Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacket 06-05-2007 Regularty of Cape Canaveral :IL REGULAR MEETING f HALL ANNEX ie, Cape Canaveral, Florida TUESDAY lune 25, 007 7:00 PM AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: CONSENT AGENDA: 1. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of April 3, 2007. 2. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of May 1, 2007. 3. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of May 15, 2007. CONSIDERATIONS: 4. Motion to Approve: Proposal for Sanitary Sewer Force Main Construction Support in the Amount of $21,614. ORDINANCES: First Public Hearing: 5. Motion to Approve: Ordinance No. 04-2007, Amending Chapter 110, Clarifying the Intent of the R-1, R-2, and R-3 Residential Zoning Districts, Defining the Terms "Resort Dwelling" and Resort Condominium," for Second Reading. 105 Polk Avenue • Post Office Box 326 • Cape Canaveral, FL 32920-0326 Telephone: (321) 868-1220 • SUNCOM: 982-1220 • FAX: (321) 868-1248 www.myflorida.com/cape • e-mail: ccapecanaveral@cfl.rr.com City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting June 5, 2007 Page 2 REPORTS: 1. City Manager 2. Staff 3. City Council AUDIENCE TO BE HEARD: Comments to be heard on items that do not appear on the agenda of this meeting. Citizens will limit their comments to five (5) minutes. The City Council will not take any action under the "Audience To Be Heard" section of the agenda. The Council may schedule such items as regular agenda items and act upon them in the future. ADJOURNMENT: Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Florida Statutes, the City hereby advises the public that: If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Council with respect to any matter considered 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. Persons with disabilities needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact the City Cleric's office (868-1221) 48 hours in advance of the meeting. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL ANNEX 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida TUESDAY April 3, 2007 7:00 PM MINUTES CALL TO ORDER: The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL: Council Members Present: Mayor Pro Tem Council Member Council Member Mayor Council Member Others Present: City Manager City Attorney City Clerk Building Official Recreation Director Bob Hoog Leo Nicholas Buzz Petsos Rocky Randels Shannon Roberts Bennett Boucher Anthony Garganese Susan Stills Todd Morley Nancy Hanson CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Motion to Approve: An Authorization to Petition the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for an Administrative Hearing on the Request from Transmontaigne, Inc. for a 2 -year Permit Extension. Mayor Randels acknowledged that Transmontaigne, Inc. filed a request for a permit extension and respondents had 21 -days to reply. Attorney Garganese stated that there was currently a pending appeal of the Building Official's interpretation regarding Coastal Fuels request for special exception yet to be heard by the Board of Adjustment. The issue would be heard within the next 30 to 45 days. Currently, issue at hand was whether or not the two tanks were lawfully permitted pursuant to the City's zoning code. The Florida Department Environmental of Protection [DEP] issued a construction permit for two additional tanks at the Coastal Fuels site, and that permit has been issued, and Coastal Fuels has filed an extension of time on the construction permit that the Florida DEP issued. Coastal Fuels published said notice with the allowable 21 days for any interested party to file a challenge to the decision of the State Agency, in this case DEP. Attorney City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting April 3, 2007 Page 2 of 15 Garganese stated that if the Council decided to file a petition challenging the extension, the only issue that the Council could challenge was the extension, not the initial construction permit. The DEP does not consider local zoning regulations but its own rules. Attorney Garganese stated that the real issue the City was facing was a local zoning issue and the Council would need to consider where to apply its resources. Attorney Garganese stated that the question was if the intent to issue the extension was valid. Attorney Garganese clarified that the construction permit ended May 31, 2007. Attorney Garganese stated that even if the City were successful, Transmontaigne could apply for a construction permit again and DEP could award it again without considering the City's zoning regulations as was done the first time. Attorney Garganese explained that the standard for issuing an extension on the permit was to demonstrate reasonable assurances that upon completion, the extended permit would comply with the standards and conditions required by applicable regulations. There were reasonable assurances certified by an engineer in the original application under Attorney Garganese's review. Attorney Garganese stated that he was unsure of any further permits needed by DEP. Ms. Roberts asked did he not think it important that the City go on record at the State level. Mr. Boucher replied that the DEP staff in Orlando was aware of the City's concerns about them issuing a permit without them checking with the local permitting authority. He stated that the notice requirements were not sufficient for a project of this size and scope. He informed that those concerns were also raised while he and members of the Council were in Tallahassee for a more inclusive permitting process. Ms. Roberts expressed her concern that the City was not weighing in about its original concerns regarding the expansion project in the most recent months and the City was not recording that it had great difficulty with it. Attorney Garganese explained that he was reviewing the issue from a technical permitting issue and as to whether or not this was the proper forum to officially go on record in an extension petition or to challenging DEP's extension. If the Council chose to officially go on record with the DEP, the Council could adopt a Resolution stating their position related to their lack of coordination on the permitting with the City. Attorney Garganese re -stated that the real issue for the City was the issue of zoning. Ms. Roberts conveyed that most of the community's concerns were environmentally related and she found it ironic that the DEP granted the construction permit without consideration with the community's environmental concerns. Ms. Roberts stated that she also found it important to document the City's concern about the environmental aspects of this expansion proposal. Ms. Roberts stated further that it was not only the process but also the implications with what DEP was doing. Attorney Garganese replied that a response to the DEP would become irrelevant to the issue at hand. He informed that there was an innumerable amount of study regarding the emissions from the existing facility that have been filed with the DEP. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting April 3, 2007 Page 3 of 15 Mr. Nicholas expressed that if the City decided to go on record in opposition to the permit extension he thought it would be better to include the concerns of the environmental aspect. This would provide sufficient grounds on the City's part to cite some reasons. Ms. Roberts stated that from the City's perspective there may be a precedent here. She also explained how this would broaden the parameters of how the City defined environmental concerns because the community is extremely close to what they consider a dangerous situation and they have documented their concerns about the noise, the smell and the proximity of the tanks, and to a layperson perspective these were environmentally related. Ms. Roberts stated that there was an opportunity for the City to weigh in on how the State defined environmental issues and concluded it important to weigh in on all counts in this case. Mr. Nicholas asked if the City decided to go on record in opposition to the extension, with the issue yet to be heard by the Board of Adjustment, would this be construed as the City administration or government having a negative impact or influence on the Board's decision. Attorney Garganese stated that technically and legally it would be irrelevant to the issue at hand facing the Board of Adjustment. The Board would address a very narrow issue of whether or not liquefied petroleum as used in the code which means petroleum under gas, or under pressure, or gasoline, or some other petroleum product. They would not address the extension or any other issue at this time, unless the Board agrees with Coastal Fuels position. In which case, Coastal Fuels would be eligible to file a Special Exception application for the two additional tanks and then there would be another proceeding before the Board of Adjustment to address if these particulars permit application complies with the Special Exception criteria including compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Petsos questioned if a petition were submitted based solely on the environmental impacts, how much resources would the City need to expend versus the Board of Adjustment. Attorney Garganese responded that the City would expend resources in multiple forums. Proceeding would require significant litigation resources for Dower Administrative Hearing similar to a lawsuit in Circuit Court as a trial before a law judge. He explained that Todd Morley would also require individual legal counsel related to the Building Official's position regarding the interpretation of zoning code. Attorney Garganese advised the Council to choose their battle wisely keeping in mind the end result. He stated that there was a narrow issue before DEP. In finality even if the City were successful, the DEP could issue another construction permit without considering the City's zoning regulations that was a real issue and the environmental issues the DEP would address using their own regulations. Ms. Roberts expressed her concern with the DEP ignoring local prerogatives and concerns and she stated the Council has and should continue to weigh in on the community's concerns possibly by staff or the Council at the hearing. Ms. Roberts explained that there were some precedents here of concern that were conveyed while the City's delegation was in Tallahassee speaking to their Legislators. This happens to any community throughout the State in which DEP does not consider local prerogatives and City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting April 3, 2007 Page 4 of 15 this was an incredible case in which the interest of the community needed to be considered from an environmental perspective as well as other quality of life issues. Attorney Garganese replied DEP could say that their jurisdiction was defined by the Legislator and that it was clear under the law that the DEP did not have to consider local zoning aspects and local land development regulations. Ms. Roberts replied that the governmental bodies have the prerogative to interpret for the higher good and DEP has the prerogative to consult with local jurisdictions; however, in this case they have chosen not. Mayor Randels related how DEP expressed that it was not obligated to notify the local community. Mayor Randels stated from the DEP letter in which the ombudsman's replied that "they neither had the time, energy, or desire to correspond with the impacted parties." Mayor Pro Tem Hoog expressed that he agreed with the City Attorney to expend the resources where necessary. He stated that the City's zoning issue would stand as is and he was not concerned with proceeding to a legal fight. Attorney Garganese replied he anticipated a legal issue and if the construction permit were enough then they would proceed to build the tanks. Attorney Garganese stated that the City's strongest position would be to stand behind the zoning regulations and the interpretation of the Building Official. He stated that there were two different bureaucracies at work with separate jurisdictions and many venues involved. The Council would need to work within the multiple venues and expend resources across all of those venues including involvement with the State Legislation and effectuating rule changes with the DEP. Mayor Randels summarized that if the Council supported addressing the issue at hand, then Transmontaigne could still apply for another construction permit. Attorney Garganese affirmed. Mr. Petsos added that if they denied the permit extension they would need grounds for denial. He clarified that they would use the original building permit for their case on the extension denial. Attorney Garganese replied that some of that would be relevant. Ms. Ruth Anders addressed the Council and stated that DEP'S letter stated that there must be a material fact to dispute. She stated that the public and City were not made aware of Transmontaigne's permit application on something that made an environmental impact. Ms. Anders informed that their rules were so highly technical and specialized that they required a team of specialized engineers and attorneys for analysis. Ms. Anders read a portion of a DEP document that establishes the procedures to obtain a permit. She stated that the regulations were extremely difficult to interpret. Ms. Anders related that the citizens' group would be appreciative if the Council would substantiate the facts as presented by them in their three-page letter. Ms. Anders related how the applications appeared to be a cut and paste of highly technical data with no requirement for zoning location, the legal status of the existing location, or the proposed tanks in the community. Ms. Anders also pointed out how the headings were not contiguous and no one could identify a legal issue or if any existed. Ms. Anders introduced Mr. Rick Evans to provide his analysis of the technical information. Mayor Randels summarized that her request for relief from the Council was to void the original City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting April 3, 2007 Page 5 of 15 permit and reject the extension request. Ms. Anders clarified for Mayor Randels that their desire was for the City to substantiate the facts as stated in her letter about regarding the Coastal Fuels application. Mayor Randels concluded that the intent was for the Council to review the facts as presented by the Solana Lakes committee as represented by Ms. Anders and for the Council to find them correct. Mr. Richard Evans, 8921 Lake Drive, presented two documents to the Council and noted that the key point was the maximum process through flow rate. He stated for the record that he was not qualified to operate a terminal; however, the second document quoted Vice President Greg Pound, of Transmontaigne in a letter dated August 23, 2005 to Canaveral Port Authority. He asked the Council to tum to page three of a 14 -page letter in which the Port was seeking bidders for alternative job site. Mayor Randels noted that they were working at a low capacity of their total availability. Mr. Evans stated the key fact that tank capacity turned efficiently at a rate of three to four turns per month. Mr. Evans referred to his spread sheet and noted that 25 annual tank turns, 2.1 tank turns per year not three to four time the tank capacity as stated. Mr. Evans stated that based on Mr. Pound's letter at three tank turns per month, the annual throughput rate at the low end of his range would be 453 million gallons, If they perform at the high number of four tank turns, the rate would be 604 million gallons and 195 trucks. Mr. Evans stated that these were the expansion numbers. Mr. Evans questioned the disparity in the application maximum throughput of 315 million gallons and Mr. Pound's statement of three to four tank turns monthly, if he does four tank turns it is almost double that amount. Mr. Evans stated that four tank turns per month, would deliver considerably more and not the 315 gallons capacity as stated in their application. Mr. Evans stated that this appeared to be a material fact to him. Mr. Evans referred to page 2 of the spreadsheet and look at the three situations and if they deliver the tanks at the stated capacity that would be 101 transports daily. A transport to deliver, preset the load, to fill the truck, and disconnect was optimally performed in 18 minutes. He summarized that there would be 1,828 minutes per day of loading not occurring with the new tanks. Mr. Evans supposed that they would need to build at least 1.27 more lanes operating 24 hours per day, seven days per week. However, if Mr. Pound's calculation of 3 to 4 tank turns were correct, then they would need to build 2-3 more lanes to deliver fuel. Mr. Evans queried if the application covered every part of the expansion. Mr. Boucher summarized that in relation to their letter they were under capacity, so there would be a significant change in truck traffic. Mr. Evans noted the critical fact of throughput volume of 315 million gallons, which was in conflict with Mr. Pound's numbers of efficient operations of 3 to 4 tank turns. Mr. Boucher also noted that this would also effect emissions. Ms. Roberts re -stated the importance of the Council going on record. She asked if legal counsel were required. Attorney Garganese replied that the hearing was a legal proceeding that required putting on evidence, a discovery process, disclosure of witness, City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting April 3, 2007 Page 6 of 15 such as was done in Circuit Court. Mayor Randels explained that Ms. Anders representing Solana Lakes in her letter presented questions to the DEP. Mayor Randels brought out that the Council could adopt a Resolution expressing the City's opposition to the extension request and also to express its concern about the environment. He stated however, that this would not stop the request for an extension. Ms. Anders stated that her group approved the letter and they were aware the issue could proceed to court. She and the group wanted to go on record with DEP because they felt that they were denied due process. Ms. Anders stated how a material fact dispute was obscured in the application process. Ms. Anders also stated that the DEP had a constitutional right to provide due process, notification of the application for the permit extension, and an opportunity to present an opposing side. Mayor Randels asked the Council if there was consensus to go on record with a Resolution to oppose the extension due to the environmental concerns. Ms. Anders replied to Mayor Randels that she forwarded her Committee's reply by Certified Mail. Mayor Randels clarified that the City's strongest position was as a zoning issue through the Board of Adjustment. Attorney Garganese affirmed the position of the City's local zoning regulations. Mr. Boucher stated that 21 days to formulate a position and obtaining information from the DEP Orlando office was a difficult task. However, he hoped to see the community continue to participate in the disclosure process, which was helpful in gaining pertinent knowledge. Attorney Garganese replied to Mayor Randels that if the Council chose to address the extension, the Council would be unable to address the original construction permit. Ms. Roberts asked for a broader letter to address the specific concerns from Mayor Randels or the City Manager to convey the community's concerns with environmental impact in a local community. Attorney Garganese replied that her points were valid and one could effectuate a change. Ms. Roberts replied that if the City went on record then the City would have presented a consistent position. Attorney Garganese reminded that the deadline of April 13th was a jurisdictional deadline and the City would not have another time to address. Attorney Garganese explained the process and said that the State Agency would make the decision at the Administrative level and typically a notice of intent was published and respondents were given 21 days to submit a petition. Attorney Garganese explained further how the details in that the case would proceed to an Administrative Law judge and DEP could either make the recommendation or ignore it. He stated that he could evaluate further and return to the Council with a more complete brief discussing the standards, processes, and procedures. Ms. Roberts suggested a Resolution complimented by the letter to outline the City's broader and specific concerns and state the City's position in this immediate situation either from Mayor Randels on behalf of the Council, or from the City Manager. Mr. Boucher informed that the Council would need a Special Meeting to Adopt a Resolution. However, Mayor Randels clarified that if the Council denied the extension it would not have much effect. Mr. Petsos agreed to a Resolution and also asked for the Council to consider the three-page letter. Mr. Nicholas suggested a Special Meeting on City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting April 3, 2007 Page 7 of 15 Tuesday, April 10th at 5:30 P.M. Ms. Anders reiterated the Committee's request was for the City's substantiation of its facts stated in their letter. The City Manager and the City Attorney would proceed to draft the resolution. Ms. Roberts requested a letter of concern addressing the broader issues to the Secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog requested to take the Resolution to the Board of Directors of the Space Coast League of Cities for support to get DEP to notify local jurisdictions during their permitting process. Mr. Petsos suggested forwarding a letter along with a copy of the Resolution. He also requested an unsigned Resolution for the Mayor Pro Tem to take to the Florida League of Cities. Council agreed on drafting a letter as well. Ms. Joyce Gresham, of 8931 Lake Drive, informed that the notice of intent to issue a construction permit was in the name of Transmontaigne and there were two addresses for the property. She stated that she spoke with Ms. Julie Ferris of the DEP saying that residents were unaware of the identity of Transmontaigne as well as their intent to construct two new tanks. Ms. Ferris told her that if the company moved the tanks from the original permit, the company would need to apply for a new permit. Mayor Randels stated that they had not. Ms. Gresham stated that ad was not published in the name in which the company does business. Ms. Gresham expressed that safety was a concern as well as the environmental aspect. Ms. Barabara Morrison, of 8931 Lake Drive, #503, questioned who has jurisdiction over construction in the State. Mayor Randels replied that the municipality has the final say especially on zoning. Ms. Annie Tannenbaum, 8941 Lake Drive, asked the City Manager if he received a written response on the air emissions complaint. Mr. Boucher informed that he received an E-mail response. He replied that they made an inspection and Coastal Fuels was found in compliance. Ms. Tannenbaum informed that compliance was a convenient term. She related how Mr. Michael Young confirmed that there was an odor of asphalt. As part of the permit process, no objectionable odor was allowed. Ms. Tannenbaum stated that the City could oppose on that basis. Mr. John Gedney wrote a letter that stated there was an objectionable odor. Ms. Tannenbaum stated that there was documentation of an objectionable odor. Mr. Boucher explained that DEP's response to the odor that they were using a high sulfur fuel oil in the asphalt tar process. Transmontaigne was supposed to obtain a different grade of fuel oil with lower sulfur content and that should have happened in mid -to late March. Mr. Boucher stated that if there were any future instances of an objectionable odor, he should be notified in order to follow up with DEP. Mr. Dick Biel, of 8951 Lake Drive, Apt. 305, thanked the Council for their intent to draft a Resolution. He posed the question of if Coastal Fuels re -filed their application was that an opportunity to object to their application. Mayor Randels confirmed that they would need to if they missed their extension deadline. Attorney Garganese questioned what issues City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting April 3, 2007 Page 8 of 15 could be raised to not granting the extension. He stated that the issue would be specifically defined to constructing the tank. Ms. Gail Duncan, 8911 Lake Drive, submitted a joint letter of concern to the Council from her neighbors that could not attend the meeting. Mr. John Johanson, 310 Adams Avenue, agreed with the City Attorney that their permit was not relevant at this time and the City was better served not to address the extension. He agreed however with the letter and notifying the Legislators. A motion was made by Mr. Nicholas and seconded by Mr. Petsos to call for a Special Meeting on Tuesday, April le to Adopt a Resolution in Support of the Letter in Opposition to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The vote on the motion carried 5 - 0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For and Ms. Roberts, For. 2. Motion to Approve: An Authorization to Negotiate the Purchase of the Kabboord and Marder Properties. Mayor Randels explained that the City had an offer to purchase the named properties. Mayor Randels stated that the Council sought two appraisals for these properties. He explained that the City planned to use the properties for facilities expansion. Mayor Randels pointed out that the location had high visibility, easy accessibility and was available for purchase. Mayor Randels questioned if there were any interest in seeking an offer. Mr. Boucher replied that the property owner made a publicly disclosed offer of $2 million; however, the appraisals were kept at the Council's discretion and could be used for a counter offer. Mayor Randels sought consensus from the Council. Mr. Nicholas asked if the Council planned to demolish the existing building on the property. Council members concurred. Mr. Boucher informed that he provided a site layout of how the Sheriffs Department could be configured. He reported on 1.146 as the acreage. Ms. Roberts proposed that the City counteroffer with $1.5 million. Mayor Randels stated that the offer was within the appraised value. Mr. Petsos agreed with Ms. Roberts offer. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog referred to the Stottler property and pointed out its renovation points. Ms. Roberts pointed out that the temporary use of the Kabboord property would provide temporary residence for staff during the City's campus renovation. Mr. Boucher replied that his last offer from Stottler, Stagg on February 16, 2007 was $1.65 million with an additional $1 million for renovations. Mr. Nicholas stated that a new building had a probable cost of $2 million. Mr. Petsos pointed out that there was more anticipated renovation on the Stottler property than $1 million. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog replied that the City was seeking to purchase another piece of property without resolution to any plans. Ms. Roberts expressed that if the Council was seeking to retain a government campus, then the Kabboord property was more advantageous. Mr. Boucher announced a City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting April 3, 2007 Page 9 of 15 Council meeting with Architect Design Group [ADG] on April 17"' at 5:30 P.M.. Mr. Boucher explained their intent to combine the existing area and they were working with the City's existing property with a plan that would allow for more community type uses. He also explained how removing the Sheriff's Office from the configuration would allow for the public use spaces. Mr. Boucher stated that ADG was working on campus plan concepts. A motion was made by Ms. Roberts and seconded by Mr. Petsos to Approve an Authorization to Negotiate the Purchase of the Kabboord and Marder Properties for $1.5 million. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For and Ms. Roberts, For. DISCUSSION: 3. Resort Dwelling Units. Mayor Randels stated that discussion would prohibit Resort Dwellings in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 zoning. Todd Morley, Building Official explained that the Florida Building Code has four different residential occupancy classifications. He explained that R-1 referred to residential structures that were primarily transient of 30 -days or less, R-2 referred to residential structures that are primarily permanent but multi -family, R-3 referred to the traditional single-family home and R-4 referred to child-care and assisted living facilities. The Florida Building Code requires that a change of use require a Certificate of Occupancy for the new use. So, basically if there were structures used for transient properties, then these properties required a permit for the new use. Mayor Randels disclosed that he met with one of the Investigators at the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulations. Mayor Randels addressed the required change of occupancy classification. He pointed out that discussion was focused on the R-1 through R-3 categories within the Florida Building Code. Mayor Randels explained how 12 people home could legally occupy the occupancy load at 1,800 square foot, and a 2,400 square foot home could permit 16 people. Mayor Randels informed that a new building of 4,600 feet would allow up to 30 people. He stated that structurally those units did not have fire and safety for the type of occupancy. He informed that the City was referencing the 2004 Florida Building Code. Mayor Randels informed that there were currently seven to eight properties that would need to request a change of occupancy classification. Mayor Randels sought the Council and the Building Officials input on the issue. Mr. Morley deferred to the City Attorney for review. Attorney Garganese referred to his memo to the Council. The purpose of the proposed ordinance was a zoning regulation. It accepts the Statute of resort dwellings and includes it in the City's zoning code. It would then be listed in the C-1 zoning district as a principle use. Because the State of Florida issued seven to eight licenses, the Ordinance provides a grandfathering provision that allows those seven to eight properties to apply to the City City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting April 3, 2007 Page 10 of 15 Manager for grandfathered -in status; however, in order to be grandfathered -in there were certain requirements. First, the properties needed to be in the R-1, R-2, or R-3 zoning district; second, the resort dwelling had to be in existence on November 21, 2006, which was the date of the first reading of one of the Draft ordinances; third, they need to demonstrate that they were licensed by the Division of Hotels and Restaurants of the Florida DBPR requirements; fourth, they have to demonstrate that they have paid applicable transient rental taxes which were applicable for payment under Florida law, and lastly, they also needed to demonstrate that the resort dwelling was in compliance with the Certificate of Occupancy requirements within 90 days of the effective date of this ordinance. Attorney Garganese pointed out that City Code required a new Certificate of Occupancy on changing occupancy use classification. There were serious life safety issues because different fire and building code requirements apply to each use classification set forth in the Florida Building Code. The City was unaware if those resort dwellings licensed by the State of Florida comply with the life/ safety requirements in the fire and building code. That was something that needed to be determined to protect the safety of the person residing on the premises on a transient basis. If those resort dwellings could not meet those requirements, then they could not be grandfathered -in. The Ordinance requires that the City Manager make the Administrative Approval for acceptance of the type of use and any individual who believes that they can meet grandfathered status would be required to complete an application and submit it to the City Manager within 30 days of the effective date of the ordinance and provide the necessary documentation. if the grandfathered status was granted, that grandfathered status could go away at some time in the future. The Ordinance provided that if the resort dwelling was abandoned pursuant to the non -conforming use provisions of the code it would go away and the use would then comply with the current regulations. Further, the non -conforming use status could go away if the State of Florida ever revoked the resort dwellings license or the license expired or lapsed. Lastly, there were some technical amendments being proposed such as moving the minimum 7 -day rental to the supplemental zoning district regulations rather than just being in individual zoning district categories and in conclusion the ordinance clarifies the intent and purpose of the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zoning districts by adding some language pertaining to residential character and integrity of those particular zoning districts. Mayor Randels explained that a resort dwelling was a transient residential type use under the Florida Building Code with substantial life/ safety requirements. Mr. Nicholas asked if this changed the seven-day rental requirement. Attorney Garganese responded no. Mr. Nicholas also asked if there was an appeal to the City Manager's decision as to whether the existing properties were grandfathered -in. Mr. Nicholas questioned why the decision was placed on the City Manager. He pointed out that there was an Appeal process subsequent to the Building Official's decisions. Attorney Garganese affirmed that there was an Appeal process in zoning matters; however, he saw City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting April 3, 2007 Page 11 of 15 this as an Administrative process. The City Manager would review the documentation to ascertain that it complied with the Code. He stated that the Building Official and the Fire Chief ultimately make the determination related to the Certificate of Occupancy. Mayor Randels informed that the individual has 90 -days to comply with the requirements. Attorney Garganese reminded that the Construction Board of Adjustment and Appeals would hear an appeal on a construction matter. Attorney Garganese replied to Mayor Pro Tem Hoog that on the Certificate of Occupancy the applicant has 90 -days. Mayor Randels questioned the Council on the matter of time. Mr. Petsos replied that it was not in light of the life/safety issues. Ms. Jamie O'Donnell of 350 Polk Avenue stated although she did not have a short-term rental, her rentals were long term, it appeared that the Council's intent would severely restrict a person's ability to use their property for short-term rentals. Ms. O'Donnell expressed her objection and informed of how a lease would state the terms with regard to the number of maximum occupancy. Ms. O'Donnell expressed that she did not understand the Council's intent when regulations would define parameters. Ms. O'Donnell also stated that property values increased due to renovation on short-term rentals. Ms. O'Donnell concluded that rules could be established so why outlaw the resort dwellings. Ms. O'Donnell recommended adopting the regulations established by the State. Mr. Bjomar Hermansen, stated that the decision was beyond the Council's ability due to State regulations. He explained that as criminal liability exists if there were loss of a life. Mr. Hermansen stated that the issue of the number of people was irrelevant. He said that life/safety was the predominate factor. Mr. Hermansen pointed out that there were seven existing short-term rental properties; however, he referred to an article in the Florida Today, which stated that renters occupied about half of the households in Cape Canaveral. Mr. Hermansen stated that the task before the City was to address the seven existing short-term rental properties, but also to inform those 3,000 other unidentified renters that they were not in compliance. Ms. Jacqueline Stevens stated that she purchased a home at 510 Tyler Avenue in 1999. She explained that she considered weekly rentals as a venue to supplement income. Ms. Stevens related how she was able to successfully rent out her property. She stated that every person would like the ability to augment his or her income at some time. Ms. Stevens expressed that although she was late in acquiring a permit due to personal issues, she would still like to obtain an occupational license. Ms. Stevens expressed that this exclusion was not fair. She did not see the point in precluding people from making an income if they were willing to come up to code for safety. Ms. Stevens emphasized that she did not see the need for a deadline. Mayor Randels stated that the deadline was established after the first reading. Mr. John Johanson of 310 Adams Avenue stated that once again the Council needed to step back and address the broader issue. Mr. Johanson stated that the City was partly at fault for not knowing the regulations. He expressed that the short-term issue was a periodic bad neighbor. Mr. Morley clarified that the Florida Building Code was a technical City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting April 3, 2007 Page 12 of 15 guide to occupancy that could not be made more or less stringent by a local governing body without going through a technical amendment process in Tallahassee. Any change to the Florida Building Code would then apply statewide. Ms. Stevens re -stated that she did not see the fairness of a deadline. She stated that if the Council's intent was safety; she requested the opportunity to come up to code. Mr. Morley responded that 90 -days was not practical to obtain a sprinkler system. Mr. Tom Hermansen, of 126 Surf Drive Cocoa Beach, displayed a list of transient and non -transient dwelling that were licensed by the State. He informed that the State requires for transient dwellings was minimal. Mr. Hermansen stated that the State officials perform inspections; however, the City Fire Department was also required to make inspections. He concluded that the responsibility fell on the City to perform the inspections and failed communications existed between the City and the State. Mr. Bjornar Hermansen pointed out that the City might first tell the person how they would meet all of the criteria within the 90 -day requirement. He stated that the time limit was not widely disseminated in the community. Mr. Hermansen outlined, as a person in the transient dwelling industry, the current requirements to build a hotel as transient dwelling was five -acres, 150 -units minimum. He concluded that the Florida Building Code was the regulating authority for the smaller transient dwellings as well and Mr. Hermansen cautioned the City's culpability related to life/safety issues. Mayor Randels summarized that a State Official related to him how if a resort dwelling operated as such then it should come up to the necessary criteria for fire and safety. Ms. O'Donnell stated that if the Council looked at those smaller transient dwellings as small business people with economic strength in the community and they should be allowed to come up to code. However, the Council should not restrict the smaller operations. Mr. Nicholas replied that she was speaking of operating a business in a residential zone. Mayor Randels clarified that she had no objection if the smaller operations met the criteria. Mr. Petsos stated that he was opposed to placing a commercial industry in a residential area. Ms. Stevens commented and pointed out that there was apparent mixture of development within the City. Ms. Roberts asked if this item would be placed on the next Agenda as she had content issues. She expressed that it was good to gain the audiences input and she asked if there would be any of Council's input on the draft ordinance. Mayor Randels referred to the lateness of the hour. Attorney Garganese informed that the Council would need to send the Ordinance back to the Planning and Zoning Board for recommendation. Ms. Roberts referred to Page 7 for the record and inquired of the City Attorney on transference of ownership. Attorney Garganese stated that he brought up in a previous meeting that he would remove the provision for eliminating non-conformance status due to a transfer of property at the Council's direction. Ms. Roberts responded that they could sell the property to someone else; however, the intent was only with the life of those currently owning the property. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting April 3, 2007 Page 13 of 15 Mr. Petsos stated that the City Attorney expressed concern with the defensibility of that in Court and he requested to return to the original thought and address it by an amortization schedule. Ms. Roberts stated that further discussion was needed and if the Council's intent was phasing out ultimately, then there needed to be provision for the phase out. Mr. Petsos stated that an amortization schedule to be fair to the seven or eight existing properties and also to be fair to the residents who came in earlier complaining about them operating forever. He concluded that the Council would need to phase them out eventually. Ms. Roberts asked if the comments would be brought forth at the next City Council meeting. Mr. Nicholas expressed that the Council was prepared for a First Reading. Ms. Roberts stated that although the Council would like to hear from the community, she requested time for Council discussion. Attorney Garganese advised that the Council discuss the Ordinance exclusively without input in order to gain consensus. Mr. Boucher clarified that the Council would discuss the Ordinance at their Special Meeting on Tuesday, April 17th at 5:30 P.M. The Ordinance would then proceed to the Planning and Zoning Board. 4. Administrative Appeals Related to the Zoning Code of Ordinances. Ms. Roberts recommended postponing this item until the next Regular meeting. 5. Florida Communities Trust Grant Application. Mayor Randels related that the City Manager requested a name for the project. Ms. Roberts asked for the City Manager's input from the meeting held that day. Mr. Boucher informed that he and the Recreation Director, Nancy Hanson, met with the representative from Trust for Public Land. Mr. Boucher informed how part of the grant application was indicating use of the land. Ms. Hanson stated that the day's discussion brought out a nature center. Mayor Randels brought out that the grant might carry more points if it were a nature center rather than a community center. Ms. Hanson related how the park's aesthetics were relative to a nature center with four boat slips, an area for a canoe and kayak launch, and many oak and palm trees. She stated that there were also many other grants to seek since the park was on the water. Mr. Nicholas explained how there was passive and active nature centers and he did not desire to restrict the park. Ms. Hanson replied that if it became a nature center, at a minimum twelve educational programs were required. Mr. Nicholas did not want to preclude having a building. Ms. Hanson assured that as long as the City complied with what they required, she saw no opposition. Mayor Randels concluded that the City Manager and the Recreation Director would name the project and try to obtain as many points as possible for an active nature center. Ms. Roberts mentioned to call the park Canaveral Cove. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting April 3, 2007 Page 14 of 15 6. North Atlantic Avenue Roadway Improvements. Mr. Boucher deferred this item to the next Regular meeting. A motion was made by Mr. Petsos and seconded by Mr. Nicholas to extend the meeting until 10:15 P.M. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For and Ms. Roberts, For. AUDIENCE TO BE HEARD: Mr. Douglas Wilhart, of 290 Monroe Avenue expressed that the basketball court lights were too bright and he asked of there were a time restriction. Ms. Hanson replied that the lights extinguished at 9:00 P.M. Mr. Wilhart asked if someone could address his issue. Ms. Hanson replied that the lighting company representative performed a computer model on the impact of the lighting and she would address the issue. Mr. Lamar Russell made remarks on the evolving nature of the Resort Dwelling issue. REPORTS: 1. City Manager • Mr. Boucher announced that the Council decided on a Special Meeting for April 10th at 5:30 P.M. related to the Resolution in support of letter prepared by Ms. Ruth Anders. • Mr. Boucher announced a Workshop Meeting on April 17th at 5:30 P.M. for Architects Design Group to present the City facilities plan. • Mr. Boucher reported that on Tuesday, April 24th he contracted with Lead Brevard to facilitate the City's Visioning Session for an all day meeting beginning at 8:30 A.M until 5:00 P.M. • Mr. Boucher scheduled a Sign Code Workshop on Thursday, April 12th at 5:30 P.M. • Mr. Boucher reported that Street Paving was tentatively scheduled to begin the week of April 16th. Paving would occur on the Presidential streets and Canaveral Beach Blvd. • Mr. Boucher noted that if the Council desired a Code Review Meeting they would need to schedule that for any open date left in April or it would wait until May. • Mr. Boucher thanked everyone for the successful Art Show over the weekend of March 31st and April 1st. • Mr. Boucher announced the Space Coast League of Cities dinner hosted by Cape Canaveral on the following Monday. 2. Staff City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting April 3, 2007 Page 15 of 15 City Clerk • No report. City Attorney • No report. Building Official • No report. Recreation Director • No report. 3. City Council Ms. Roberts • Ms. Roberts suggested an interview of each Council Member in order to help with the planning process asking the Council's top five priorities for brainstorming purposes prior to the Visioning Session. Mr. Boucher replied that the meeting required a group consensus; however, the Council could either submit their input to him or directly to Kristen Baake or Geo Ropert with Lead Brevard. • Ms. Roberts asked if the discussion was for one-year, five -years, or more. Mayor Randels replied that the City was working on its Budget within a one-year time frame. Mr. Petsos reminded the funding could be earmarked however. Mr. Nicholas • Mr. Nicholas stated that the City should go on record with a letter of commendation to the Florida Department of Transportation on the State Road Al A street paving. Mr. Petsos • Mr. Petsos requested Council's consensus for staff to seek a rental car surcharge. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the Chair adjourned the meeting at 10:21 P.M. Rocky Randels, MAYOR Susan Stills, CMC, CITY CLERK CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL ANNEX 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida TUESDAY May 1, 2007 7:00 PM MINUTES CALL TO ORDER: The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL: Council Members Present: Mayor Pro Tem Bob Hoog Council Member Leo Nicholas Council Member Buzz Petsos Mayor Rocky Randels Council Member Shannon Roberts Others Present: City Manager Bennett Boucher City Attorney Anthony Garganese City Clerk Susan Stills Building Official Todd Morley Mayor Randels called for a moment of silence in recognition of Ms. Nancy Hanson's passing, the City's first and only Recreation Director. Ms. Hanson served the City securing grants for school playground and ball field equipment. Ms. Hanson worked for the City for almost 29 years. Mayor Randels agreed with Mr. Boucher's remarks at Ms. Hanson's memorial, that it was a sad day for the City. Ms. Hanson will truly be missed. Mayor Randels requested that when 10:00 P.M. arrived, the Council would take time to acknowledge comments from the audience. Mayor Randels called on Mr. Jim Tuggle of Waste Management, Inc. Mr. Tuggle thanked the Council, staff, and audience for an opportunity to address the Council. Mr. Tuggle informed that the City of Cocoa implemented the Cart System and he used Cape Canaveral as an example of current operation. Mr. Tuggle noted that during the route however he noticed some discrepancies in the City. He stated that re-education was needed with the Cart System process. Mayor Randels agreed that re-education was necessary perhaps due to rental properties. Mr. Randels solicited comments from the audience. There was no audience response. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting May 1, 2007 Page 2 of 15 Mr. Boucher reminded Mr. Tuggle of the satisfaction survey that was due as part of Waste Management's one year anniversary implementing the Cart system. Mayor Randels noted the need for dumpster deodorizing. Mr. Tuggle replied that if Mayor Randels would provide the specific information, he would address the issue himself. Ms. Bea McNeely asked if a day was provided yet to collect the old trash receptacles. Mayor Randels replied that perhaps either not enough advertising was done for the collection day or some people may have decided to keep their receptacles. He recommended that Waste Management notify the City and advertising would occur. Mr. Tuggle informed that Keep Brevard Beautiful did pick up some receptacles; however, he would notify Larry Weber of the need for another pick up. A resident informed on how trash was not picked up due to parked cars in front of the pick up area and this was an inconvenience to the driver. She stated that renters were the predominate violators. Ms. Roberts asked if the City needed marked parking opportunities. Mayor Randels responded that such parking exists at the beach ends. The resident cited Jackson Avenue as the location. Mr. Boucher made note to alert the Sheriffs Office. Mr. Tuggle affirmed for Mayor Randels that the 64 -gallon carts were available. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of April 17 2007. 2. City Council Special Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2007. 3. City Council Special Meeting Minutes of April 10, 2007. 4. Proclamation for National Public Works Week. Mayor Randels asked if any Council member, staff or interested party desired to remove any of the Consent Agenda items for discussion. Ms. Roberts questioned if the City planned to do any significant activity in honor of its Public Works employees. Mayor Randels replied that in some times past the Public Works Department was opened to the public; however, with the Public Works Director's departure, it might not occur this year. Mr. Boucher responded that he would address Ms. Roberts' issue. The City Clerk made note that she cited the typographical corrections pointed out by Mayor Randels and Ms. Roberts in the April 17"' Regular Meeting Minutes and the April 17th Special Meeting minutes. A motion was made by Mr. Nicholas and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Hoog to Approve Consent Agenda Items No. 1 through 4 with corrections noted in the April 17 Regular Meeting Minutes and the April 17, 2007 Special Meeting Minutes. The City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting May 1, 2007 Page 3 of 15 vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For and Ms. Roberts, For. CONSIDERATIONS: 5. Motion to Approve: First Responder Agreement with the Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County. Mayor Randels explained that each year the County enters into an Interlocal Agreement with the municipalities to reimburse the cost of materials used by Advanced Life Support. Mr. Boucher stated that the Port Unit would receive its share as well as the City its share. Mr. Boucher noted from County Fire Chief Farmer how in light of Property Tax Reform the City was cautioned not to include this funding into the subsequent year's budget. A motion was made by Ms. Robert and seconded by Mr. Petsos to Approve the First Responder Agreement with the Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For and Ms. Roberts, For. 6. Motion to Approve: 2008 Cape Canaveral "Images in Art" Festival at Manatee Sanctuary Park. Mayor Randels informed that this the Business and Cultural Development Board's first Art Festival. Ms. Joanne Muncey, Business and Cultural Development Board member, replied that she enjoyed the festival and she expressed that the vendors were of high quality and she received positive feedback from some of the vendors. Ms. Dianne Marcum, Vice Chairperson of the Business and Cultural Development Board, reported on the festival as a venue to draw attention to Manatee Sanctuary Park since several of the citizens had not yet visited the park. Mayor Randels noted the upcoming event for March 29th and 301h of 2008. There were 70 vendors at that past event. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog noted a difference in the attendance number in Council's packet. Mayor Randels noted that there were 2,500 and not 500 people in attendance. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that he would like to see more promotion for next year's event. Ms. Roberts noted better signage on State Road Al to find the City park and she also noted the need for additional seating in the park. Mayor Randels commended the Board for their work. A motion was made by Mr. Nicholas and seconded by Mayor pro Tem Hoog to Approve the 2008 Cape Canaveral "Images in Art" Festival at Manatee Sanctuary Park. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For and Ms. Roberts, For. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting May 1, 2007 Page 4 of 15 7. Motion to Approve: Purchase and Sale Agreement for the Kabboord Properties. Rev. Mayor Randels stated that the proposal on the Kabboord properties was $1,825,000 for the five Kabboord lots and the three Marder lots. He explained the offer and counter offer process concluded with Mr. Kabboord's acceptance of the City's counter-offer for $1.825 million. Mayor Randels informed that Mr. Kabboord had a deadline for an answer; however, the City Attorney would draft the documents. The City was responsible for the Title Insurance; however, the seller was responsible for the Broker's fees as well as the property appraisals. The Seller would also pay for the Environmental Report. The City has until May 22nd to determine the feasibility of the Environmental Report. Ms. Roberts asked when Dr. Storts would move from the premises. Mr. David Kabboord responded that Dr. Christine Storts would be out of the premises by June 1. Mr. Kabboord announced that he had the Environmental Report available. Mr. Nicholas stated that this was his first time viewing the contract and he preferred a Workshop to discuss the contract details. Mr. Nicholas stated that the process was expedited and the Council was considering an approximately $2 million purchase. Mr. Boucher informed that the City closed the fiscal year with a little over $6 million in the General Fund Reserves with $1 million towards paving and the $1.825 million would come from that fund. Mr. Boucher stated with the Florida League of Cities Bond program, the City was seeking 4.5 percent. The League performs a statewide needs assessment in order to leverage the bond cost that was especially helpful to small cities. Mayor Randels explained how the Council received the contract on March 23rd and by April 3rd negotiations began as the reason for the expedited turnaround. Attorney Garganese explained further that the due diligence agreement would expire on May 22"d; however, much of the due diligence was already performed. The Sellers were giving the City a survey, the Environmental Report was received today, and the Title work was anticipated within the next few days. Attorney Garganese stated that the Council had another three weeks, if the Council were to approve the Agreement this evening. Attorney Garganese clarified that the Council had until May 22nd to complete the due diligence and ensure that it was suitable for its purposes. Attorney Garganese replied to Mr. Nicholas that the price was accepted at $1,825,000 and the Seller was paying some of the due diligence costs. Mr. Nicholas asked how much the City was putting down to bind the contract. Attorney Garganese replied $15,000 to bind the Kabboord property, but Mr. Kabboord had a $5,000 deposit for the other contract which the City would reimburse at closing. Attorney Garganese explained that the City had until May 22nd under the contract to complete its due diligence and if it was not suitable for the City's purposes, then the City would seek its earnest deposit and cancel the contract. Attorney Garganese replied to Mr. Nicholas that all other costs were due at closing which was due no later than June 12th, and unless there were some title problems of which the City were unaware, the closing would occur before that time. Mr. Petsos reminded of how obtaining the property connected with the Council's previous Workshops City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting May 1, 2007 Page 5 of 15 for a campus design of City Hall. Mr. Nicholas summarized that the City would consider purchasing the property to relocate the Sheriffs Office, which would connect the City Hall complex, but separate the Sheriffs Office and City Hall buildings. Mayor Randels explained that some selling points for the property were: 1) the land was available at this time, 2) the City was dealing with one seller, 3) high visibility from State Road AIA, 4) easy access for the public and the Sheriffs Office staff, 5) the City would also have an overflow parking lot on Polk Avenue, 6) the property connects the campus design, 7) many of the City's service calls were on the east side of State Road Al A, 8) no temporary quarters were needed for the Sheriffs Office while a new building was constructed, 9) 24-hour service calls, and 10) this would also allow for transfer of City Hall staff during the new City Hall construction. The City Attorney and City Manager would work with Mr. Kabboord on the property transaction. A motion was made by Mr. Nicholas and seconded by Ms. Roberts to Approve the Purchase and Sale Agreement for the Kabboord Properties. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For and Ms. Roberts, For. DISCUSSION: 8. Central Florida Regional Growth Vision. Mayor Randels explained how this survey brought out how legislators among several counties envisioned growth. He reported that the committee, My Region, began discussion as early as August 2002. The committee made projections that resulted in a report using transparent overlays to depict growth within a base of seven counties. Mayor Randels pointed out that 51 percent of the Brevard County region was identified as protected areas and informed that by the year 2025 the City would be characterized as a "megatropolis" with the Orlando region moving steadily east. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that the City's Comprehensive Plan already brought out some of the survey's points. The survey was the result of what was occurring in the Orlando/ Central Florida area. Mayor Randels noted that the City's stance at this point was preparation. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog made not of development west on State Road 528. Mayor Randels stated that this does not over -ride the City's locally adopted Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Randels concluded that this was not an action item; however, there was a need to monitor development. Ms. Roberts brought out that one of the items to address was care of the ocean and Brevard County had an opportunity to care for the ocean. Ms. Roberts also brought out that other parts of the County were addressing the use of salt water and she saw the need to partner with other beachside communities on this issue. Mayor Randels replied that City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting May 1, 2007 Page 6 of 15 Representative Bob Allen's initiative for water de-salinization required a large power source. Mr. Petsos concluded that there was no support and no funding. Ms. Roberts highlighted this as an opportunity to address water concerns. Mr. Randels reviewed some of the County's water sources. Ms. Roberts summarized this as an opportunity for the City to address: 1) caring for our oceans, 2) looking at de- salinzation opportunities, 3) referring to item 3(b), the Business and Cultural Development Board's concern of museums, public art and historical perspectives, 4) the City's view of rapid transportation capability coming to Cape Canaveral from Orlando. Ms. Roberts stated that some of the longer-term issues on the Orlando move east would come into discussion when addressing the community. Mr. Petsos concluded that unfortunately when light rail was discussed it was shortsighted. Mr. Petsos expressed that he did point out the need for care of the ocean. 9. Administrative Appeals Related to the Zoning Code of Ordinances. Mayor Randels explained that the item was related to Administrative Appeals from City Code Section 110-334. Ms. Roberts stated that the concern came to her from the northeast section of the City. She expressed their concern that the City Council was not part of the process related to the Appeal of the Building Official's decision on the Coastal Fuels issue. Ms. Roberts referred to Section 110-187 and asked the Council to address the issue from an historical perspective to provide explanation to the community and if there might be some consideration of a different process to involve Council either before or after the issue would reach the Board of Adjustment. Attorney Garganese explained that prior to the Municipal Home Rule Powers Act of 1974 all municipal authority was expressly stated in the Florida Statutes, which address this Board, called the Board of Adjustment, and provided certain authority for the Board. After the Municipal Home Rule Powers Act was adopted, the municipalities were provided Home Rule. Most municipalities simply carried forward the statutory schemes into their municipal codebooks. The Board of Adjustment would commonly serve as a separate Board that hears Appeals of the interpretation of the zoning code. In summary, it was somewhat of a statutory relic and certainly within the Council's power to change that scheme. Ms. Roberts expressed how the elected officials at this point were not at liberty to hear citizen concerns. Attorney Garganese explained that the Building Official makes the interpretation and renders a decision and the Board of Adjustment hears the Appeal. Attorney Garganese concluded that only the Council has the legislative authority to change its laws. Ms. Roberts expressed the concern of those in the northeast section of the City to the Council and she asked to hear other Council members' views. Mr. Nicholas replied that the Board of Adjustment followed the various guidelines as set forth by the Council. He stated that the Council might want to review the Appeals subsequent to the Board, rather than to have the City Council sit as the Board of City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting May 1, 2007 Page 7 of 15 Adjustment. He also pointed out the subsequent increased workload. Mr. Nicholas stated that he could understand the citizen concern; however, for some other aspects he expressed this as more detail that the Council might not need to become involved in and the Council relied on the expertise of the Building Official. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog expressed that the Board was astute in the zoning laws and he did not choose to interfere in their judgments unless Ms. Roberts would like to see a Council member bring a decision back where there was not agreement. He did not believe that they would make any decisions that were detrimental to the City. Mayor Randels affirmed that the City Council or the Planning and Zoning Board could request an Appeal to the Board of Adjustment. However, Mr. Nicholas expressed he was speaking of an Appeal from the decision of the Board of Adjustment, otherwise a next step after the Board of Adjustment prior to proceeding to Circuit Court. Ms. Roberts explained that any group that makes an Appeal of the Building Official's decision, then citizens should have the right to express their view to the Council as their elected officials. Although they were not taking away anything from the voluntary Boards, they felt that issues of importance should come before the elected officials. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog cautioned on the additional workload. Ms. Roberts asked the City Manager on the number of times the Board had met. Mr. Boucher replied that there were few Special Exceptions and Variances to date. Mr. Petsos clarified Ms. Roberts expressed concern that citizens' preferred to have the Council's input as their elected officials. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog explained that he attended most of the Board meetings and he informed that many people may not leave the meeting satisfied with decisions. Ms. Roberts stated that she desired to have the Council as some part of the process. Mr. Nicholas concluded to place this item on an Agenda and to have the City Attorney draft some language to address the Appeals process. Discussion occurred on setting the fees. The Building Official stated that the zoning fees required adjustments. Mr. Boucher stated that City staff would review the fees associated with this process. 10. North Atlantic Avenue Roadway Improvements. Mayor Randels referred to a depiction of the North Atlantic Avenue Roadway Improvements and he summarized that one option called for a scaled back sidewalk to gain roadway for widening, and the other option would make the street a city street and discourage all other traffic except for local traffic. Mr. Boucher was seeking discussion and input from the Council. Mr. Petsos expressed his preference for the two-lane roadway. Mr. Petsos stated that this was a design similar to Ridgewood Avenue and he expressed the importance of the stop signs to allow for the ability to tum into adjacent roads and allow for a true community feel in a roadway. Mr. Boucher reported that the County was at 30 percent in identifying the existing conditions. Mayor Randels reported that the County estimated $1.366 million to construct a three -lane roadway allotting $200,000 to St. John's for drainage. Mayor Randels replied to Mr. Nicholas that the engineering was performed from Central Blvd. heading north. Mr. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting May 1, 2007 Page 8 of 15 Nicholas stated that all work, although performed in phases, needed to be done as one road. There was some discussion on burying the utility lines. Ms. Roberts mentioned a Workshop to gain community input. She pointed out, given the popularity of North Atlantic Avenue, that the two-lane road was favorable. Ms. Roberts expressed her appeal with an additional option that would continue to preserve the beauty of North Atlantic Avenue as a pedestrian and bikeway and this would continue to preserve its aesthetic value. Mr. Nicholas pointed out that there was much development in that area and unfortunately, the development would continue. He commented on the projected increased traffic with the condominium conversion in Oak Manor versus that of the previous mobile home park. Mayor Randels read from a letter from Ms. Trudy Golday, of 8646 North Atlantic Avenue. Ms. Golday expressed her contest with expanding the roadway and stated how the traffic along North Atlantic Avenue needed to slow down, not speed up due to bicycles and pedestrian traffic. She noted that there were no curbs and imminent danger to pedestrians. Ms. Golday pointed out how trucks destined for the Port also traveled the road. She concluded that a two-lane road with a bike path on one side and a walking path on the other, curbs to offer a slight buffer to traffic, a speed limit of 25 miles per hour, stop signs similar to Ridgewood Avenue, and only local trucks were her recommendations. Ms. Golday asked the Council not to agree on a highway for North Atlantic Avenue. Ms. Roberts stated that a two-lane approach might help with some of the safety aspects. Mayor Randels suggested a traffic light in front of Villages of Seaport and Portside Villas to serve some 900 residents. Ms. Roberts stated that another critical juncture was Shorewood Drive and North Atlantic Avenue. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog made note of the need for a turning lane. Mayor Randels summarized that perhaps wider and faster was not a plan and resident input would assess what the community desired. Mr. Boucher replied to Mr. Nicholas that the City did not desire to assume the road until the County completed its funding for the improvements. Mr. Nicholas stated that interested citizens needed more information. Mr. Boucher reported that Council requested at a previous meeting to review a warrant study for stop signs and the locations identified were: Shorewood Drive for a three-way stop and Harbor Heights and Oak Lane as a four-way stop. Mr. Nicholas stated that he would like to see a community workshop to present the compiled information. Mr. Boucher responded that once he obtained feedback from the County Traffic Engineers he would have data available, and then he would proceed with a town meeting to gain community input. 11. Resort Dwelling Units. Mayor Randels requested to designate time to conclude discussion on this issue in order to accommodate general comments from the audience. Mayor Randels reported that a serious safety situation existed in that the City staff did not have the authority on the premises for purposes of inspection. Therefore, certain safety regulations exist with transient properties, which were not a permitted use. Mayor City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting May 1, 2007 Page 9 of 15 Randels explained that the City did not have a Code to address the issue as a permitted use. Mr. Nicholas clarified that the Council, or the City, did not create the problem but brought it to light. Mr. Boucher explained that the State and City staff wants some clear direction on how these types of uses would be allowed or not allowed in the community. He stated that the City could enforce the issue, however, enforcement would occur at staffs own risk. If the Council were to make it permissible, then staff would have done enforcement for nothing and upset people. Mr. Boucher explained further that the City acknowledged, whether it was a permitted use or not, safety was the concern. There was no way to ascertain if the property met code and unaware persons were innocently left in harm's way. Mr. Boucher summarized that there were two enforcement mechanisms: 1) if they were not permitted uses, then close them down, or 2) if they are permitted uses, then regulate them and allow them to come up to the life/ safety standards. Mr. Petsos asked how the City could address them coming up to life/ safety standards within a time line. Todd Morley, Building Official, clarified that the City's mechanism for enforcement was the Code Enforcement process. The City could send the Code Enforcement officer out there with a Violation Order. Mr. Morley explained that the permit for a Certificate of Occupancy related to use was necessary. He then questioned why he would lead a property owner to apply, if the property was not permitted for the zoning district. Mr. Nicholas questioned if adopting the ordinance would resolve the problem. Mayor Randels explained that the item was for discussion purposes and the Ordinance would then proceed to the Planning and Zoning Board for review. Attorney Garganese affirmed that this was the process. Mr. Nicholas stated that in order to address the life/ safety issue, then adopting this or another ordinance was the step to attainment. Mayor Randels explained that the Draft Ordinance in discussion was dated March 27th. Basically it clarified the intent of providing for resort dwelling in C-1 zoning and established a non- conforming status for resort dwelling in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zoning. At a previous meeting a motion was made to send the Ordinance to the Planning and Zoning Board; however, it failed on a vote of 2 to 2. Mayor Randels reviewed some of the Draft option language as: 1) grandfathering non- conforming properties and the number of days to come into compliance, 2) another was to provide another cut-off date other than November 21,2006 , 3) also, referring to page 6, changing the time to come into compliance from 90 days to 180 days to get the Certificate of Occupancy, and 4) referring to the top of page 7, also changing the time to come into compliance from 90 days to 180 days in order to get everything done. Mayor Randels stated "grandfathering" was a major issue and regardless of circumstances, everyone would need to follow the same rules. Mayor Randels clarified that the Council was only addressing four units or less. Mr. Nicholas expressed his desire to keep the process moving. Mr. Lamar Russell, Planning and Zoning Board Vice -Chairperson, questioned if the Council intended to vote on the subject. Mayor Randels clarified that the Council would only discuss the matter at this time. Mr. Boucher stated that the Council could by City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting May 1, 2007 Page 10 of 15 consensus forward the matter to the Planning and Zoning Board. Ms. Roberts referred to Page 7 and requested to add to the Mayor's list, "shall lose its non -conforming status should one of the following occur." Ms. Roberts stated that this was not protecting the City from the sale of the unit or from transition to a family member. Mayor Randels referred to Section 110-485 which related to the Resort Dwellings as non -conforming uses, specifically page 7, top of page, paragraph D, "any resort dwelling shall lose their non- conforming status if," and the provision listed such instances as, "if the resort dwelling is abandoned, if the Division of Hotels and Restaurants of the Department of Business and Professional Regulations revokes the dwelling license for any reason, or if the license expires or lapses at any time." Ms. Roberts stated that the language was included in a previous version and she asked why the provision was eliminated. Attorney Garganese explained that the provision was in a previous version and discussion brought out how to make the Ordinance more enforceable and what could be done to make that happen and he recommended eliminating that provision. Ms. Roberts stated it a major issue to eliminate the provision. He responded to Ms. Roberts that the City could incur a major legal issue with an attempt of enforcement. Ms. Roberts stated that the next use of the property through transfer would not be a permitted use. Attorney Garganese explained that once the use becomes non -conforming, if the Council were to adopt the Ordinance, terminating the non -conforming status would be subject to requirements that were laid out in case law. If you connected the termination of the non- conforming use to the ownership of the property, the City would have a problem enforcing that provision. Attorney Garganese stated that he could provide speck case law. Mr. Petsos asked if the City could include an amortization schedule. Attorney Garganese affirmed and stated amortization schedule was related to time and not ownership. Mr. Petsos stated that one of the Drafts recommended an amortization schedule if not the amount of time. Mayor Randels clarified that the Council attempted to discuss what was defensible and revocation based on time was defensible. Mayor Randels made note for the Board to discuss an amortization schedule. Ms. Roberts questioned the City's enforcement provisions and asked if there were a process in the City for businesses to follow. Mr. Boucher explained what would happen subsequent to a Fire Inspection in that duel enforcement would occur between the City and the State. Ms. Roberts questioned if the City had in its process a revocation of a receipt. Mr. Boucher replied that a Business License was not a revocation instrument it was a tax. Mayor Randels read the provision for Non -Conforming Use from Section 110-197, Abandonment, which was the specific requirement in the Zoning code. Attorney Garganese responded to Ms. Roberts that Section 110-197 was the general provision in the Zoning code for termination of Non -Conforming Uses. Without those specific requirements in the Code, Non -Conforming Uses would be allowed to continue and it was a City enforcement mechanism. Attorney Garganese reminded from a previous meeting of the discussion to allow non -conforming uses to expire if there were a certain City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting May 1, 2007 Page 11 of 15 number of code enforcement violations attributed to that non -conforming use. This was something that the Planning and Zoning Board could address. He explained a probable cause of loss for non -conforming status if it rose to a certain level of egregiousness. Attorney Garganese provided the example that if the City were to allow a non -conforming resort dwelling and the resort dwelling could not operate within public safety requirements imposed, then they would become a public safety problem and would then lose the non- conforming status. Ms. Roberts asked if that was an appropriate place for the City to add a Part D to take certain initiatives under certain circumstances that exceed Abandonment and the State's provision. Attorney Garganese affirmed. Ms. Roberts asked if this would be connected to the chronic nuisance ordinance. Attorney Garganese replied that it could be targeted to resort dwellings and certain safety problems that may occur or, it could be connected in general to all non -conforming uses. This matter required further review. Discussion concluded that a timeframe, such as within three to six months, to apply for a resort dwelling license was necessary for inclusion on page 6. Mr. Petsos expressed his concern with allowing for additional operations and the intent was to eventually phase-out operations. Attorney Garganese phrased for clarification the Council's desire for the Planning and Zoning Board to consider a time frame to allow new resort dwellings in the R-1, R-1 and R-3 zoning districts. Ms. Roberts clarified only for a short time. Ms. Roberts expressed concern for those residents who were not aware of the City's intention in November and they should be given period of time to make a decision. Mr. Petsos expressed that the last point was would the Council only allow Resort Dwelling in C-1 zoning. Mayor Randels related to a referendum that voted for residential use only on the ocean and the Banana River. Mr. Nicholas explained that there was a provision that large apartment complexes could have commercial amenities and that was subsequently removed from the Code. He explained that the City went to subsequent referenda on zoning density and building heights. The people voted for lower density and limited building height. Lamar Russell related that the residents desired to protect the shoreline, rivers and ocean. Mr. Nicholas informed that Royal Mansions began to rent on a daily basis and in response to that the Council passed the minimum seven day rental provision and Cape Winds which was constructed at the same time, fell under the same provision. Mr. Nicholas replied to Mayor Randels that before Royal Mansions there was no provision at all for a time limit on rentals. Mr. Boucher explained that the Council would need to receive the results of the Planning and Zoning Board discussion. Mr. Boucher related that life safety codes were paramount and staff needed direction, then City would respond accordingly. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog expressed that permitting at the State level was another fallacy, enforcing their own rules and not communicating their intent to the City. Mr. Boucher related that the State representative informed that the licenses were issued without the regional office's knowledge. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog informed that the Fire Department was also not informed. Mr. Boucher related how the County shut down five operations under dual enforcement. Ms. Roberts emphasized her concern with Section D, Part II in that the City needed a part in the safety issues to protect the community, regardless of State City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting May 1, 2007 Page 12 of 15 requirements. Mr. Boucher replied that the City could not revoke a State license. Ms. Roberts said that the City did allow non-conformance. Ms. Helen Filkins stated that she lived in Cape Canaveral for 37 years and also stated how she was in favor of retaining a residential community. She expressed that the Council's discussion appeared in favor of resort dwelling units. Ms. Filkins informed that a referendum in 1973 established that the City residents desired a residential community. Ms. Filkins related on the concept of rental units and how it started in cities such as Miami who began initiating rental property provisions. Mayor Randels stated that the State had already issued licenses and having met the qualifications, they could renew them annually. Attorney Garganese clarified that there were two issues: the State issued license and the City's zoning code. Ms. Roberts pointed out one of the community concerns was addressing the four dwellings or less. The larger issue was to set the tone in the best interest of the City and set standards for rentals for 30 days or less. Mayor Randels responded that in all zones except Industrial, a seven-day rental provision existed in the Code. Ms. Filkins questioned if that could be rescinded. Mayor Randels explained how an allowable zone was sought. Ms. Filkins stated that many people buy homes with intentions, such as renting the property; however, the City did not have to accept those intentions. Ms. Filkins expressed the concern of those who were averse to permitting rentals in residential areas. She related on the positive comments that she has received regarding the Cape Canaveral community. Ms. Filkins said that the Council should state what they were for or against. Mayor Randels explained that addressing zoning would allow for rentals in C-1 zoning. Ms. Filkins re -stated that Council's discussion appeared to express its favor on the issue. She re -stated the Council's need to express their intention. Ms. Filkins concluded by relating on the City's history and then stated how the City should name a street after a notable resident Mr. Roger Dobson. Mr. Bjornar Hennansen of Merritt Island commended Ms. Filkins. He then expressed his understanding with the Council's intent to protect people's rights. However, he explained that the Council would allow people to operate illegally. Mr. Hermansen used operating a bar in a residential neighborhood as an example. He stated that operating a resort dwelling was a life safety issue. Mr. Hermansen stated that once City officials were aware of life threatening activities then the overwhelming evidence was for the Council to take action. He stated that the City was in serious contravention of Federal, State, and County life/ safety issues. Mr. Hermansen stated that even if the hotel industry were not required to take such precautions, they would, due to the life/ safety aspect. Mr. Hermansen made note of how former Mayor Frank Hoog did not desire hotels on the beach or the river, short-term rentals and he questioned why his son was not of the same mind. Mayor Randels stated that he made not of Mr. Hermansen's statement on the Council protecting people's rights to conduct an illegal activity and that was not his intent. Ms. Jamie O'Donnell expressed how there were strong feelings on both sides of this issue. She stated that if a person desired to operate a short-term rental, then they needed City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting May 1, 2007 Page 13 of 15 to meet the life/ safety requirements as well as issue hefty tickets for illegal parking. Ms. O'Donnell stated how the Council should place the issue on the ballot and allow the residents to vote for their preference and let the people decide. She stated that this would remove the Council from the decision. Ms. O'Donnell replied to Mayor Randels that those properties in operation would come under an emergency measure and come into compliance. Ms. Jacqueline Stevens, owner of 510 Tyler Avenue, expressed that the purchase of a nice home was more beneficial to a community that was formerly known as "crack" Canaveral. She briefly discussed the rise of families a residential community that would subsequently create a school tax burden. Ms. Stevens stated that the Ordinance would not affect the apartment dwellings on her street and she asked why the Council was targeting the small property owner. Ms. Stevens stated that the Council would make a greater impact if they would target the larger complexes. Ms. Stevens referred to the safety issue and stated that the building codes in place did not apply to the residential property owner. She asked if the condominiums were required to abide by State regulations. Mayor Randels referred to the building code and clarified that in moving from a permanent R-3 use to a transient R-1 use, then more specific requirements related to life/safety issues applied. Mr. Lamar Russell, Vice Chairperson of the Planning and Zoning Board, explained how the issue transformed from behavior issue to a quality of life issue. He stated that the Ordinance drafted was an effort to change behavior. Mr. Russell stated that zoning only changes development behavior, not personal behavior. However, a nuisance ordinance would change personal behavior. Mr. Russell stated that the Planning and Zoning Board might not return the Ordinance in the same manner as it was received. Mr. Russell related on the divisiveness of the issue. Mr. Russell pointed out that there might be more people affected then understood. He stated that those affected have standing with the Court. Mr. Russell related how spot zoning could be taken to Court. He explained that 500 votes could take a seat. Mr. Russell described how 45 -seconds changed a City Manager's life and the same could happen over this issue and subsequently change the Council. Mr. Russell pointed out the law of unintended consequences and explained how a divisive Council filtered into divisive Boards. He stated how a different Council might not have the current Council's intentions. Mr. Russell expressed that the Board was also divided. He explained how the Board might also have intentions differing from the Council. Mr. Russell asked if there were any way to address the safety regulations and then address the nuisance regulation portion. He concluded that zoning would not enforce behavioral change. Ms. Roberts expressed how there was a juncture in the road to either preserve the City's residential character or to become a beachside community that allows for resort dwellings. She stated that there was a clear-cut path that the Council could take and she expressed favor with Ms. O'Donnell's recommendation. Ms. Roberts stated that she favored discouraging short-term rentals in residential zone. Ms. Roberts also expressed her City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting May 1, 2007 Page 14 of 15 concern that the larger scope, the properties larger than five units, was not being considered in the discussion. Attorney Garganese replied that a zoning perspective was within the Council's purview. He explained that using State definitions of certain types of uses, such as resort dwellings was being used in the Ordinance. However, there was another type of resort dwellings, resort condominium, which applied to time-shares. Attorney Garganese explained that the Council's quandary was to decide where Council wanted resort dwellings in the Code, until then a quandary existed related to life/ safety regulations. Attorney Garganese affirmed that the City and the State could enforce the life/safety Codes; however, the decision was where the Council wanted the uses to occur. Attorney Garganese clarified that the City Manager had information relating to four units or less; however, addressing the larger units required a substantial amount of information. Ms. Roberts summarized and related to Ms. Filkins' point of whether or not the Council's intent was short-term rentals in the City and if so, in what zoning district. Afterwards, the Council could address the design of the implementation. Mr. Petsos clarified that the Council was forwarding the issue of four units or less to the Planning and Zoning Board. He also questioned if a referendum were a property rights issue. Attorney Garganese replied that generally a voter approved zoning Ordinance would be treated the same as a Council approved zoning ordinance. The Courts would not make a distinction. The Chair called for a consensus that the meeting would continue past the designated 10:00 P.M. conclusion time. Council members agreed by consensus to continue to the meeting. Mr. Petsos clarified that the Council was seeking discussion from the Planning and Zoning Board and they were not mandating to them. Attorney Garganese clarified the issues for the Planning and Zoning Board to discuss as: 1) An amortization Schedule; 2) Elimination of Non -Conforming Status for Resort Dwelling if there were a certain number of Code violations attributed to the Resort Dwelling, and 3) To allow additional time for new resort dwellings to be licensed by the State in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zoning districts, with special emphasis that the additional time be a short period of time. Attorney Garganese affirmed to Ms. Roberts that the nuisance ordinance language was covered in the code enforcement verbiage. Mayor Randels clarified that the Ordinance was seeking permitted resort dwellings in the C-1 zoning district. Mr. Nicholas reminded that some of the issues would not return to the Council. Ms. Filkins also reminded that the Planning and Zoning Board was only a recommending body and the Council had the final decision. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting May 1, 2007 Page 15 of 15 Mayor Randels stated for the record that it was the consent of the majority of Council to forward the issue to the Planning and Zoning Board for further review. Mr. Boucher addressed the issue of the larger multi -family units and stated that if 51 percent of a multi -family condominium were short-term rentals, then the life/ safety requirements applied. Mr. Boucher related from the Fire Chief that if they were inspected as a residential condominium then they were acceptable; however, if they fell under Chapter 509 for short-term rentals, then he had to agree with the State and the units would need to upgrade accordingly. On a final note, Ms. Stevens stated that she like others were entitled to their opinion and she expressed that as a community, aside from this divisive issue, there should not be expressed animosity among neighbors. REPORTS: Due to the lateness of the hour, there were no reports. AUDIENCE TO BE HEARD: There were no comments from the audience. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 10:15 P.M. Rocky Randels, MAYOR Susan Stills, CMC, CITY CLERK CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL ANNEX 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida TUESDAY May 15, 2007 7:00 PM MINUTES CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: Council Members Present: Mayor Pro Tem Bob Hoog Council Member Leo Nicholas Council Member Buzz Petsos Mayor Rocky Randels Council Member Shannon Roberts Others Present: City Manager Bennett Boucher City Attorney Anthony Garganese City Clerk Susan Stills City Treasurer Andrea Bowers Building Official Todd Morley Acting Public Works Director Walter Bandish Acting Recreation Director Robert Lefever PRESENTATION: Legislative Update, Representative Bob Allen Representative Bob Allen addressed the Council and the audience and he referred to the Special Session related to the Property Tax Issue. He expressed that this was a tax policy anticipated to become a referendum and as a result the Legislation required ample time for discussion. Representative Allen stated that although there was a $72 billion budget there was less money than in previous years. He also stated that the State budget was approximately $800 million less. Representative Allen noted that after the hurricanes there was a $2 billion surplus and he noted that the State withheld $1.7 million of that amount. Representative Allen informed that the thought was not to spend funds on recurring debt, but to have recurring debt and recurring revenue match. Representative Allen noted that the Energy Legislature achieved a mechanism called the Florida Energy Aerospace and Technology Fund. He explained how this fund would assist in a match plan with State funds to maintain the space related jobs that would be City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting May 15, 2007 Page 2 of 16 otherwise lost. He informed that Governor Charlie Crist encouraged the Bill in the House and the Senate. Representative Allen explained how people, although feeling the strain on the economy, were willing to work toward the future. Mayor Randels stated the importance of it knowing that Brevard County would benefit from it. Representative Allen stated that the philosophy of the Florida House was to feel budget constraints in the community chest and not the individual family. Representative Allen related on how the Citizens Insurance issue was important to his constituents living beach side and once again a 15 percent reduction bill on insurance was passed. He explained that the non -compete clause was removed from the Insurance Legislation for equal competition. Representative Allen stated that relief was offered from the Citizens government insurance. However, voting was marginal due to the dissension from those in the middle regions who expressed that they were carrying the burden of the coastal communities. He concluded that from a statewide view the coastal areas provide much income to the rest of the state and due to Florida's narrow width, no district was really able to separate from the coast. Representative Allen stated that the tax structure was another issue. Beginning with homesteading, he mentioned that he and Senator Bill Posey considered a 3 percent cap, the rate of inflation, on all property. This would allow municipalities to use this as a gauge for budgeting. If a person wanted to buy someone's home, then they would receive the homestead rate of the previous owner instead of having it re -configured to a new higher rate. Instead of portability, you would assume the rate of the previous person. For non -homestead property, the Property Appraiser could go up to 10 percent and the cap would begin at that point. Ms. Roberts asked if this applied to person's second home. Representative Allen replied that this would cap non -homestead homes with a cap of up to 10 percent; however, if the house were sold the cap would begin again. However, this was not a separate category for a second home. Representative Allen explained how Legislative discussion concluded that owning property should be free and clear from government taxation; hence, the move to Sales Tax. Representative Allen stated that the Senate was not interested in adjusting the tax from Property Tax onto Sales Tax. Discussions considered rolling back the tax rate to 2001 and then the 2003 level, and then allow the local governments to calculate back to the present day in 2007 as if the three percent cap were already in place, or the cost of living with inflation. So, the current figure would be much lower than the spikes experienced because of the property valuation and the real estate rushes. He stated that Legislative discussion continued in this fashion. The higher value of homestead cut most taxes in half. However, the immediate argument with the proposal came from the small businessperson. He related on the impact to their business success in the community. Representative Allen also informed how the higher insurance rates for small business impacted their success. Representative Allen stated that discussion continued on how to equate the proposed tax relief for the businessperson that the homeowner would experience. He equated the difference between how $76 million related to $1,160,000,000, which resulted in 6.5 percent. Representative Allen stated City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting May 15, 2007 Page 3 of 16 that he did not envision this as a cause to eliminate the services as was locally published to residents. He emphasized the need for tax relief. First, in Tallahassee there was a strong move toward turning back some tax costs. And secondly, he stated how input was needed at the municipal level with solid numbers. Representative Allen commented on how communication was needed among legislatures. Representative Allen related on how the vote was either for the Insurance industry or the consumer and he referred to a lost vote of 53 out of 57. He stated that communities were situated near the ocean; however, the expense of insurances appeared punitive in living near the ocean. Representative Allen ended his presentation on a positive note by saying that the Clean Ocean Act was passed in the House by a vote of 109 out of 120 votes. Representative Allen pointed out how Council Member Buzz Petsos initiated this effort and other municipalities around the State followed Cape Canaveral's model of a Resolution promoting this Bill. Mayor Randels noted that pulling the Bill and moving it to the Senate was in actuality a good move in order for the Bill to get heard. Representative Allen stated that the Legislature was not only addressing the gambling industry; but all vessels that met the quantity and frequency of dumping to treat their sewage for $5.66 per thousand gallons. He would continue to follow this Bill as the Clean Ocean Act of 2008. Ms. Roberts posed a question on alternative resources or revenue streams, for example, the School millage rate, Internet sales tax, or possibly a lottery. Ms. Roberts noted that it did not appear that the Legislature was considering any other alternative revenue sources and she asked if there were any other alternatives to consider from other areas. Representative Allen explained how there was consideration to shift the school line item to sales tax. He explained how this formula was discussed however there were enough provisions for the schools. The State did not need to make adjustments in that area as was considered with the property taxes. Representative Allen stated that if the new formula goes through for property on the homestead side, all taxes would decrease. He affirmed to the City Attorney that schools would not be exempted. Representative Allen continued with his response saying that there was no quantifiable way to identify Internet sales taxes as a secure budget stream. Representative Allen responded to Ms. Roberts in conclusion that lottery ebbs and flows as a budget stream. He also reported on how theft occurred in the Lottery fund between 1987 and 1995. Representative Ken Pruitt instituted the Truth in Lottery Act, which resulted in increased School funding. Mr. Nicholas asked why there was a Sales Tax Holiday if the money from Sales Tax decreased. Representative Allen explained how there was more retail activity due to the Sales Tax holiday. Mr. Nicholas stated how the retail industry had no incentive to decrease prices due to the 6 percent decrease that occurred with a Sales Tax Holiday. Mr. Nicholas questioned shifting the property tax to sales tax and he stated that his property tax was deductible on income tax however sales tax was not. Mr. Nicholas also pointed out the difference in the impact of Sales Tax to the average consumer for City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting May 15, 2007 Page 4of16 services. Representative Allen informed that Sales Tax was also deductible since Florida did not have a State tax; however, thousands of dollars in retail activity was required to impact Sales Tax. Mr. Petsos commended Representative Allen as a pro -consumer legislator. Mr. Petsos questioned the status of the salinization plant. Representative Allen stated that the project was moving forward. He reviewed some potential sites between sessions. Representative Allen informed that next year was his final in the House on the Environmental Committee. He was working with the Governor backing that as part of the watershed supply and Senator Mel Martinez had obtained authorization on the Bill that authorized the Department of Energy to co-sponsor that plant. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog commended Representative Allen on his Legislative work. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that he would not desire to see a rollback to 2001. He also stated that he would like to see the school taxes go to the State, which would provide relief to the citizen. Mayor Randels stated that "inequity" appeared to be the word that divided the communities over amount paid on residential taxes and "predictability" was another word for the person who needed to know what they were required to pay. Mayor Randels stated however that he did not see the difference in shifting the property taxes to sales taxes. Mr. Norm Moody reporter for Florida Today, posed the question how some of the leaders do not understand what is occurring in Tallahassee, therefore how could the Legislators explain the intent to the residents? Representative Allen stated that in Tallahassee the one thing that brought more fear than contributions was the power of the people. He ensured that some action would be taken on taxes related to their method and amount. However, input was needed on the budget side. Representative Allen referred to the local article that the Brevard County Commission published that frightened many people; however, the intent was for people to keep their homes, not lose services, such as books for the blind. He concluded that the public loses when State and local government do not communicate effectively. Ms. Ruth Anders questioned the State gasoline taxes. Representative Allen explained how the State gasoline taxes were placed in the Transportation Trust Fund for road building and maintenance. He explained how the Trust Funds were now protected. Representative Allen explained how Governor Jeb Bush used the Trust Funds in a collapse and sweep strategy that would collapse the Trust Funds and sweep them into the General Fund under his control. He stated that Governor Charlie Crist did not follow that principle and he planned to veto certain Trust Fund raiding. Representative Allen explained how capping funds that reached certain levels followed the collapse and sweep strategy. He related on the result of discussion that ended in not privatized toll roads once considering the possibility of roads assumed by hostile foreign nationals. Representative Allen replied to Mr. Nicholas that he voted no on the Bill in the House related to a Statewide casino gambling referendum. He stated that Broward County City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting May 15, 2007 Page 5of16 was the only County that desired casino gambling; however, Dade and Palm Beach Counties voted no. This would open the referendum statewide. The Bill allowed for the ATM machine in the casino with the machines. Representative Allen concluded that the Native American community in the State was poised to establish full scale casino gambling similar to that in Las Vegas. Ms. Annie Tannenbaum asked if part of the funding from the gasoline tax was used to clean up the tank farms. Representative Allen affirmed that it was and he stated that the gasoline tax was established for roads and cleaning up gasoline related problems. He informed that the fund was able to be tracked and well managed. Representative Allen concluded his presentation and left his contact information with Ms. Tannenbaum. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of May 1, 2007 Mayor Randels asked if any Council member, staff or interested party desired to remove any of the Consent Agenda items for discussion. Mr. Petsos referred to a sentence on page 11 that read, "Mayor Randels stated that those operating in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 would be grandfathered in and resort dwellings would be a principle use in the C-1 zoning." Mayor Randels responded that this item was subject however to the Planning and Zoning Board for further recommendations. Mr. Petsos noted that further discussion later in the minutes stated that the actual desire was toward amortization. Mayor Randels requested to strike the statement related to grandfathering in the Resort Dwelling property on page 11. Ms. Roberts referred to page 14 and expressed her concern on the number of Items that the City Attorney summarized to present to the Planning and Zoning Board for discussion related to the Resort Dwellings item. She said that the Minutes reflected three items; however, she thought there were five items. Attorney Garganese replied that he thought there were three items; however, he did not have his letter in front of him. Mayor Randels suggested Tabling the Approval of the City Council Minutes of May 15t until the next scheduled meeting in order to clarify these questions on those minutes. A motion was made by Mayor Randels and seconded by Mr. Nicholas to Table the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of May 1, 2007. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For and Ms. Roberts, For. CONSIDERATIONS: 2. Motion to Approve: Quarterly Budget Report and Transfers for the Second Quarter Ending March 31, 2007. Mayor Randels stated that the City completed half of the Budget year. Ms. Bowers reported that Property Appraisals were 5 percent down. She stated that all of the Building City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting May 15, 2007 Page 6 of 16 Revenues were on target. However, State Revenues were down slightly, she would continue to monitor them. Ms. Bowers reported that Fines and Forfeitures increased. She informed that she removed the Fire Trust Funds; however, they would remain for upcoming Fire Safety needs. Ms. Bowers stated that the City incurred higher property insurance in the General Insurance account. She informed of two new accounts in Recreation for revenue and expenditures due to the increased activities. Ms. Bowers concluded that overall the City was performing well financially. Mayor Randels made note of how the City's insurance increased from $1,925 to $4,450. Ms. Bowers informed that the Library's property insurance was not affected as much as the others. Mayor Randels also made note of the $37,000 needed for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection permit for the Wastewater Treatment Plant that occurs every five years. Ms. Bowers replied to Mr. Petsos that Mr. Bandish had a different management style from the preceding Director. Mr. Bandish concluded that some of the items were budgeted too low in the previous year and he stated that they could wait another year to address those items. A motion was made by Mr. Petsos and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Hoog to Approve the Quarterly Budget Report and Transfers for the Second Quarter Ending March 31, 2007. