact dates of construction of all the residential projects that you
mentioned but they may have preceded the adoption of this step back requirement >> probably did they build were in 2007 >> yeah the hotels on the other hand you know had to I'm pretty sure they they
came in after the step back requirement now the current code says that there's supposed to say height mitigation measures s such as building stepbacks are proposed and approved by the community appearance board. So there's
this there is this requirement that's currently in the code. So that's why shall be required was put in there put in there. I thought it was a little clearer. But in terms of what the city how staff has reviewed this issue I'll let Connor speak to that um since he was
here under the more recent um hotels. >> Sure. Yes. So, this uh section of the code is a piece of the A1A economic opportunity overlay district, >> right? >> And that was passed a while back with the intent of creating more defined
architectural standards for the city. uh making sure that you know this district that's close to our main thoroughfare has a sort of architectural character that doesn't just prioritize you know building layout but also prioritizes you
know community feel. I think it was put in there because it was in alignment with what the council at the time and the planning and zoning board at the time desired in terms of building aesthetics. you know, uh, when you're on the street walking or biking, that makes
the building feel a lot smaller and less daunting if it does have a step back. Um, so I think they did it with the intent of, hey, we will allow for taller buildings in our city, which is something that not all residents necessarily support, but only if you are
>> contentious issue. only if you are taking measures to improve the architectural character of the building while you are getting that additional height allowance. And I think that's a discussion that the community appearance board would have with the developers a
lot in terms of hey yeah we will grant you this height allowance. I think more often than not they would grant the height allowance but only if these certain things happen. I think that at certain times this step back uh piece in
the A1A overlay district was interpreted more as a suggestion rather than a requirement and that might explain why some historical buildings that were built after this code was put in place might not necessarily have the stepbacks.
>> I if I can interject the way it was written if you look at the strike through >> Yep. The community appearance board did h did have latitude to say we want to step back or we don't want to step back. What I'm saying is >> we've taken away that latitude. They
we've tied >> staff's hands are tied now. You have to demand a step back >> and the community appearance board has to demand a step back. There's no latitude whereas the way it was written it said or proposed and approved by the
community appearance board. So there was not this shall or must be done. That's all I'm saying. >> No, that's a good point. And I think that it could be advantageous to, you know, consider similar language as it relates to the city council approval in
terms of, you know, hey, uh, increase building heights above four stories or 45 ft may be proposed and considered for six stories or 65 ft if approved by the city council. and uh you know architectural standards
or height mitigation measures may be required something like that where it uh you know it allows council to have that power but it doesn't mandate that they do it if it doesn't make sense. >> That's that's just what I'm suggesting is that instead of tying staff's hands
and council's hands and everybody's hands that >> right now the way it's written to me it reads like there's a there's a latitude there. >> Sure. Yeah. Yeah. And we >> because it says >> well >> it says it it it said our are if what
was height so does a building step back it said or setback are proposed and approved by the community appearance board. So it used to be there was a latitude there that >> if the community appearance board said to make it look good you got to do this you had to do it. But if not,
>> but the next, you know, the next sentence I would point out that's not being changed. >> Mhm. >> Uhhuh. >> Says buildings exceeding 45 ft shall provide a step back of at least 14 ft along all sides facing a public roadway. But well
>> then maybe should we take that out because >> you want to recommend >> um to me like I say I I think it's better for the city for the city council and for the boards to have some latitude and for the staff
to have some latitude in working with a proposed project in terms of suggestions that your hands aren't tied and the city council's hands aren't tied. Yeah, I definitely think it should be phrased in a way that gives the city final authority to require those things if
they so wish, but I'm not opposed to, you know, >> it could state could be required. >> Mhm. >> To allow the latitude because the like you said shall >> I'm used to dealing with codes and shall means you you will >> correct. Yeah. That they shouldn't even
approve it if not. Um, so yeah, we can we can workshop the right way to phrase that if that is a recommendation that you want to make in terms of a change. >> They're making a recommendation. So you you wrestle with this issue. What do you recommend? >> Maybe say buildings exceeding 45 ft may
be required to provide a step back along all sides facing the public roadway at the uh what's the word I'm looking for? >> Discretion. discretion. Thank you. Of the city council. >> At the discretion of the city council as
a condition of receiving additional height. Yeah. >> So that I'm just trying to workshop where it would actually be in the sentence. >> Is it for is it just for buildings over 45 feet? >> Correct. >> All right. So then I guess one
suggestion would be to um is that we have to those two sentences beginning on line 32 ending on line 35 probably should read then height mitigation measures such as building step back as illustrated in figure 2 and
figure 2A may be required >> Mhm. >> by the city council >> and then probably 34 and 35 the next sentence should probably be removed >> will come out. Yes. Exactly. And then
that comes out. >> Mhm. >> Then it stays in there and if it's approved by count required by council it's required. Now on the other hand, I can see where unfortunately that can lead us into litigation because
if you have a standard that allows discretion of the city council, you know, that can always lead to other troubles. But I'd still rather have it be that we had the city council had the discretion >> to
>> not require it if they didn't feel like it was needed. There was other measures that could be taken to make it aesthetically pleasing. >> Sure. and the precedent would show that we actually made it less, you know, restrictive. Well, if anything, it's going from one board having the
discretion to the other board. So, I don't think it necessarily creates any additional restrictions. And actually I think it I think it belongs under site plan approval process because like you're saying you know the building
at that point you're approving what the form of the building is going to be whether and what the envelope is going to look like and the community appearance board as you're saying is just doing in terms of coloration and maybe different materials and things
like that. Um do they have barrel tile roofs? Do they have shingle roofs, things like that? That's where I see the community appearance board coming in. But as chairman said, you don't paint the car until you got the car built. So,
>> yeah. >> Well, I think that's the way it probably it would work because I'm going to increase building heights above four stories or 45 ft. And that's what we're talking about, >> correct? Yep. >> May be proposed and considered up to six
stories of 65 ft if approved by the city council in conjunction with the site plan approval process which is being added. Height mitigation measures such as building stepback as illustrated may
be required by the city council >> and that would end it and then take out the next sentence. and we take out the next sentence. So the height mitigation measures. >> So the height mitigation measures on the next page would still be there.
>> Yeah. >> If the council and so the people are on notice that >> we may require this but it's up to the city council as part of the site plan approval process. Mhm. >> I know it's one long sentence, but I
think where the we are we're adding the language if approved by the city council in conjunction with the site plan approval process. I think I prefer to put a a comma in there and then and height mitigation measures
>> may be required. >> Yeah, may be required. >> Uh >> such as a such as such as a step back. So, keep it all part of the approval process. >> Um, I I would combine that.
>> I think that makes sense. >> Makes sense to me. >> Yeah, it makes sense. >> Definitely reads a lot better. >> Okay. >> Yeah, >> that's a good that's a good point, >> right? Yeah, >> that was all my comments, Mr. Chairman. >> I appreciate that very much. Any any other members on the board here?
>> Anthony, you have anything else to add to this? >> I don't I don't think so. Um, does she have any questions? >> I don't at this time. But, uh, uh, Miss Ryder, do you have anything you want to add to this? >> Um, no. I actually concur with Mr.
>> Okay. I just wanted to give you an opportunity to be part of our part of our board tonight. Um, anything else from uh, city? Now I believe we understand your recommended changes as it relates to calling it a
security plan not system. Uh the second one was related to the finished grades for adjoining roads and then that third one as it relates to the height process becoming a may instead of a shell. >> All right. Well, um, at this time, uh,
want to see if we have a motion to consider ordinance number 08-2025 amending chapter 110 of zoning article, uh, uh, article six, site plans, and chapter 22, community appearance board,
revised review uh, procedures and streamline approval process with the stated changes, system, change to plan, and uh, also the areas that we've identified on page 13.
>> All right. >> I will make that motion, Mr. Chairman. >> All right. I'm looking for a second on that motion. >> I'll second the motion. >> Fantastic. Uh, call the role, please. >> Vice Chairman Denny for the motion.