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For and Ms. Roberts, For. 3. Motion to Approve: Request to Waive Building Permit Fees for 337 Coral Drive. Mayor Randels stated that he submitted this item for discussion of a home that was left in a Trust Fund for charities. He referred to an article in Florida Today that informed of how contractors were cleaning up the property. Mayor Randels brought this item to the Council to consider waiving the permit fees, which could result in an amount from zero to $225.00. The sale of the property was intended for several local charities. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that he had no problem with waiving the fees as long as the property proceeds go to charity. Mayor Randels affirmed that the real estate company would not receive a commission from the property sale. Mr. Nicholas asked if the City was waiving the permit fees only, noting that inspections would still be performed. Todd Morley, Building Official, pointed out that he met with the General Contractor for this job and the regulated trade work would not exceed the windows, doors, and roof. Mr. Morley requested that the Council limit the fee permit waiver to one permit to cover those items. A motion was made by Ms. Roberts and seconded by Mr. Petsos to Approve the Request to Waive Building Permit Fees for 337 Coral Drive. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For and Ms. Roberts, For. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting May 15, 2007 Page 7 of 16 4. Motion to Approve: Proposal for a Beach Cleaning Pilot Study from Olsen Associates, Inc. Mr. Boucher distributed updated information to the Council related to decreased pricing and the two locations in the community. He pointed out that the equipment would have a difficult time if used in the City's north area. Mr. Boucher reported on the results of his and Chuck Bilias', City Manager of Cocoa Beach, visit to Tallahassee. The two City Manager's compiled data to indicate how the machine would not disturb in turtle nesting season, however, there was no data for an outright program at this time, but for a pilot program only. The cost for Olsen Associates services was $36,500 and to be divided between Cocoa Beach and Cape Canaveral. Mr. Boucher reported that Mr. Bilias had positive feedback from mechanical beach cleaning vendors. Ms. Roberts asked where the machine would be stored. Mr. Boucher replied in Cocoa Beach. Ms. Roberts explained that the details of hours of operation were not defined at this time. He stated if they were able to perform the pilot program successfully, then they would be able to obtain a mechanical beach -cleaning machine in a subsequent year. Ms. Roberts expressed that some of the north section residents concerns were hours of operation, the cleaning machine's noise level, and disturbance of the natural environment. Ms. Roberts made note that she was expressing their concerns for the purposes of subsequent discussion. Mr. Boucher informed that from Brevard County to the South there were three or more endangered turtle nesting spots and a mechanical beach cleaning was prohibited. Mr. Boucher concluded that efforts had to ensure that the turtle nests would not be disturbed. Mayor Randels clarified that the pilot program would occur from June through August. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog asked who was liable if a violation was found. Mr. Boucher replied that any violations would be included in the data report. He also explained how all safeguards and training would be in place prior to any operation. He stated that Olsen Associates were chosen due to their familiarity with the City's beach and the group would work diligently toward precautionary measures. Mr. Boucher informed that they had to affirm for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection that they could perform the cleaning and perform it safely. Ms. Roberts asked if this were something that the Council desired to consider because of the turtles and her previous concerns. Mr. Boucher replied to Ms. Roberts that previous feedback from the Council led to seeking a beach -cleaning machine to use year round. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog affirmed that the Council did tell the City Manager to proceed and the machine does a good job. Ms. Roberts stated that she did not recall the Council Meeting giving the decision to proceed and she was anticipating more data before proceeding. She stated that when the community became aware of it, they did express their concerns. Ms. Roberts expressed the hope of gaining data that informs on the noise and the natural vegetation. She asked to add these concerns to the requirements. Ms. Roberts stated that the machine she witnessed was noisy. Mr. Boucher stated that feedback would be solicited from everyone, City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting May 15, 2007 Page 8 of 16 residents and those using the beach, during the pilot program. Ms. Roberts recommended a broader scope. Mayor Randels made note that Mr. Don George, Company Owner was the permit holder for most of the shoreline and it appeared that he took responsibility for the equipment during the project. Mr. Petsos expressed his concern with the costs such as $36,500 just for the study and then the subsequent equipment and labor in light of Legislative action timing. Secondly, Mr. Petsos pointed out that the costs be divided among: the City, Cocoa Beach, the Port, the County and the Tourist Development Council. He also requested that they share in the initial $36,500 cost. Mr. Boucher concluded that the Council could wait until he obtained more feedback and he clarified that the Council desired to gain additional sponsorship from others. Mayor Randels clarified for the record that Item No. 4 would be discussed further with input from the City Manager at a subsequent meeting. No Action was Taken on This Item. 5. Motion to Approve: Cooperative Purchase of Financial Software License and Service, and Maintenance Agreements. Ms. Bowers explained how the Finance Department's software was outdated. She used several examples related to convey the inefficiency of the existing software, which was also not Government Accounting Standards Board 34 compliant. She informed how she reviewed software for some time and stated that the Software was presented to her through the Florida League of Cities and was also recommended by their Technology department. Ms. Bowers informed that the Software used an SQL, Relational Database that was user friendly. Ms. Bowers also informed that with a three person staff, the software would be an added benefit to their processes. She added a Human Resources module and a Time and Recordkeeping module for an electronic Payroll process. Ms. Bowers also added a Point of Sale & Purchase module that would streamline cash reporting as well as assist should the Building Department location vary from proximity to Administration. Ms. Bowers explained how she created spreadsheets to assist with current Accounts Payable and Bank Reconciliations processes. Ms. Bowers also informed that each department would perform their purchasing online for a streamlined approval process. Mr. Petsos asked if there were any other communities of Cape Canaveral's size that used the product. Ms. Bowers replied that the company was based out of Oregon. She informed that Deland has the product and Zellwood was seeking a purchase and Callaway has it; however, the product was just making its way into the Southeast. Ms. Bowers explained that most Government Accounting software was expensive including the IMS software if it were purchased at today's rates. Mr. Petsos questioned the $10,000 maintenance fee. Ms. Bowers replied that the $10,000 would occur afterwards, not in the first year, as an Annual Maintenance Plan that maintain the software updates and provide user support. The current Annual Maintenance Plan with IMS was approximately $5,500. Mr. Petsos asked if some of the modules could be phased in. Ms. Bowers replied that she City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting May 15, 2007 Page 9 of 16 would not advise phasing in the project. She explained how she worked with integrated system now. Ms. Bowers explained that there were extra charges related to the previous Audit due to necessary changes as a result of the current software. Ms. Bowers stated that due to the travel time and training related to the project, the City would benefit from a one-time purchase. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog expressed his concern with the costs and hoped that there would not be changes within the next ten years. However, Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that in the essence of saving time for the Finance Department as well as benefiting the City overall he was in favor. Ms. Bowers replied to Mr. Petsos that the travel time was projected. She explained how she intended to send her data to the Company. Mr. Nicholas asked if there was any local representation. Ms. Bowers replied to Mr. Nicholas that the firm opened an office in Raleigh, North Carolina and the company projected $6,000 in travel costs. She replied to Mr. Nicholas that $10,000 provided the City with support and updates. Ms. Bowers informed that the company promised a two-hour call back time. Ms. Bowers stated that she had specific questions to use with all vendors and Springbrook offered the best by way of support. She replied to Mr. Nicholas that the City's Network Platform was already in place for the software. Ms. Bowers stated that her only hardware purchase was the electronic timekeeping equipment in each department. Ms. Roberts had questioned the Support Time hours, which were in Central Time; however, the hours did conflict with the times the City was in operation. Ms. Roberts asked for the record why a Request for Proposal was not chosen. Ms. Bowers replied that time was of the essence and as she reviewed the different software packages she found them incomparable. Some of their accounting processes led to a result but by way of a labor- intensive process. Ms. Bowers explained how the reports were related to Excel and therefore easy to operate. She informed that City staff was given a demonstration of the product with favorable remarks. Ms. Bowers replied to Mr. Petsos that Mr. Keith Shook of N'Sync Data Systems gave the software a favorable recommendation. Ms. Bowers noted she gave the Contract to the City Attorney for review of legal form. Attorney Garganese stated that he did review the contract with some changes pending Council's approval. Ms. Robert clarified that this would be operational with a goal of October 1 st. Ms. Bowers affirmed. Ms. Roberts said that the City could do this as an exercise to ensure that it has developed a scope broad for management analysis. Ms. Bowers replied that each Module comes with a report validation system. Mr. Petsos asked about the comparison on the rate of retum. Ms. Bowers stated that the IMS software was in place prior to her tenure, which was ten years ago. She stated this software was an investment; however, the purchase would prove beneficial. Ms. Bowers replied that there was a list of the modules on Page 49, Attachment A of the Agreement. Mr. Petsos asked if the company was bonded. Ms. Bowers replied that the company was bonded and there was a structured security hierarchy level of access. Mr. Petsos commented that the only modules that could be put off were not cost effective enough for City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting May 15, 2007 Page 10 of 16 delay. Ms. Bowers replied to Mr. Petsos that the funds were budgeted; however, not enough, therefore some of the funding would come from the Contingency Fund. Mayor Randels concluded that the City currently used written timekeeping procedures and he also made note that one of the modules related to Human Resources recordkeeping. He stated that the Software would provide a great benefit. Attorney Garganese stated that the purchase was subject to finalizing the contract documents. He stated that liability exposure and the jurisdiction disputes that were permitted in Oregon needed to be addressed. Mr. Morley stated that some people did not work on site and he questioned how they would have access to the timekeeping device. Ms. Bowers replied that each location would have a device to swipe their badges. Ms. Roberts also related that some employees had hours based on their exempt status. Ms. Bowers informed that Department Heads would have the ability to make adjustments. A motion was made by Mayor Randels and seconded by Ms. Roberts to Approve the Cooperative Purchase of Financial Software License and Service and Maintenance Agreements Subject to the City Attorney's Revisions to the Contract. The vote on the motion carred 5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For and Ms. Roberts, For. 6. Motion to Approve: Award of Bid No. 07-01; Construction of the Wastewater Lift Station No. 1, Force Main Replacement to the Low Bidder Expertech Network Installation, Inc. in the Amount of $644,168.95. Mr. Bandish explained that this Force Main extended from Washington Avenue to the Wastewater Plant. He informed the project was inclusive up to Thurm Blvd. and the pipe was 4,050 feet made of asbestos concrete but was 40 years old. Mr. Bandish explained that this project would occur prior to the paving on Washington Avenue. Mr. Bandish replied to Ms. Roberts that the project would boor under State Road Al A; however, not a directional boor. Mr. Bandish replied to Mayor Pro Tem Hoog that the project would bury the baffle box prior to paving. Mayor Randels noted that the City went out for bid on the project in the previous year; however, only one bid was submitted and it was over budget. He stated that this project received five bids and the lowest pricing came in at $644,168.95. Ms. Roberts asked about Expertech's experience in other places. Mr. Steve Davies stated that he had extensive experience in other places as well as unlimited bonding. Expertech was a $14 billion fully licensed company. Mayor Randels asked if he planned to sub -contract any of the work. Mr. Davies replied that most of the work would be performed in-house; however, the cutover called for an outside contractor. Mr. Davies replied that the project was timed at 240 days and no more than 400 feet was allowed open at one time. Mr. Bandish stated that after a Notice to Proceed, a Pre -Construction Meeting would occur to establish the timeline. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting May 15, 2007 Page 11 of 16 Mr. Davies stated that a jack and boor would occur under State Road Al A with little traffic obstruction and he affirmed for Ms. Roberts that the work would occur during the daytime. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog questioned for clarification that jack and boor would occur at Church Street; however, open trench would occur on the remainder of the project. Mr. Davies explained that the company would have more success with directional boor; however, jack and boor was planned. He would present this concept to the Department of Transportation. A representative from Brown and Caldwell informed that the Florida Department of Transportation required more stringent care on State Road Al A in order not to disturb the base of the road. A motion was made by Mr. Petsos and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Hoog to Approve the Award of Bid No. 07-01; Construction of the Wastewater Lift Station No. 1, Force Main Replacement to the Low Bidder Expertech Network Installation, Inc. in the Amount of $644,168.95. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsas, For; Mayor Randels, For and Ms. Roberts, For. RESOLUTIONS: 7. Motion to Adopt: Resolution No. 2007-14; Approving the Final Replat of "Beach Breeze." Mayor Randels stated for the record that the item was the Final Replat for Beach Breeze and he made note to strike Townhomes as was written on the Agenda. The Resolution would also state that Ms. Shoemaker's first name was spelled Stacy. Ms. Shoemaker reiterated that there would not be nine units on the property. A motion was made by and seconded by to Adopt Resolution No. 2007-14; Approving the Final Replat of Beach Breeze. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoag, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For and Ms. Roberts, For. 8. Motion to Adopt: Resolution No. 2007-15; Approving the Final Replat of "Laws Townhomes." Mayor Pro Tem Hoog disclosed that he would file a Conflict of Interest Form with the City Clerk due to his financial interest in the project as the Electrical Contractor. Mayor Randels made note of an 8 -foot public utility easement as the City usually requires 5 -feet. The project site was 109-111 Lincoln Avenue. A motion was made by Ms. Roberts and seconded by Mr. Petsos to Adopt Resolution No. 2007-15; Approving the Final Replat of Law Townhomes. The vote on the motion carried 4-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, Abstain; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For and Ms. Roberts, For. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting May 15, 2007 Page 12 of 16 DISCUSSION: 9. Financing of Future Facilities. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog expressed that the electorate could decide which manner they would chose for facilities financing. Mr. Petsos concurred. Mr. Nicholas stated that the City did not have funding; however, something had to be done. He asked if the Council was looking at pledging any of its current income sources or would the Council proceed to an Ad Valorem tax to cover the costs. Mr. Boucher replied that he provided research on the past Police and Fire Referendums; however, they related to adding personnel or equipment. Mr. Boucher stated how his memo outlined the results of different millage rates based on different scenarios. He replied that he could not answer Mr. Nicholas' question until he had data the Legislature's actions related to the property tax reform. Mr. Nicholas questioned if the Council intended to break the questions related to the facilities into three separate referendums. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog responded that the City should have three individual referendums and he was not in favor of an amount inclusive of all three issues. Mr. Petsos expressed his agreement with Mayor Pro Tem Hoog. Ms. Roberts asked for the timeline on this issue since the Council was unsure of the Legislator's intent. Mr. Boucher responded that discussion was needed in order to obtain language for a referendum ballot question in August. Ms. Bowers responded to Ms. Roberts that she supported the referendum. Mr. Nicholas stated that there was not enough funding from sources other than property taxes to fund the facilities. Mayor Randels summarized that the Council agreed: 1) to take the question to the voters in the form of a Referendum, and 2) the Council's agreement was for three separate referendum questions. Mr. Nicholas pointed out the need to promote the three individual questions. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that supporting presentations on each facility was essential. Ms. Roberts expressed her disfavor with deciding at this point to address either the individual or all three. Mr. Nicholas stated that his disfavor with positioning one facility against another. He concluded that the need for the facilities was the bottom line. Mayor Randels stated that the consideration would go to a referendum; however, it was not decided if it would become one referendum or three individual referendums. Mayor Randels acknowledged the 10:00 P.M. hour and stated that a consensus was needed to proceed with the meeting past that time. A motion was made by Mr. Nicholas and seconded by Ms. Roberts to continue the meeting until 10:30 P.M. The Council agreed by unanimous consent to proceed to 10:30 P.M. Mr. Boucher explained that even with a successful referendum, nothing could be done until 2008. Mr. Nicholas inquired about the consensus on the bond interest rates. Mr. Boucher replied that with the League's program the City was looking at 4 to 4.5 percent, which was a savings since they provided the closing costs. Mr. Boucher asked if the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting May 15, 2007 Page 13 of 16 Council desired for him to get a quote for a design, permit, and site plan for all three or each separately. Council affirmed for the City Manager to proceed with obtaining a separate cost on each facility. 10. Relocate Existing Overhead Utilities within the Ridgewood Avenue and North Atlantic Avenue Project Areas Underground. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that a majority of the people that he spoke to related to the Ridgewood Avenue project did not desire the project unless the utilities were placed underground. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that if the City could obtain an approved referendum to do this, perhaps Florida Power and Light would move from their 25 percent mark if the surrounding communities planned to perform similar projects. Mr. Petsos replied that the Public Service Commission [PSC] established the 25 percent rate. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog brought out that communities statewide were seeking underground utilities. He stated that this could be done after construction and the referendum question could occur in a subsequent year. Ms. Roberts also stated that this was one of the items in the Redevelopment Plan. Mr. Boucher said that he could obtain a copy of the recently approved tariff from the PSC. He could also place that document on a future City Council Meeting as a Discussion Item. Mr. Nicholas stated that he would like to see underground utilities occur on North Atlantic Avenue as well as Ridgewood Avenue. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog explained how a project on Ridgewood Avenue would be easily performed. Mr. Petsos asked if they or the City be required to pay if the remaining franchises followed suit. Mr. Boucher replied that he would review the franchise agreement language and the PSC tariff language. 11. Preserving the City's History. Mr. Nicholas explained that this was inspired after a Florida League of Cities dinner in the City of Cocoa at which they distributed books related to the City of Cocoa's history. Mr. Nicholas related from his conversation with Mr. Ray Osborne when he realized that many of the City's historical persons were diminishing. Mr. Nicholas stated that Mrs. Ann Thurm had provided a foundational basis of the City's history. Ms. Roberts asked if perhaps a call for candidates was possible since taking an oral history required a certain expertise. Her intent was to open up the project to a broader community of candidates and approaches. Mr. Nicholas stated that the Council would need to come into agreement for such a project. Mayor Randels expressed that the idea had merit. Mr. Boucher questioned if the Council desired a pro bono historian or a paid historian. Ms. Ruth Anders informed that in her hometown some retired and current professors performed the work and were allowed to retain the proceeds from the sale of the book. Ms. Roberts mentioned that staff could seek how other cities attempted this project. She mentioned that the University of Central Florida [UCF] was working a space history project. Mr. Nicholas stated that Dr. Drake of might be able to generate interest. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting May 15, 2007 Page 14 of 16 12. Naming the Recreation Complex after Nancy Hanson, Recreation Director. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog expressed his favor in naming the complex after Ms. Hanson and also expressed that perhaps a memorial, or a bust, and a memorial garden could be added. Mr. Nicholas referred to the exemplary article in Florida Today by Mr. Karasotis and he also requested a dignified memorial. Mr. Petsos requested to have the Recreation Board discuss ideas for a memorial. Mr. Nicholas asked if Mr. Karasotis' article could be reproduced for permanent placement at the Recreation Center. Mr. Norman Moody of Florida Today recommended that someone contact the newspaper for reprint permission. Mr. Petsos pointed out that Mr. Karasotis might also sign the article and add a letter in its regard. Mr. Nicholas concluded to have the Recreation Board come up with a dedication date. REPORTS: 1. City Manager • Mr. Boucher informed that the Resort Dwellings issue might escalate due to the recent State inspections at Cape Winds and Royal Mansions. The inspection results were unknown at this time. Mr. Boucher stated that due to the absence of resident occupancy at both those buildings, a substantial amount of money was required to upgrade to fire safety standards. Mr. Morley stated that he could not deny the permit; however, he could deny the Certificate of Occupancy as a Residential Transient use. Mr. Boucher concluded that staff would keep the Planning and Zoning Board informed. • Mr. Boucher reported that staff was developing a minimal budget due to the property tax reform. Mr. Boucher related that the City Manager's met and their discussion brought out the practical use of Law Enforcement. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog expressed how he would not want to loose the School Resource Officer. 2. Staff City Treasurer • No report. Acting Recreation Director • No report. Building Official • No report. City Clerk No report. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting May 15, 2007 Page 15 of 16 City Attorney • Attorney Garganese observed that in the two previous years the State of Florida had increased ad valorem property taxes indirectly by imposing a local match on School districts. • Attorney Garganese stated that the City and County issues were not fully covered in the media. • Attorney Garganese informed that the Florida League of Cities the City's insurance carrier reached a settlement agreement in the Haas litigation for $20,000 and a full release. He stated the League had the right to settle the matter and if there were no objections from the Council, the League would proceed. AUDIENCE TO BE HEARD: • Ms. Ruth Anders presented the Council a final copy of the speech that she intended to give the Board of Adjustment. She stated that in the previous week the Board of Adjustment meeting was postponed. Ms. Anders attempted to make a statement and a question to the Board; however, the Chair adjourned the meeting. Ms. Anders stated that citizens were unaware that Coastal Fuels had filed a second application in late August for two additional tanks. Ms. Anders also stated that their Attorney wrote to the City's Attorney asking that it be held in abeyance for 60 days, which would have expired in November. Ms. Anders stated that her group had no other Administrative manner except to approach the Board to ask if Coastal Fuels had standing to sue. Ms. Anders questioned if Coastal Fuels had a right to their Appeal. She stated that she believed they did not take advantage of their Administrative remedies, they also exhausted their Administrative remedies, and residents were denied their Constitutional right since the Appeal was held in Abeyance. Coastal Fuels also did not act in good faith and for these reasons Coastal Fuels did not have a grandfathered -in right. Ms. Anders stated that her committee was seeking an Administrative forum to express this argument. She requested to address the Council at its next scheduled meeting. Mr. Nicholas stated that if the Appeal was made to a decision of the Board of Adjustment, then she had the right to be heard. Ms. Anders replied the Special Exception had been repealed; however, Mr. Morley was responding to Coastal Fuels as if the Special Exception was still in existence and it had been repealed. Ms. Anders provided the Council her argument in final form. • Mr. Gerald Schmidt of 22 Harbor Drive expressed his frustration with his neighbor. He explained how his next-door neighbor opened a commercial laundry in her garage some time last November. Mr. Schmidt explained how his neighbor was bringing home articles of clothing from her hospice care job and this was a health concern. His neighbor soaked the clothing in heavy detergent and the fumes were noxious. Mayor Randels affirmed that he too visited the premises; however, he stated that the City did not have a method to measure the odor. Mr. Nicholas stated that the odor was one aspect; however, he questioned for clarification if this was a commercial enterprise being carried on in a resident. Mr. Schmidt stated that she was bringing the laundry in from a medical facility and there must be some City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting May 15, 2007 Page 16 of 16 health concern. He also stated that she should be shut down based on carrying on a commercial industry in a residence. Mr. Nicholas stated that there were standards for medical laundry such as degree of water temperature and sanitization. Mr. Schmidt stated that his neighbor had another room where the laundering occurred. Mr. Morley replied that both he and Ms. Alexander went to the location and inspected the garage and smelled the premises. However, they did not ask if there were another washer and dryer in another room. Unless there was evidence of a violation, they could not cite the owner. Mr. Morley affirmed to the Council that he would request another site visit. Mr. Boucher reported that there was no additional volume on the water bill. Mr. Morley concluded that he would perform another site visit and would also look for an additional washer and dryer. Mr. Boucher replied to Mayor Pro Tem Hoog that the water volume was 5- to 6,000 gallons. Attorney Garganese stated that from a Code Enforcement perspective they were afforded limited to access to a homestead property without reasonable evidence. If this type of activity was occurring, then the evidence needed time to develop. Attorney Garganese also stated that the Building Official visited the site to address the problem. Mr. Schmidt replied that there was no plan or methodology to come to a conclusion to the problem. Ms. Roberts summarized that the evidence was shown through the water bills and observation. Mr. Schmidt stated that he recommended finding out their source of employment and inquire with them. Attorney Garganese questioned if there was a high volume of laundry. Mr. Schmidt replied that there were one or two bags or tote boxes of articles. Discussion concluded that the City could not investigate Mr. Schmidt's without a valid reason. 3. City Councils Council member reports were deferred until the next City Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Due the late hour, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 11:10 P.M. Rocky Randels, MAYOR Susan Stills, CMC, CITY CLERK Meeting Type: REG Meeting Date: 06-05-07 AGENDA Heading Consideration Item 4 No. I support the recommendation. AGENDA REPORT CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION: PROPOSAL FOR SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAIN CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,614. DEPT./ DIVISION: PUBLIC WORKS / WASTE WATER Requested Action: City Council considers the proposal for Sanitary Sewer Force Main Construction Support by Brown & Caldwell in the amount of $21,614 as recommended by the Acting Public Works Director. Summary Explanation & Background: The construction support services include: project management, shop drawings, meetings and site visits, review of change orders, and as built drawings for the Lift Station #1 Sanitary Sewer Main Replacement Project. I support the recommendation. Exhibits Attached: 1. Memo from Acting Public Works Director 2. Proposal by Brown & Caldwell City Mana s Offic Department MEMORANDUM TO: Bennett C. Boucher City Manager FROM: Walter Bandish Acting Public Works Director DATE: May 23,2007 SUBJECT: City Council Agenda Item for June 5, 2007 Sanitary Sewer Force Main Construction Support Brown and Caldwell Engineering Services The Public Works Department budgeted funds for the replacement on #1 force main.This project has been scheduled and budgeted For FY 2004- 2005. This part has been completed. Attached is the proposal from Brown and Caldwell Engineering. In the summary, this engineering service includes the following items: 1. Project Management 2. Shop drawing 3. Construction Meeting and Site visits 4. Negotiate Change Orders 5. As -Built Drawing(fromGC mark —up) The total project cost in the amount of engineering services is $21,614. Recommend tasks are: 1.0, 2.0 thru 2.4, 3.0, 4.0 thru 4.5b, 5.0, 5.1, 6.0, 9.0. Brown and Caldwell will be present to answer any questions. Recommend the approval of Lift Station #1 Force Main Construction Management by Brown and Caldwell as outlined by the proposal Task Outlined in Attachment A .In the amount of $21,614 and the appropriation of necessary funds. Attachment CC: File px cl VN Nv M Is � boq , p v9 isi s9 isj bn ds :f. m M d� M x N x S C O tiG Vx1 Q x V O O O bv�ri S`S to-, FR 65 60' 6R FP. Efi V? VT S, 7 N N N N N 00 o O O O O x �a 9 L � 'f• N O N O O V1 ty U � u o 3 N n to vJ in Kn N x c o o o U � W � ,❑ wl c v �t o x o o o M Qz� aF Q .-- x w _ _ IT CZ i � 3 •, :t 0 _ c st L o `J J C tO ,, N r: .� C C .-• rJ ": d v: Vr vi N 10 h Walter Bandish From: Davies, Steve [S Davies@Brwncald.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 4:32 PM To: Walter Bandish Subject: Hourly Rates Used in the Fee Estimate Walter Here are the hourly rates used in the Fee Estimate. Monitoring Manager June Smith $143.00 Project Manager Steve Davies $157.63 Project Engineer Deb Cole $ 94.25 CADD Designer Bob Forsythe $110.50 Cler/Sec Michelle, Jeanie, Leigh $ 91.00 and Project Acct.) If you need anything else just let me know. Steve Page 1 of 1 (This is an average of the Project Asst. Admin Dir No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.1/765 - Release Date: 4/17/2007 5:20 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.1/765 - Release Date: 4/17/2007 5:20 PM 5/24/2007 Tasks in italics are not included in the Fee Estimate. Changes/additions in Scope have been flagged as such. Task 1 Project Management (Added) This Task includes maintaining project files and preparing monthly progress reports to the City. Project billing and administration is also included in this Task. Proper management maintains project focus and communication. Task 2 Shop Drawings This Task includes the logging, review and return overnight mailing of up to 4 Shop Drawing submittals. Thoughtful review and quick turnaround of these submittals will minimize construction delays. The review will be concurrent with the City's review, with the City providing comments to BC prior to returning the submittals to the Contractor. Task 3 Response to RFPs Task 3 includes the response to up to 4 Requests for Information from the Contractor. Quick turnaround on these requests will minimize construction delays. BC will incorporate any City comments prior to returning the response to the Contractor. Task 4 Construction Meetings and Site Visits (Original Included 8) Task 4.1 Construction Kick-off Meeting (Meeting 1) The Kick-off Meeting establishes lines of communication, acquaints the Project participants and promotes project understanding. Overall Project considerations such as traffic control, jobsite safety, project documentation, and proper project notifications will be discussed. The Kick-off Meeting will take place as soon as possible after the Contract is signed. The meeting will be held at the WWTP. Task 4.2 Horizontal Drill Planning Meeting (Meeting 2) Prior to beginning the horizontal directional drilling, a meeting will be held to coordinate the efforts of all parties. Material staging, drilling machine location, drill head control methodology, drilling mud handling, and jobsite safety will be discussed. Task 4.3 River Crossing Site Visit (Meeting 3) During the progress of the drilling BC will visit the site to monitor construction activities. Task 4.4 AIA Crossing Site Visit (Meeting 4) During the progress of the drilling BC will visit the site to monitor construction activities. Task 4.5a Four Monthly Construction Meetings (Meetings 5 through 8) BC will attend four formal monthly project meetings held at the WWTP site or the Contractors construction trailer. The meetings will establish project completion -to - date, schedule future work, and provide a means for formal communication for the project. Task 4.5b Three Monthly Construction Meetings (Added Meetings 9 through 11) BC will attend three formal monthly project meetings held at the WWTP site or the Contractors construction trailer. The meetings will establish project completion -to - date, schedule future work, and provide a means for formal communication for the project. Task 4.6 Weekly Observation Trips BC will visit the site on a weekly basis to monitor progress. The visits will, as much as is possible, coincide with the more complicated or diff cult construction activities. The weekly visits will be during the weeks following the meetings in task 4.5a and b. Task 5 Negotiate Change Orders (Only C.O. #1 included) These meetings will be for the purpose of identifying areas where a reduction is possible and quantifying the savings to the City. It is expected that there will be a reduction in scope (C.O. #1). Due to the ever present possibility of field changes, a second meeting is budgeted. BC will endeavor to find ways to offset possible changes with by negotiations. Task 6 As -Built Drawings (Includes Project Certification) BC will prepare As -Built Drawings from the field records maintained by the Contractor. Three hard copies and one electronic copy will be provided to the City. Task 7 Miscellaneous Services During Construction During construction projects unexpected circumstances will occur such as differing site conditions, existing utility conflicts and unusual weather conditions. This Task is a contingent account that provides a means to respond to these occurrences. Work under this task will be done only when prior approval is received from the City. As an example, an all day field visit to the project site would be billed at approximately $750.00. Task 8 Project Closeout At completion there is a gathering of project information, closeout of financial records and filing the of project documentation. These records remain available to the City for future reference. Task 9 Submit Certificate of Completion (Included with As -Built Drawings) BC will file a "Certification of Project Completion' with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. This certificate assures the State that the project is constructed in substantial compliance with the plans and specifications as well as all applicable State regulations. Page 1 of 2 Walter Bandish From: Smith, June [JSmith@Brwncald.coml Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 1:26 PM To: Walter Bandish Subject: RE: Fee Estimate for Construction Services on LS#1 Force Main Walter — Here is a summary of why BC's proposal for construction services related to the replacement of the Lift Station No. 1 Forcemain has increased since the former proposal that was submitted to Ed: 1. The rates used in the original proposal are almost 3 years old, and have been updated. 2. The old proposal included only 5 meetings. The new proposal includes 11 meetings. The meetings included in the revised proposal are: (1) one preconstruction meeting with Contractor and City to review Contractor's schedule and critical milestones, lines of communication; pay request procedure; and related topics; (2) one meeting with the Contractor to review plans for the directional drilling to identify critical path actions for a successful outcome; (3) one progress meeting each month for the duration of the project (7 meetings allocated here — project is expected to take 8 months to construct); (4) one site visit for each of the directional drills (2 site visits allocated here). 3. The new proposal also includes hours for one change order which is expected to help reduce the cost for construction (deduct) if it can be negotiated as discussed. 4. The new proposal also includes additional project management and clerical/secretarial hours to allow for project budget tracking, accounting, invoicing and long-term filing of project related materials for construction duration of 8 months. Unfortunately, we have reviewed the revised fee estimate again and were unable to reduce the cost without removing scope items or meetings. I have attached a larger version of the fee estimate table for your use. Please note that the hours shown in bold are items that were in the original scope negotiated between BC (Ted) and the City (Ed). The items that have been added (described above) are not in bold. The fee for the revised proposal remains at $21,614. As discussed, we could put all meeting/site visit hours in a separate task that could be billed on a time -and -materials basis. If the total number of meetings is reduced (for example, the project is completed in 4 months instead of 8), then the unused meetings would not be billed for. On the other hand, if something unexpected comes up during construction and you want BC to work on it, we could use hours from the meeting task (if they were still available) if authorized by the City. Best Regards, June Smith, P.E. Brown and Caldwell 850 Trafalgar Court, Suite 300 Maitland, FL 32751 Voice: 407.661.9593 FAX: 407.661.9599 Cell: 407.252.5580 Email: Jsmith@Brwncald.com From: Davies, Steve Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 3:18 PM To: 'Walter Bandish' Cc: Cole, Deborah; Smith, June Subject: Fee Estimate for Constructuion Services on LS#1 Force Main 5/23/2007 Page 2 of 2 Walter Attached is the DRAFT Proposal for Construction Services and a description of the Tasks. Only the Tasks with hours included are being proposed. The other Tasks are services we could provide if you wish. Steven J. Davies CGC Tel 407-661-9519 Fax 407-661-9599 5/23/2007 Meeting Type: REG Meeting Date: 06-05-2007 AGENDA Heading Ordinances: First R-3 Residential Zoning Districts; defining the term "resort dwelling'; defining the term "resort condominium",- ondominium';providing Public Hearing Item No. 5 AGENDA REPORT CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL SUBJECT: ORDINANCE # 04-2007, AMENDING CHAPTER 110, CLARIFYING THE INTENT OF THE R-1, R-2, AND R-3 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, DEFINING THE TERMS "RESORT DWELLING" AND "RESORT CONDOMINIUM". DEPT) DIVISION: GROWTH MANAGEMENT / P & Z Requested Action: City Council consider at first reading, Ordinance 04-2007, An ordinance of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, amending chapter 110, Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances, clarifying the intent of the R-1, R-2 and R-3 Residential Zoning Districts; defining the term "resort dwelling'; defining the term "resort condominium",- ondominium';providing providingfor the location and regulation of resort dwellings and condominiums under conditions stated herein; amending the supplemental zoning district regulations to restate that any rental of a dwelling unit shall be for a minimum of seven (7) days, providing for the repeal of prior inconsistent ordinances and resolutions incorporation into the code, severability; and an effective date, as unanimously recommended by the Planning & Zoning Board. This is the first public hearing — please advise. Summary Explanation & Background: The proposed ordinance will prohibit resort dwelling units and resort condominiums within the R-1, R-2 and R-3 Residential Zoning Districts and a permitted use within the commercial zoning district. The proposed ordinance establishes criteria for nonconforming use status and expiration. Exhibits Attached: 1. Proposed Ordinance # 042007 2. Planning & Zoning Board recommendation letter 3. Building Officials 05/29/07 memo for changing occupancy classification 4. City Manager's analysis of 01/05/07 5. Building Official's 03/21/07 memo on occupancy classification 6. City Planner's consistency review memo of 05/16/07 City Man �e s Office, Department DRAFT May 30, 2007 ORDINANCE NO. O`1` 02009 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 110, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES; CLARIFYING THE INTENT OF THE R-1, R-2 AND R-3 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS; DEFINING THE TERM "RESORT DWELLING;"DEFINING THE TERM "RESORT CONDOMINIUM;" PROVIDING FOR THE LOCATION AND REGULATION OF RESORT DWELLINGS AND CONDOMINIUMS UNDER CONDITIONS STATED HEREIN; AMENDING THE SUPPLEMENTAL ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS TO RESTATE THAT ANY RENTAL OF A DWELLING UNIT SHALL BE FOR A MINIMUM OF SEVEN (7) DAYS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; INCORPORATION INTO THE CODE; SEVERABILITY; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City is granted the authority, under Section 2(b), Article VIII, of the State Constitution, to exercise any power for municipal purposes, except when expressly prohibited by law; and WHEREAS, the maintenance of the character of residential neighborhoods is a proper purpose of zoning. See village of Euclid v. Ambler Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926); Miller v. Board of Public Works, 234 P. 381 (Cal. 1925); and WHEREAS, limitations on resort dwellings, resort condominiums, and other transient commercial uses serve a substantial governmental interest in preserving the character and integrity of residential neighborhoods. See Cope v. City of Cannon Beach, 855 P.2d 1083 (Or. 1993); Ewing v. City of Carmel -By -The -Sea, 286 Cal. Rptr. 382 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991); and WHEREAS, the City seeks to maintain residential zoning districts that are free from congestion and overpopulation and that promote the permanent residency of families; and WHEREAS, the City's zoning district regulations are intended to permit only those uses that are expressly provided for under the list of principal uses and special exception uses for each zoning category; and WHEREAS, all other uses not expressly provided for as a principle use or special exception are intended to be prohibited; and City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No.__ __-2007 Page 1 of 9 DRAFT May 30, 2007 WHEREAS, resort dwellings and resort condominiums are not currently expressly listed as a principle or special exception use within any zoning district; and WHEREAS, the City Council acknowledges and recognizes that resort dwellings and resort condominiums are separate business classifications that are licensed by the State of Florida under chapter 509, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that it is necessary to list resort dwellings and resort condominiums within a specific zoning district in order to preserve the residential character of portions of Cape Canaveral and to protect Cape Canaveral from becoming an overwhelming transient type community; and WHEREAS, the City Council is aware of, and relies upon, case law precedent which holds that a property owner does not have a vested right in zoning ordinances and that the mere purchase of land does not create a right to rely on existing zoning. See, e.g., City of Miami Beach v. 8701 Collins Ave, 77 So. 2d 428 (1954); Epifano v. Town oflndian River Shores, 379 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 4`h DCA 1979); and WHEREAS, the City Council also acknowledges that transient residential uses fall under a different occupancy classification under the Florida Building Code than other residential uses and that more stringent building and fire code requirements exists for transient residential uses for life safety reasons; and WHEREAS, the City Council also finds that in accordance with section 110-121, Cape Canaveral Code, a change in occupancy classification of a building requires that the building official conduct an inspection of the building to determine whether it complies with applicable building code requirements before issuing a new certificate of occupancy for the building based on the changed occupancy classification; and WHEREAS, while the City Council desires to afford some limited protections to property owners that lawfully seek to use existing residential units as either a resort dwelling or resort condominium, the City Council seeks to balance these limited protections with the City Council's desire to protect the residential character of Cape Canaveral consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and to protect the safety of transient occupants; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that protecting the residential character of the City of Cape Canaveral and promoting permanent residency are of paramount public importance; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby also finds that the protection of transient occupants that lease a resort dwellings and resort condominiums, by requiring property owners to demonstrate City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No.__ _-2007 Page 2 of 9 DRAFT May 30, 2007 compliance with all applicable building and fire codes, is of paramount public importance; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be in the best interests of the citizens of the City of Cape Canaveral to provide for resort dwellings and condominiums as an additional permitted use in the C-1 Low Density Commercial zoning districts, provided a special exception has been granted that would allow the construction of a residential dwelling; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, hereby finds this Ordinance to be in the best interests of the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Cape Canaveral. BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Brevard County, Florida, as follows: Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are hereby fully incorporated herein by this reference as legislative findings and the intent and purpose of the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral. Section 2. Code Amendment. Chapter 110, Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances, City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, is hereby amended as follows (underlined type indicates additions and strikeout type indicates deletions, while asterisks (* * *) indicate a deletion from this Ordinance of text existing in Chapter 110. It is intended that the text in Chapter 110 denoted by the asterisks and set forth in this Ordinance shall remain unchanged from the language existing prior to adoption of this Ordinance): CHAPTER 110. ZONING ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL Sec. 110-1. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Resort dwelling shall mean any individually or collectively owned one -family, two-family, three-family, or four -family dwelling house or dwelling unit which is rented more than three (3) times in a calendar year for periods of less than thirty (30) days or one (1) calendar month, whichever is less, or which is advertised or held out to the public as a place regularly rented for periods of less than thirty (30) days or one (1) calendar month, whichever is less. City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. _ __-2007 Page 3 of 9 DRAFT May 30, 2007 Resort condominiums shall mean any unit or group of units in a condominium, cooperative, or timeshare plan which is rented more than three (3) times in a calendar year for periods of less than thirty (30) days or one (1) calendar month, whichever is less, or which is advertised or held out to the public as a place regularly rented for periods of less than thirty (30) days or one (1) calendar month, whichever is less. ARTICLE VII. DISTRICTS DIVISION 2. R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 110-271. Intent. The requirements for the R-1 low density residential district are intended to apply to an area of single-family unattached residential development. Lot sizes and other restrictions are intended to promote and protect a high quality of residential development free from congestion and overpopulation, to promote the permanent residency of single families and to enhance and maintain the residential character and integrity of the area. Sec. 110-272. Principal uses and structures. The principal uses and structures in the R-1 low density residential district are as follows: Single-family dwellings. In no case shall there be more than one principal structure per lot or parcel. Bvveffing tinit rentals of fess than seven days are prohibited. DIVISION 3. R-2 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 110-291. Intent. The requirements for the R-2 medium density residential district are intended to apply to an area of medium density residential development with a variety of housing types. Lot sizes and other restrictions are intended to promote and protect medium density residential development maintaining an adequate amount of open space for such development. Further, the provisions herein are intended to promote areas free from congestion and overpopulation, to promote the permanent residency of families and to enhance and maintain the residential character and integrity of the area. City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. _-2007 Page 4 of 9 DRAFT May 30, 2007 Sec. 110-292. Principal uses and structures. In the R-2 medium density residential district, the principal uses and structures shall be: (1) Single-family dwellings; (2) Two-family dwellings; (3) Multifamily dwellings; or (4) Public schools. Notwithstanding the foregoing, there shall be no more than 15 dwelling units per net residential acre, and dwelling unit rentals of less than seven days are expressly ptoffibited. DIVISION 4. R-3 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 110-311. Intent. The requirements for the R-3 medium density residential district are intended to apply to an area of medium density residential development with a variety of housing types. Lot sizes and other restrictions are intended to promote and protect medium density residential development maintaining an adequate amount of open space for such development. Further, the provisions herein are intended to promote areas free from congestion and overpopulation, to promote the permanent residency of families and to enhance and maintain the residential character and integrity of the area. Sec. 110-312. Principal uses and structures. In the R-3 medium density residential district, the principal uses and structures shall be: (1) Single-family dwellings; (2) Two-family dwellings; (3) Multifamily dwellings; or (4) Public schools. City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. _-2007 Page 5 of 9 DRAFT May 30, 2007 Notwithstanding the foregoing, there shall be no more than 15 dwelling units per net residential acre, and dwelling unit rentals of less than seven days are expressly prohibited. DIVISION 5. C-1 LOW DENSITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Sec. 110-332. Principal uses and structures. In the C-1 low density commercial district, the following uses and structures are permitted: (15) Resort dwellings or resort condominiums duly licensed by the state, provided a special exception for a residential dwelling has been granted for the subject property. ARTICLE IX. SUPPLEMENTARY DISTRICT REGULATIONS DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Sec. 110-485. Resort Dwellings; Resort Condominiums; Nonconforming Use Status; Expiration. (a) Resort dwellings and resort condominiums that are not located within a C-1 zoning district shall be deemed a nonconforming use subject to the provisions of Chapter 110, Article V, Nonconformities, of this Code, provided said resort dwelling or condominium is declared existing in accordance the terms and conditions set forth in this section. (b) In order to be declared existing under this section, the owner of the resort dwelling or resort condominium shall timely obtain a certificate of nonconforming status from the city manager as follows: (1) The owner shall file a written notice of intent with the city manager within thirty City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. _-2007 Page 6 of 9 DRAFT May 30, 2007 (30) days of (INSERT EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE) which declares and registers the owner's intent to duly license an existing dwelling unit or condominium unit as a resort dwelling or resort condominium in accordance with applicable provisions of chapter 509, Florida Statutes. The city manager shall promulgate a form to be used by owners for purposes of declaring their intent under this subsection. If the owner fails to timely file a notice of intent within the thirty day time period for a particular dwelling or condominium unit, the owner shall be barred from claiming nonconforming status under this section for said unit. (2) Within one (1) year of filing the notice of intent required by subsection (b)(1), the owner shall have obtained the requisite license from the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation and certificate of occupancy from the building official for the subject dwelling or condominium unit. Proof of the requisite licensure and certificate of occupancy shall be submitted to the city manager within the one year time period, and upon receipt and verification of the same, the city manager shall issue a certificate of nonconforming status to the owner for the subject dwelling or condominium unit. If the owner fails to provide proof of the license and certificate of occupancy within the one year time period required by this subsection, the owner shall be barred from claiming nonconforming status under this section even though a notice of intent was filed under subsection (b)(1). 3) Proof of the reauisite certificate of occunancv shall reauire the owner to satisfactorily demonstrate to the building official compliance with all applicable building codes and to also satisfactorily demonstrate to the fire chief compliance with all applicable fire codes. In furtherance of this requirement, the owner shall be required to file with the building official and fire chief a life safety plan for the subject dwelling or condominium unit within thirty (30) days following the filing of the notice of intent required under subsection (b)(1), unless filing of the life safety plan is otherwise required by state law. Said plan shall contain the information deemed necessary by the building official and fire chief in order to determine compliance with the applicable building and fire codes. Upon acceptance of the life safety plan by the building official and fire chief, the owner shall have ninety (90) days in which to file detailed plans and specifications covering all repairs and improvements required to demonstrate compliance with all applicable building and fire codes, unless filing of the plans and specifications is otherwise required by state law. (4) The one year time period may be extended by the building official or fire chief for good cause shown, provided that the owner has demonstrated a good faith effort to comply with the provisions of this section and the owner has not unlawfully used the subject unit in violation of this section after (INSERT City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No.__ __-2007 Page 7 of 9 DRAFT May 30, 2007 EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE). (c) Any resort dwelling or resort condominium deemed nonconforming pursuant to this section shall lose its nonconforming status if any one (1) of the following occurs: (1) The resort dwelling or resort condominium use is abandoned pursuant to section 110-197 of this Code; (2) The Division of Hotels and Restaurants of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation revokes the resort dwelling's or resort condominium's license for whatever reason, or if said license should otherwise expire or lapse at any time. 3) The resort dwelling or resort condominium has been repeatedly found to be in violation of applicable building and fire code requirements on more than three (3) separate occasions within the previous three year period commencing on the date that the most recent violation was cited. For purposes of this subsection, the term violation shall include those violations declared by the state or the city or a combination of violations declared by the state and city. d) It shall be unlawful for an owner to operate a resort dwelline or resort condominium in a zoning district other than C-1 (Low Density Commercial District) unless the owner has obtained a certificate of nonconforming status under this section. In furtherance ofthe public health, safety, and welfare of the public that occupy resort dwellings and resort condominiums, the city manager is hereby authorized to take whatever lawful steps are necessary, with the assistance of the building official and fire chief, to require that the operation of a resort dwelling or resort condominium within the city is in compliance with the city's zoning and certificate of occupancy requirements. Said steps may include, but are not limited to, seeking injunctive relief in a court of competent jurisdiction. Sec. 110-486. Rental Restrictions on Dwelling Units. It shall be unlawful for any person to rent a dwelling unit for less than seven (7) consecutive days. Section 3. Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Ordinances and Resolutions. All prior inconsistent ordinances and resolutions adopted by the City Council, or parts of prior ordinances and resolutions in conflict herewith, are hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict. City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. _ _-2007 Page 8 of 9 DRAFT May 30, 2007 Section 4. Incorporation Into Code. This Ordinance shall be incorporated into the Cape Canaveral City Code and any section or paragraph, number or letter, and any heading may be changed or modified as necessary to effectuate the foregoing. Grammatical, typographical, and like errors may be corrected and additions, alterations, and omissions, not affecting the construction or meaning of this ordinance and the City Code may be freely made. Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word or provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, whether for substantive, procedural, or any other reason, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, this day of 12007. ROCKY RANDELS, Mayor ATTEST: For Against Bob Hoog Leo Nicholas Buzz Petsos Rocky Randels SUSAN STILLS, City Clerk C. Shannon Roberts 1s` Legal Ad Published: First Reading: 2°d Legal Ad published: Second Reading: Approved as to legal form and sufficiency for the City of Cape Canaveral only: ANTHONY A. GARGANESE, City Attorney City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. _ __-2007 Page 9 of 9 Date: May 24, 2007 To: Bennett Boucher, City Manager Susan Stills, City Clerk From: Bea McNeely, Chairperson, Planning & Zoning Board Re: Recommendation to City Council Proposed Regulation for Resort Dwelling Units and Resort Dwelling Condominiums ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ At the Planning & Zoning Board meeting, held on May 23, 2007, with the assistance of the City Manager, Building Official, Fire Chief, and City Attorney, the Board reviewed and discussed the proposed ordinance regarding resort dwelling units and resort condominiums. By a unanimous vote, the Board made the following recommendations to the City Council for consideration: • Do not create resort dwellings and resort condominiums as a principal use in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zoning districts. • Create resort dwellings and resort condominiums as a principal use in the C-1 zoning district, with the contingency that the property has been granted a special exception for residential use by the time this ordinance is adopted. • Allow existing rentals, whether licensed or not, in all zoning districts, to continue provided all the following are met: 1. Property owners of resort dwellings and resort condominiums shall register for the use, with the City Manager, within 30 days from adoption of this ordinance. 2. Submit to the Building department a life safety plan within 30 days from the date of the first inspection by the fire department. 3. Submit to the Building department technical drawings within 90 days from the date of the first inspection by the fire department. 4. A license from DBPR must be obtained and all applicable laws met for the use within 365 days from adoption of this ordinance. (Note: An applicant may file with the Building department a request for a hardship extension for approval by the Building Official and/or Fire Official. Please schedule this recommendation for an upcoming City Council meeting. l\ _ C� .. ,J — _ --- � cJ 2 - 2 ? v o � o o A v v a A d V O 1' Z 0 oto � .. ,J — _ --- � cJ - 2 ? v o � o `1 . 4- � cJ - 2 ? v o � o o A v aC A d O Z 4r- d V - 2 ? v V - 2 ? v Z Memo Date: May 29, 2007 To: Bennett Boucher, City Manager Fr+wrc Todd may: 9 Official RP�oced�ee for E: Classification The attached informational handout provides, in general terms, the procedure for changing certain `primarily permanent' residential Occupancy Classifications to a `primarily transient' residential Occupancy Classification. This is not a `one -size -fits -all' procedure. Due to the configuration of various elements, each change of Occupancy Classification request must be evaluated independently. To that extent, the information is presented somewhat broadly. As a precursor to reviewing the informational handout, I would like to re -state how we arrived here. It was recently brought to light that several residential structures in the City of Cape Canaveral were being used in a manner contrary to their permitted use, as recorded in City files. The Florida Building Code, Chapter 3, establishes that there is a relationship between uses of structures and construction features. This is the premise behind the term `Occupancy Classification'. Due to life -safety concerns, it is illegal to use a structure in violation of its permitted Occupancy Classification. Once such a violation is noted, code enforcement staff will send a notice to the property owner, stating the nature of the violation. Both the City Code Sec. 110-121 and Florida Building Code sec. 110.1, below, address this violation similarly: City of Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances Sec. 110-121. Required. No building or structure shall be used or occupied, and no change in the existing occupancy classification of a building or structure or portion thereof shall be made until the building official has issued a certificate of occupancy therefore. Issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall not be construed as an approval of a violation of the provisions of the city code or any other applicable law. If issuance of such certificate is refused, the building official shall state such refusal in writing with the reason. A temporary certificate of occupancy may be issued by the building official for a period not exceeding six months during alterations or partial occupancy of a building pending its completion, provided that such temporary certificate may require such conditions and safeguards as will protect the safety of the occupants and the public. (Code 1981, § 645.07; Ord. No. 05-2006, § 2, 6-20-06) Florida Building Code Sec. 110.1 Use and Occupancy. No building or structure shall be used or occupied, and no change in the existing occupancy classification of a building or structure or portion thereof shall be made until the building official has issued a certificate of occupancy therefore as provided herein. Issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall not be construed as an approval of a violation of the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction. Florida Building Code Section 310 defines Residential Occupancy Classifications. There are four types: Residential Description Occupancy Classification RI Residential occupancies where the occupants are primarily transient in nature. (Examples: Hotels, Resort Dwellings, Resort Condominiums) R2 Residential occupancies containing sleeping units or more than two dwelling units where the occupants are primarily permanent in nature. (Examples: a 3 -unit townhome building, a 24 -unit condominium) R3 Residential occupancies where the occupants are primarily permanent in nature and not classified as RI, R2, R4 or Institutional and where buildings do not contain more than two dwelling units or adult and child care facilities. (Examples: a single-family residence, a duplex) R4 Residential occupancies arranged for residential care/assisted living facilities for up to 16 clients. The Certificate of Occupancy issued by the building official is required to state the Occupancy Classification. Changing from a permitted Occupancy Classification to a different Occupancy Classification, without the requisite permitting, inspections and (ultimately) a new C O constitutes a violation. City of Cape Canaveral Changing from Occupancy Classifications R3 to R1 or from R2 to RI Todd Morley, Building Official May 29, 2007 This informational handout is intended to inform the applicant of the typical steps necessary to change from Occupancy Classifications R3 to RI or from R2 to R1. The chart below describes the steps, in order, and provides the applicable code sections and a brief description. Step Code Section What does this code section require? number 1 City code sec. Due to life -safety concerns, it is illegal to use a structure in violation of its 110-121 and permitted Occupancy Classification. Florida Building Code sec. 110.1 2 FEBC sec. 801.3 If you wish to change the occupancy classification of a structure, please be and 812.3.2 aware that alterations may be required. In order to determine the degree of alterations required an evaluation must be performed in accordance with the code requirements. You may choose to perform this evaluation yourself or you may employ the services of an appropriately licensed contractor, engineer or architect. If the evaltubm udicates that all apphcable codes are already met, then no additional alterations are regwrad. Submit your evaluation to the Wilding depamnent for review. Upon the approval of the bwkt ng official and the fire official, a new C.O. for the new use may be issued 3 FBC 105.1 If alterations are required, a building permit will be required for the applicable altered elements. You must employ the services of an appropriately licensed contractor to obtain the permit (owner/builder permits are not allowed for leased property). 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 4 FBC 105.3 and Detailed construction plans, indicating all proposed work, must be submitted 106.1 along with the building permit application and any other necessary papwwork- 5 FBC 105.3.1 The Building and Fire Departments will review the submittal for code compliance. If the submittal does not conform to the requirements of Pertinent laws, the building official shall reject the application in writing, stating the reasons therefore. The applicant may submit revisions as necessary to comply with the requirements. If the building official is satisfied that the proposed work conforms to the applicable laws, he shall issue a permit therefore as soon as practicable. 6 FBC 109.3 The permit holder is responsible for ensuring that the required periodic inspections are requested. Such work shall remain accessible and exposed for inspection purposes until approved. 7 FBC 110.2 After final approval of all inspections, you may apply for a new Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) for the new use. Upon review and approval of all pertinent documentation, and upon the approval of the fire official, the building official shall issue the requested C.O. City Manager's Office Memo To: Mayor & City Council Members From: Bennett Boucher, City Manag CC: Planning & Zoning Board Me ers Date: 01/05/2007 Re~ Resort Dwelling —Analysis of Comprehensive plan and Land Development regulations. I recently completed a review and analysis of the Comprehensive plan and Land Development regulations and the following are my findings. The comprehensive plan housing element deals mostly with affordable housing by encouraging it and other types of housing. If resort dwellings were an official permitted use, this could take housing Inventory out of the market The comprehensive plan future land use element deals mostly with protecting the residential character of the residential zoning districts. The City currently does not define - resort dwelling in our Land Development Regulations, (LDR's). These are the definitions in the City LDR code describe residential uses; Dwelling, multiple family, means a residential building designed for or occupied by three or more families, with the number of families in residence not exceeding the number of dwelling units provided. Dwelling, single-family, means a detached residential dwelling unit other than a mobile home, designed for and occupied by one family. Dwelling, two-family, means a detached residential building containing two dwelling units, designed 1br occupancy by not more than two families. Dwelling unit or living unit means one room or rooms connected together, constituting a separate ii'1(j.P.11P.T1f1 PY1? hn11CP1C�PnlTlO PctahllChtn tint r Owner 0Cr rmmn((ty fnr rant nr'v.a..'a..ca, Wnn scparatcd from any other rooms or dwelling units which may he in the same struchwe and containing independent cooking and sleeping facilities. Family means a person or a group of persons related to each other by blood or marriage or a group of not more than four adults who are not necessarily so related, living together under one roof as a single household unit. Residential district means that area set aside primarily for use as low and medium density residential housing. Sec. 110-272. Principal uses and structures. The principal uses and structures in the R-1 low density residential district are as follows: Single-family dwellings. In no case shall there be more than one principal structure per lot or parcel. Dwelling unit rentals of less than seven days are prohibited. (Code 1981, § 637.03) Sec. 110-276. Prohibited uses and structures. In the R-1 low density residential district, all uses not specifically or provisionally permitted in this division and any use not in keeping with the single-family residential character of the district, including two-family and multiple -family dwellings, townhouses and mobile home parks, are prohibited. (Code 1981, § 637.09) Sec. 110-292. Principal uses and structures. In the R-2 medium density residential district, the principal uses and structures shall be: (1) Single-family dwellings; (2) Two-family dwellings; (3) Multifamily dwellings; or (4) Public schools. Notwithstanding the foregoing, residential acre, and dwelling prohibited. (Code 1981, § 637.17; Ord. No, 0 Page 2 there shall be no more than 15 dwelling units per net unit rentals of less than seven days are expressly 17-96, § 1, 10-1-96) Sec. 110-295. Prohibited uses and structures. In the R-2 medium density residential district, all uses and structures not cnecifinnihi nr nrnviainnai(v narmiHc.ri in this efivicinn oro nrnhihiiari p...v.........� r.. ,......... ......� Ire..........- .. r.. ... .........,... (Code 1981, § 637.23) Sec. 110-312. Principal uses and structures. In the R-3 medium density residential district, the principal uses and structures shall be: (1) Single-family dwellings; (2) Two-family dwellings; (3) Multifamily dwellings; or (4) Public schools. Notwithstanding the foregoing, there shall be no more than 15 dwelling units per net residential acre, and dwelling unit rentals of less than seven days are expressly prohibited. (Code 1981, § 637.31; Ord. No. 17-96, § 2, 10-1-96) Sec. 190-315. Prohibited uses and structures. In the R-3 medium density residential district, all uses and structures not specifically or provisionally permitted in this division are prohibited. (Code 1981, § 637.37) After you review the above, resort dwelling as defined by the State below, is not a permitted use in any of the City's residential districts. The state of Florida defines resort dwelling as — a resort dwelling is any individually or collectively owned one -family, two-family, three-family, or four -family dwelling house or dwelling unit which is rented more then three times in a calendar year for periods of less than 30 days or 1 calendar month, whichever is less, or which is advertised or held out to the public as a place regularly rented for periods of less then 30 days or 1 calendar month, whichever is less. Additionally, (this is an important point) you can rent a unit for a week or longer under the current code and not trip the State's definition of a "resort dwelling" and be a conforming use. This can occur when the frequency of the rental does not meet or exceed the State's definition. 0 Page 3 If you rented a unit that tripped the State's definition of a °resort dwelling" then you are in violation of the City's code because this use is not defined or listed as a principal use in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 zoning districts. If the City were allow "resort dwellings" as a permitted use, I believe there would be comprehensive plan consistency issues that would have to be addressed in order to allow this type of use within the City's residential districts. 