>> Board member General Core >> for the motion. >> Board member Hartman >> or the motion. Chairman Straoud >> for the motion. All right. Care of that. All right. [clears throat]
Next item on our agenda, final item I believe is to consider ordinance uh 092025 reassigning the duties of the board of adjustment to the city council and abolishing the board of adjustment. Planning and zoning board will make recommendations to the council for final
approval. >> Um like the uh >> yeah can start driving this bus. >> Yeah. Yeah. I'll give a brief introduction to it. So this was also a city council directive. Um and it's positioned with the goal of
consolidating quasi judicial land use functions under the city council. Um when you have two different boards that are interpreting quasi judicial decisions, it can lead to
uh separate and non uh you know communicative interpretations of regulations where the city council may consider something that was passed by your board and the city council to mean one thing whereas the board of adjustment could interpret it another
way. and uh it's it's difficult to have quasi judicial decisions uh being done on two different tracks so to speak. So this ordinance would uh aim to promote a uniform interpretation, eliminate
eliminate uh you know multiple hearings, whether it's you know having a board of adjustment meeting that just gets appealed by city council and then city council ends up making the decision in the end regardless uh which is how our code is written as it currently stands. And it just ensures a more cohesive
policy direction for the city. Um it's align in alignment with our comprehensive plan as it relates to uh the city's continual evaluation of city boards. Um right now the city council would have the final decision on
resonings or site plans whereas the board of adjustment would consider things like variances and special exceptions. Um this fragmentation as I alluded to can lead to inconsistent interpretations really. So the goal is to consolidate authority, enhance
accountability as it places the final uh decision-making authority with the board that is ultimately elected uh by the people of the city of Cape Canaveral. And that can help, you know, strengthen uh public confidence, accountability, but also just visibility um as well so
that decisions are not made through a board that people may not be as familiar with. um definitely not elected officials on that situation. So really it just wants to ensure that the city is united in their decision-m. It will
reduce delays uh in the case that there'd have to be sequential hearings you in the situation of an appeal and it just really makes sure that procedures are consistent. There's also just a few pieces of code cleanup and various other sections that remove references to the
BOA uh you know throughout the code. So, as I said, it was a council directive to consolidate quasi judicial uh decisionm for a streamlined vision of the city. Uh and staff recommends that the board uh recommend this ordinance to the city
council for their approval, which would also be two readings. But also, as I said last time, we're here for questions. >> Um, I went and looked at the uh current board members and it appeared that most all of them had termed out. >> Mhm. >> That were there. Was there a problem
keeping that board filled with members because I believe it was supposed to have seven members and >> Yes. >> I kind of looked back. I did a little history research on that to see uh what the, you know, members were on that and looked like that it was tough to keep members on that board. Yeah, I would say
that that's an accurate assessment. I know that in the year that I've been here, we've not had much interest in new members joining the board, and you're correct that we've never been close to that seven number. >> How often did that board meet? >> In the time that I've been here, it has only met twice.
>> Twice. Okay. So, wasn't wasn't a lot going on with >> No, I think frankly, it probably in the history before that would meet once a year, if that. I can see that being part of part part of the situation >> for sure
>> and and also slowing down the process. Uh I'm going to turn to uh Susan here. Susan, you want to >> No, I'm all for it. >> Discuss anything with this >> and uh I' I've witnessed some of the miscommunications in the past and and I
think that this is a good idea. Again, this is a meeting about efficiency. We're we're getting it going on here. [laughter] >> Mr. General Cor I'm for it also. I think it's just a cleaner process. Make makes life easier for everybody.
>> Did any of you find M? >> Uh yes, Mr. Chair. Uh, number one, yeah, I agree that it makes a lot more sense that all all variances or resonings would come through us as opposed to having a separate board and again having
to go through a stepbystep process that becomes longer. Um, just a couple things. I found a couple of typos in here. Okay. >> On page four of 16, if I'm reading it correctly
on line, the last word on line 26 and the last the first word on line 27 should not be struck through. It looks like city council was struck through. >> You caught that, too. [laughter] Good eye. >> Oh, yeah. >> Yeah. End of 26. Yep. >> I missed that. Okay, good.
>> Um, let's see. The next thing was on page six of 16. Um on line 25 and on line 27 city council is inserted twice.
On 25 it says on by the city council. City council and was disapproved. >> Got it. [snorts] >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um now substantive section 110.32A we talk about a variance expiring 12
months after the effective date. Should that be changed to 24 months because section 110.224 for a permit approval was changed from 12 months to 24 months.
I think that's also a consideration that could be made. I think >> in the case of a variance, >> you know, it's the precursor to a site development plan. So, I think that sometimes you have to be careful in terms of granting something that,
>> you know, might not make sense two years later and then you get an additional two years to actually do it. Um, but >> Well, well, no. Well, I think they would run concurrently if I'm reading. >> Yeah. Where where's the other reference? >> 110.224 >> that I have. Okay.
>> Where we we changed the time to get a building permit from 12 months to 24 months. Well, >> if somebody's halfway through the building permit process and their variance is going to run out in 12 months, then essentially they're in a
12-month time crunch to get their building permit. >> I'm sorry. I'm Let me catch up with you. So I I have 110-32 on page six, right? >> Correct. And then the other reference >> 110.224. >> It was on the prior ordinance that we looked at.
>> Yes. >> Page 24 of the packet. Page 13 out of 17 as it relates to ordinance number eight. >> Point me to the right page in the same. >> Yeah. Are you are you looking at paper copy? >> Yes. >> Yeah. So, it's page 13 out of 17 on
ordinance 8, the one that we just looked at last, not this one. >> Oh. Oh, >> yeah. So, he's looking at code from the prior >> different ordinance. Okay. >> I'm sorry. Yeah. I'm like, where's 224? >> Because you have basically what it's saying, if I'm reading this correct,
Conser, we have after you get your site plan approval, you got 24 months to get your building permits. Yeah. Yeah. >> So, I'm saying if we give a variance as part of the site plan approval process, that variance should be good for 24 months
because you don't want it to expire. You you're going to spend, you know, again, somebody's going to spend time and energy doing a project and then uh their approval runs out halfway through. >> Uh let me point one thing out. Uh under
um section 110-32, you read a little further down into that. Upon written request, property owner and city manager may extend the expiration date an additional 12 months. >> Right? But think about this, okay? Let's
say you're in the middle of permitting something, a an approved site plan, okay? And you get to the 12 months. Well, in the meantime, the city council composition has changed because of a vote and the new city council doesn't like the project. So you spent 12 months
designing the project, spending architects, engineers, working with the city to get it approved, >> and now all of a sudden the variances that make it feasible are not extended. >> That thought crossed my mind. Yes, that's a good point. >> That that to me
is a big disincentive for somebody to want to spend the million dollars to develop >> a project on the site. >> Carter, can you respond to that? Yeah. Yeah, that does that is logical especially because I think that the way
the code is written now kind of considers that someone would get their variant and then start seeking approval. But if they're doing it concurrently that you do kind of want those timelines to align with one another. Um >> well the variance would be approved as
part of the site plan and then they would start the permit process where they would have 24 months now to get their permits where their site plan would be approved >> if we don't change this section at 24 months >> part of the site plan that was approved
would expire after 12 months. >> Yeah. >> So there's an inconsistenc Yeah. No, I have a I think I have a solution for that. That's a that's a very good point. when there's there's two two ways to if there's a variance that's just a separate oneoff individual application
for a variance I don't see why the 12 months should be changed but when the variance is approved in conjunction with a site plan >> right >> it should have the same duration as the site plan >> I like that because >> that's what [snorts] your point you're trying to make >> yeah correct
>> so I would on this or on the BOA ordinance 110-32 I could add some language that says it's it's 12 months, but if it's approved in conjunction with the site plan, it >> shall expire when the site plan >> expires pursuant to the site plan
expiration 110-2. >> That would make perfect becomes part of the site plan approval. >> Yeah. Almost similar to how the the height allowance is included within the site plan approval. Yeah, that's that's a good way of doing it because we do get, you know, as Anthony alluded to
with the one-off, we get people that come in and just say, "Hey, I want to build this single family home. The setback is 10. I want it to be eight." And I think in that instance, 12 months probably makes more sense. >> Absolutely. >> Um, but if it's tied to a site plan, it should be tied to the site plan time-wise.
>> Okay. And in conjunction with that, then at the top of page seven of 16, we have the expiration of the first 12-month period. We're going to have to clarify it there. >> Mhm. >> And in
section B at the end of line 13, I would think that the 18, if it's approved in conjunction with the site plan, should become 30 months. >> Could you remind me of where that 18 to 30 was?
>> Uh, page seven of 16. The 18 is on line 13 where it talks about a variance becoming null and void. >> Okay. >> So if it's part of a site plan approval then you would add 12 months to the 18
to me. So it should be 30 months if it's in conjunction with a site plan approval. >> So I mean I um if you just if you the board would just give me liberty to actually modify that language I after the meeting. Um, but I understand the
gist. If if the if the variance special exceptions approved in conjunction with the site plan, it runs concurrent with the site plan duration. >> Correct. >> If it's a oneoff, then it's subject to the 12-month rule.
>> Yeah. >> And in that case, >> you're right. Instead of being 30 months, it could actually be 24 months. >> Yeah. >> I need to I need to look at that. >> Yeah. Yeah, I'm assessing that 18 to that section B that talks about 18 months.
>> Yeah, B is like, okay, if you don't go forward, >> nobody can rely on it in the future past 18 months. So, it was 6 months after the 12 month approval period for the variance. >> I think it may also more relate to the
abandonment of a structure or the abandonment of a business if they're no longer in operation. you know, if it's something where someone's currently in operation, they get this variance, but then they cease to exist, and then someone tries to come back and claim that variance, right?
>> I think that that's the main interpretation on that one. But Anthony and I can definitely see what makes sense there, you know, to be in alignment because if it makes sense to go higher than 18, it does. I don't think we need to go to 30, but if we went to 24 to be consistent with the
language we're adding above where we're changing from 12 to 24 if it's in conjunction with a site plan. >> Sure. Cuz I do think that those two things are while not necessarily mutually exclusive, they are different circumstances, but I do see why aligning them might make sense.
>> Okay. >> I just And the only other thing I caught a typo on page 10 of 16. Um section 110.92 line 32.
We should take out the word the before city council because it's in there twice. >> Yep. To the board of adjustment or the city council. Yeah. >> Got it. >> That was it.
That's all my comments. >> [laughter] >> Yeah, we're doing grammar. I like it. >> I am a CPA by background, so I am very very detail oriented. Unfortunately, >> well, fortunately for us, you are
>> those are great. Those are great comments. >> Absolutely. Fantastic. Fantastic. Anthony, you were going to you and Connor are going to get together and rewrite that or is that >> Yeah, I I I understand what the board wants to do and tie it to to the site
plan approval process. So, all the technical changes that were mentioned, I've written them all down. So, >> if the board doesn't have any further discussion, if you want to make a motion to approve, make all the changes, technical changes that were referenced,
and then um I will align 110-32 with the site plan um expiration in 110-224. And I'll have to, you know, and I'll modify the ordinance >> accordingly. >> All right.
>> Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to approve ordinance number 09-2025 reassigning the duties of the board of adjustment to the city council and abolishing the board of adjustment. The plan zoning board will make a recommendation to the city council for
final approval as amended by this discussion. >> And I'll look for a second on that motion. >> I'll second the motion. >> All right. Go ahead and have a roll call. >> Vice Chair Denny
>> for the motion. >> Member Jennore >> for the motion. >> Member Hartman >> for the motion. >> Chairman Straoud >> for the motion. >> All right. >> All right. Thank you guys. So, all three of the items today will uh be planned to
be heard at the council meeting on December 16th for their first reading. Uh and the board appointment will only require one meeting, of course, not two. Oh, >> right. >> I do have >> Yeah, right now you question. >> Yeah, >> Anthony, since the um responsibilities
will now go over to the BOA, if there is an appeal to the council's decision, is that possible? Will that go to an appeal court or is there no possible >> council's decisions are ultimately going to be final? Mhm.
>> And then the recourse after that is an appeal to the to the circuit court. >> Got it. Yep. Yeah. I remember in that appeal section, it still alludes to community appearance boards being appealed to city council, but now with BOA, it would go to a body higher than
the city. BOA they be they would be abolished and >> site plan approval they'll be be final by the council subject to you know appellet rights under under Florida law to the circuit court cab um we haven't
really gotten any direction from the city council whether that board remains or that board also gets consolidated um we might hear more next Tuesday or the following Tuesday. >> Yeah. Um but their their decisions are appealable to the city council under the
existing code. >> Yep. All right. Yeah. Thank you. >> We're tacking tackling some >> heavy priorities more with the site plan process and variances and special exceptions which are the bread and butter. >> No, absolutely. Anything we can do to
streamline that process, I can tell you makes makes sense for the city >> and and for future development. >> Yeah. All right. Well, thank all you guys. Appreciate it. >> All right. And I guess ask for a motion
to adjourn this meeting. >> I'll make a motion to adjourn the meeting. >> I'll second the motion. >> I just want to state to everybody I appreciate everyone's participation tonight. Uh, and everybody has done a fantastic job. And, uh, city, thank you
for your input. And Anthony, we couldn't do this without you. Renee, appreciate you. And uh, Miss Suzanne Ryder, I look forward to seeing you in the near future. This meeting is adjourned. >> All right. [clears throat] Thank you guys.