0 Page 4 Memo Date: March 21, 2007 To: City Council, via Bennett Boucher, City Manager From: Todd Morley, Building Official RE: Change of Occupancy Classification Please find attached an excerpt from the Florida Building Code Commentary, 2004. It is Section 304 Residential Group R This is what I read from at the Council meeting on March 20, 2007. CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT To: City Council, via Bennett Boucher, City Manager From: Todd Morley, Building Official RE: Change of Occupancy Classification Please find attached an excerpt from the Florida Building Code Commentary, 2004. It is Section 304 Residential Group R This is what I read from at the Council meeting on March 20, 2007. USE AND OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION SELF -SERVE GAS PUMPS 1 1 /4 0 Li rp, Figure 309.1(2) GROUP M—SELF-SERVICE GAS STATION `NO CAR REPAIR IS DONE Table 307.7(1) and Note b of Table 307.7(2). These provisions give the quantity limitations for specific high - hazard products in mercantile display areas, including medicines, foodstuffs, cosmetics and alcoholic bever- ages, Without this option, many mercantile occupancies could technically be classified as Group H. The in- creased quantities of certain hazardous materials are based on the recognition that, while there is limited risk in mercantile occupancies, the packaging and storage arrangements can be controlled. For further informa- tion on the storage limitations required for these types of materials in mercantile occupancies, see the Florida Fire Prevention Code. SECTION 310 RESIDENTIAL GROUP R. 310.1 Residential Group R. Residential Group R includes, among others, the use of a building or structure, or a portion thereof, for sleeping purposes when not classified as an Insti- tutional Group I. Residential occupancies shall include the fol- lowing: R-1 Residential occupancies where the occupants are pri- marily transient in nature,d g: Boarding houses (transient) Hotels (transient) Motels (transient) R-2 Residential occupancies containing sleeping units or more than two dwelling units where the occupants are pnmanly ermanent in nature, including: Apartment houses mel FQ' Boarding houses (not transient) Convents. Dormitories Fraternities and sororities Monasteries Vacation timeshare properties Hotels (nontransient) Motels (nontransient) R-3 Residential occupancies where the marily permanent in nature and nc not contain uran rwv awetnng umrs as appucame rn section Iui or adult and child care facilities that provide accornaw,-, dations for five or fewer persons of any age for less th8Q 24 hours. Adult and child care facilities that are withi E a single-family home are permitted to comply with'!'t6 rr--.:.r_ 11 7r_. rwriuu uUtewrlg Code, I:esidenllal in act;ordance wi& Section 101.2. R-4 Residential occupancies shall`. elude buildings arranged. for occupancy as residentid' care/assisted living facilities including more than five: but not more than 16 occupants, excluding staff. R-4 Residential occupancies shall _ include buildinffi. arranged for occupancy as residential care/as- sisted living facilities including more than film'.. but not more than 16 occupants, excluding stall Group R-4 occupancies shall meet the requiremenu for construction as defined for Group R-3 except as oth- erwise provided for in this code or shall comply with tle Florida Building Code, Residential in accordance wid'. Section 101.2. Residential occupancies represent some of the high. 2004 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE® COMMENTARY est fire safety risks of any of the occupancies listed in Chapter 3. There are several reasons for this condi- tion: Structures in the residential occupancy house the widest range of occupant types, i.e., infants to the aged, for the longest periods of time. As such, residential occupancies are more susceptible to the frequency of careless acts of the occupants; therefore, the consequences of exposure to the effects of fire are the most serious. Most residential occupants are asleep approxi- mately one-third of every 24-hour period. When sleeping, they are not likely to become immedi- ately aware of a developing fire- Also, if awakened from sleep by the presence of fire, the residents often may not immediately react in a rational man- ner and delay their evacuation. The fuel load in residential occupancies is often quite high, both in quantity and variety. Also, in the construction of residential buildings, It is com- mon to use extensive amounts of combustible materials. Another portion of the fire problem in residential occupancies relates to the occupants' lack of vigi- lance in the prevention of fire hazards. In their own domicile or residence, people tend to relax and are often prone to allow fire hazards to go unabated, thus, in residential occupancies, fire hazards tend to accrue over an extended period of time and go unnoticed or are ignored. Most of the nation's fire problems occur in Group R buildings and, in particular, one- and two-family dwell.- .,,:,,Ings, which account for more than 80 percent of all .deaths from fire in residential occupancies and about two-thirds of all fire fatalities in all occupancies. One and two-family dwellings also account for more than `80 percent of residential property losses from fire and more than one-half of all property losses from fire. Because of the relatively high fire risk and poten- tial for loss of life in buildings classified in Groups'R-1 (hotels and motels) and R-2 (apartments and dormi- tolies), the code has stringent provisions for the pro- tection of life in these occupancies. Group R-3 occu- pancies, however, are not generally considered to be Tlk '._,in the same domain and, thus, are not subject. to the same level of regulatory control as is provided in other occupancies. Group R-3 facilities are one- or two-fam- ily dwellings where the occupants are generally more familiar with their surroundings, and, because they are single units or duplexes, tend to pose a lower risk of injury or death. Due to the growing trend to care for people in a resi- dential environment, residential care/assisted living fa- cilities are also classified as Group R. Specifically, these facilities are classified as Group R-4. "Mainstreaming" People who are recovering from alcohol or drug addic- FLORIDA BUILDING CODE® COMMENTARY USE AND OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION tion and people who are developmentally disabled is reported to have therapeutic and social benefits. A resi- dential environment often fosters this mainstreaming. Buildings in Group R are described herein. A build- ing or part of a building is considered to be a residen- tial occupancy if it is intended to -be used for sleeping accommodations (including residential care/assisted living facilities) and is not an institutional occupancy. Institutional occupancies are similar to residential oc- vu�.iaw,wii o ir%gy. W-ientia. ii ...-.iy VVaYJ, iiUVV=VWUi from each other in that institutional occupants are in a supervised environment, and, in the case of Groups 1-2 and 1-3 occupancies, are under some form of re- straint or physical limitation that makes them incapable of complete self-preservation. The number of these oc- cupants who are under supervision or are incapable of self-preservation is the distinguishing factor for being classified as an Institutional or residential occupancy_ The term "Group R" refers collectively to the four in- dividual residential occupancy classifications: Groups R-1, R-2, R-3 and R4. These classifications are differ- entiated in the code based on the following criteria: (1) whether the occupants are transient or nontransient in nature; (2) the type and number of dwellings contained in a single building and (3) the number of occupants in the fatality. R-1: The'key characteristic of Group R-1 that differenti- ates it from other Group R occupancies is the number of transient occupants (Le., thosewhose length of stay Is less than 30 days). The most common building types classified in Group R-1 are hotels, motels and boarding houses. Group R- 1 occupancies do not typically have cooking facilities in the unit. When a unit is not equipped with cooking facilities, it does not meet the definition of a "Dwelling unit' in Section 310.2. When this occurs, such units are treated as guestrooms for the application of code provi- sions [see Figure 310.1(1)1. Guestrooms are required to be separated from each other by fire partitions and horizontal assemblies (see Section 310.3). Other occupancies are often found in buildings das- sified in Group R-1. These occupanripn include night- clubs (Group A-2), restaurants (Group A -2) -.'gift shops (Group M), health clubs (Group A-3) and storage fa- cilities (Group S-1). When this occurs, the building is a mixed occupancy and is subject to the provisions of Section 302.3. Fof : The length of the occupants' stay plus the ar- gement of the facilities provided are the basic fac- that differentiate occupancies classified in Group from other occupancies in Group R. The occupants acilities or areas classified in Group R-2 are primar- ily not transient, capable of self-preservation and share their means of egress in whole or in part with other occupants outside of their sleeping area or dwelling unit. The separation between dwelling units must, as a minimum, meet the requirements contained in Sections 310.3, 708.1 and 711.3. Building types ordinarily classi- 3-49 USE AND OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION /-OUTSTAIRWAY �9.EVATIX{ECLW. ROOK ELEVA(0.44 9 STCKY HOTEL OUF STAIRWAY - EM SYAPMAY Flgure 310.1(1) GROUP R -1 --HOTEL (OCCUPANTS ARE PRIMARILY TRANSIENT) L[ ed in Group R-2 include apartments, boarding houses (when the occupants are not transient) and dormitories [see Figures 310.1(2) and 310.1(3)). Individual dwelling units in Group R-2 are either rented by tenants or owned by the occupants. The code does not make a distinction between either type of ten- ancy unless the dwelling unit is located on a separate parcel of land. When this occurs, lot lines defining the land parcel exist and the requirements for fire separa- tion must be met. Dormitories are generally associated with univer- sity or college campuses for use as student housing, but this Is changing rapidly. Many dormitories are now being built as housing for elderly people who wish to live with other people their own age and who do not need 24 -hour -a -day medical supervision. The only dif- ference between the dormitory that has just been de- scribed and the dormitory found on a college campus is the age of its occupants. If the elderly people must have 24 -hour -a -day supervision (i.e., a nurse or doctor on the premises), the building is no longer considered a residential occupancy but an institutional occupancy (Group 1-2 assuming greater than five occupants) and would have to comply with the applicable provisions of the code. Similar to Group R-1, individual rooms in dormitories are also required to be separated from each other fire partitions and horizontal assemblies in accordar with Sections 310.3, 708.1 and 711.3. When coflE classes are not in session, the rooms in dormitor are sometimes rented out for periods less than 30 d to convention attendees and other visitors. When .d mitories undergo this type of transient use, they in closely resemble Group R-1. Buildings containing dormitories often contain. c er occupancies, such as cafeterias or dining roa (Group A-2), recreation rooms (Group A-3) and off (Group B) or meeting rooms (Group A-3). When t occurs, the building is considered a mixed occupai and is subject to the provisions of Section 302.3 [ Figure 310.1(4)]. Townhouses are classified as R-3. Florida Statu require that where three or more dwelling units are tached that they are to be considered as multifamily the installation of sprinklers. R-3: Group R-3 facilities include all detached one a two-family dwellings and multiple (three or more) sing family dwellings (townhouses). Those buildings thi or less stories in height are regulated by the Flor Building Code, Residential (see Section 101.2). Tov houses have to be separated by party walls (see S, tion 705.4.1) or by two exterior walls (see Table 602 3-50 2004 FLORIDA BUILDING CODER' USE AND OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION GLIESMOOM SEPARATION WALLS SECOND FLOOR MR7 FIRST FLOOR SLEEPING ROOMS wrni PRIVATE BATHROOMS Figure 310.1(4) GROUP R-2-3ORMITORY (OCCUPANTS PRIMARILY NOT TRANSIENT) Buildings that are one- and two-family dwellings and multiple single-family dwellings less than three stories in height and which contain another occupancy .*.(e.g., Groups R-1, R-2, 1-4, etc.) must be regulated as a mixed occupancy in accordance with the code and are not required to comply with the provisions of the Florida Building Code, Residential [see Figures 310.1(5) and 310.1(6)]. In addition, all institutional facilities that aG commodate five or less people are to be classified as Group R-3. Buildings that are classified as Group R-3, while lim- ited in height, are not limited in the allowable area per floor as indicated in Table 503. All dwelling units must be separated from each other by fire partitions and horizontal assemblies (in accor- dance with Sections 310.3, 708.1 and 711.3) unless required to be separated by fire walls. R-4: When a limited number of people who require per- sonal care live in a residential environment, a facility is no longer classified as Group 1-1 but as a residen- tial care/assisted living facility, Group R-4. Ninety-eight percent of households in the U.S. have less than 16 oc- cupants, thus the limit of 16 would allow equal access for the disabled. The number of occupants is those that receive care and is not intended to include staff. With the exception of height and area limitations, Group R-4 facilities must satisfy the construction requirements of Group R-3. 310.2 Definitions. The .following words and terms shall, for purposes of this section and as used elsewhere in this code, h. the meanings shown herein. Definitions of terms that are associated with the cont( of this section are contained herein. These defnitie can help in the understanding and application of t code requirements. One should keep in mind, howev that in many cases, terms defined in the code may al be defined by ordinances and statutes of local and st-. governments. In such cases, code users must focus the specific features that define the term relative to t code and not its generally held meaning. It is important to emphasize that these terms are n exclusively related to this section, but are appiicat everywhere the term is used in the code. The purpo: for including these definitions within this section Is provide more convenient access to them without ha Ing to refer back to Chapter 2. For convenience, the: terms are also listed in Chapter 2 with a cross refe ence to this section. The use and application of all defined terms, indw ing those defined herein, are set forth in Section 201. BOARDING HOUSE. A building arranged or used for lodgii for compensation, with or without meals, and not occupied as single-family unit. A boarding house is a structure housing lodgers c boarders in which the occupants are providealodgin 3-52 2004 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE® Memorandum Date: May 16, 2007 To: Todd Morley, Building Official From: Todd Peetz, City Planner RE: Resort Dwellings and Resort Condominium Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Pursuant to your request to determine if the short-term rentals are consistent with the comprehensive plan, I have reviewed the City Attorney's Executive Summary from March 30, 2007 and I concur with the findings that resort dwellings are not consistent with the current Land Development Regulations. Further, they are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Policy LU -3.1 which states: "The City shall enforce its various ordinances which regulate the land use categories included in the Future land use Map (Zoning Ordinance). subdivisions (Subdivision Regulations), signage (Sign Ordinance), and areas subject to seasonal or periodic flooding (stormwater management Ordinance and Federal Flood Insurance Program Regulations)". I interpret this to mean that if a use is not consistent with the land development code, it thus is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 land use catergories. Resort Dwellings and Resort Condominium land usage is regulated by Chapter 509 F.S., which also regulates hotel use. Hotel uses are found in the C-1 land use category and regulated in the C-1 zoning district. The existing uses in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 land use catergories are non -conforming uses and would require, at a minimum, a change in the land development regulations to allow Resort Dwellings and Resort Condominiums as either a permitted use or a permitted use by special exception. However, Resort Dwellings and Resort Condominium are regulated by Chapter 509 F.S. and enforced by the Department of Business & Professional Regulation (DBPR). This suggests that Resort Dwellings and Resort Condominiums are a business and would currently only be allowable in the C-1 district. Rentals of 30 days or more are excluded from regulation by Chapter 509 F.S. In my opinion they are not considered businesses. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 407-629-8880 9J-5.023 Criteria for Determining Consistency of Land Development Regulations with the Comprehensive Plan. A determination of consistency of a land development regulation with the comprehensive plan will be based upon the following: (1) Characteristics of land use and development allowed by the regulation in comparison to the land use and development proposed in the comprehensive plan. Factors which will be considered include: (a) Type of land use; (b) Intensity and density of land use; (c) Location of land use; ..l,(d) Extent of land use; and ,, (e) Other aspects of development, including impact on natural resources. (2) Whether the land development regulations are compatible with the comprehensive plan, further the comprehensive plan, and implement the comprehensive plan. The term "compatible" means that the land development regulations are not in conflict with the comprehensive plan. The term "further" means that the land development regulations take action in the direction of realizing goals or policies of the comprehensive plan. (3) Whether the land development regulations include provisions thairxement obiectives and policies of the comprehensive an p that require implementing regulations in order to be realized, including provisions implementing the requirement that public facilities and services needed to support development shall be available concurrent with the impacts of such development. Specific Authority 163.3202(5) FS Law Implemented 163.3194, 163.3213 FS. History -New 3-21-99. Cape Canaveral Comprehensive Plan Future land use Element Objective LU -3: rage 1 of G The City shall work toward the elimination or reduction of uses inconsistent with the community's character and future land uses. The measurement of this Objective is the consistency and compatibility of land uses within Cape Canaveral and the degree to which the following Policies are implemented. _X_ Policy LU -3.1 The City shall enforce its various ordinances which regulate the _landuse categories included in the Future land use Map (Zoning Ordinance), subdivisions (Subdivision Regulations), signage (Sign Ordinance), and areas subject to seasonal or periodic flooding (stormwater management Ordinance and Federal Flood Insurance Program Regulations). Policy LU -3.2 The City shall require newde_velopment to be compatible with adjacent land uses. Policy LU -3.3 The City shall enforce its requirements pertaining to densities and intensities of land use in each land - use category--i.e. *R-1, Low density Residential: maximum 5.808 lots/acre. *R-2, Medium density Residential and townhouse Apartments: maximum 15 units/acre. *R-3, Duplex/Multi-Family/Townhouse Apartments: maximum 15 units/acre. *M-1, light industrial: maximum 4.356 lots/acre. *C_-1, co...m.m.ercial: zoning regulations impose a variety of requirements, depending upon type of use. *C-2, commercial: zoning regulations impose a variety of requirements, depending upon type of use. PUB, Public and Recreation Facilities CON, Conservation Policy LU -3.4 .1 ppro`�Irlate locations for YN Y public _scllQols should be based upon the following criteria: http://fcn.state.fl.us/cape/CapeCode/LU-3.htm 05/16/2007 A -K I I ULh 1. 1N UEN EKAL Page 1 of 1 Dwelling, mobile home, means a detached residential dwelling unit over eight feet in width, which bears a seal from the United States department of housing and urban development, designed for travel over highways and streets or for house accommodations or both, manufactured on an integral chassis or undercarriage and arriving at the site where it is to be occupied, except for minor and incidental unpacking and assembly operations, location on jacks or other temporary or permanent foundations, connection to utilities and the like. Dwelling, multiple -family, means a residential building designed for or occupied by three or more families, with the number of families in residence not exceeding the number of dwelling units Dwelling, single-family, means a detached residential dwelling unit other than a mobile home, designed for and occupied by one family. Dwelling, two-family, means a detached residential building containing two dwelling units, designed for occupancy by not more than two families. Dwelling unit or living unit means one room or rooms connected together, constituting a separate independent housekeeping establishment for owner occupancy, for rent or lease, and physically separated from any other rooms or dwelling units which may be in the same structure and containing independent cooking and sleeping facilities. http://libraryl .municode.com/mcc/DocView/12642/1/254/255 05/16/2007 aLarures az uonsutunon : View Statutes :->2004->Ch0163->Section 3164: flsenate.gov Pagel of 3 163.3164 Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act; definitions. --As used in this act: (1) "Administration Commission" means the Governor and the Cabinet, and for purposes of this chapter the commission shalt act on a simple majority vote, except that for purposes of imposing the sanctions provided in s. 1.63..31__84(11), affirmative action shall require the approval of the Governor and at least three other members of the commission. 1LiArea" or area of jurisdiction" means the total area qualifying under the provisions of this act, whether this be all of the lands lying within the limits of an incorporated municipality, lands in and adjacent to incorporated municipalities, all unincorporated lands within a county, or areas comprising combinations of the lands in incorporated municipalities and unincorporated areas of counties. (3) "Coastal area" means the 35 coastal counties and all coastal municipalities within their boundaries designated coastal by the state land planning agency. (4) "Comprehensive plan" means a plan that meets the requirements of ss. 163.3.177 and 163,.3.1.78. (5) "Developer' means any person, including a governmental agency, undertaking any development as defined in this act. (6) "Development" has the meaning given it in s. 380.04. (7) "Development order" means any order granting, denying, or granting with conditions an application for a development permit. (8) "Development permit" includes any building permit, zoning permit, subdivision approval, rezoning, certification, special exception, variance, or any other official action of local government having the effect of permitting the development of land. (9) "Governing body" means the board of county commissioners of a county, the commission or council of an incorporated municipality, or any other chief governing body of a unit of local government, however designated, or the combination of such bodies where joint utilization of the provisions of this act is accomplished as provided herein. (10) "Governmental agency" means: (a) The United States or any department, commission, agency, or other instrumentality thereof (b) This state or any department, commission, agency, or other instrumentality thereof. (c) Any local government, as defined in this section, or any department, commission, agency, or other instrumentality thereof. (d) Any school board or other special district, authority, or governmental entity. 01) "Land" means the earth, water, and air, above, below, or on the surface, and includes any improvements or structures customarily regarded as land. (12) "Land use" means the development that has occurred on the land, the development that is proposed by a developer on the land, or the use that is permitted or permissible on the land under an, audopted cc,i,iprcliensive plan or element or portion thereof, land development regulations, or a land development code, as the context may indicate. http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App mode=Display_Statute&Search String... 05/16/2007 a°.UuuWs M uonstntution : view statutes :->2004->Ch0163->Section 3164: flsenate.gov Page 2 of 3 (13) "Local government" means any county or municipality. (14) "Local planning agency" means the agency designated to prepare the comprehensive plan or plan amendments required by this act. (15) A "newspaper of general circulation" means a newspaper published at least on a weekly basis and printed in the language most commonly spoken in the area within which it circulates, but does not include a newspaper intended primarily for members of a particular professional or occaaat.onal group. newspaper .! a n e _ r �.o, -h. _ca, ,... 3; j f on _`_'.u: s that is given away primarily to distribute advertising. - j 5�. �I a 11C. 'NaNCl (16) 'Parcel of land" means any quantity of land capable of being described with such definiteness that its locations and boundaries may be established, which is designated by its owner or developer as land to be used, or developed as, a unit or which has been used or developed as a unit. (17) 'Person" means an individual, corporation, governmental agency, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, two or more persons having a joint or common interest, or any other legal entity. 08) 'Public notice" means notice as required by s. 125.66(2) for a county or by s. 1.66..0.41(3)(a) for a municipality. The public notice procedures required in this part are established as minimum public notice procedures. (19) 'Regional planning agency" means the agency designated by the state land planning agency to exercise responsibilities under law in a particular region of the state. (20) "State land planning agency" means the Department of Community Affairs. (21) "Structure' has the meaning given it by s. 380._031(19). (22) "Land development regulation commission" means a commission designated by a local government to develop and recommend, to the local governing body, land development regulations which implement the adopted comprehensive plan and to review land development regulations, or amendments thereto, for consistency with the adopted plan and report to the governing body regarding its findings. The responsibilities of the land development regulation commission may be performed by the local planning agency. �i(23) "Land development regulations" means ordinances enacted by governing bodies for the regulation of any aspect of development and includes any local government zoning, rezoning, subdivision, building construction, or sign regulations or any other regulations controlling the development of land, except that this definition shall not apply in s. 163.3213.. (24) 'Public facilities" means major capital improvements, including, but not limited to, transportation, sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, educational, parks and recreational, and health systems and facilities, and spoil disposal sites for maintenance dredging located in the intracoastal waterways, except for spoil disposal sites owned or used by ports listed in s. 403.021(9)(b). (25) "Downtown revitalization" means the physical and economic renewal of a central business district of a community as designated by local government, and includes both downtown development and redevelopment. (26) "Urban redevelopment" means demolition and reconstruction or substantial renovation of eXisti� �g buildings or nfrastr uaure within urban infill areas or existing urban service areas. http://www.flsenate.gov/statuteslindex.cfin?App mode=Display_Statute&Search String... 05/16/2007 %_,VJistutuuon : view Statutes :->2004->Ch0163->Section 3164: flsenate.gov Page 3 of 3 facilities such as sewer systems, roads, schools, (27) "Urban infill" means the development of vacant parcels in otherwise built-up areas where public and recreation areas are already inlac e and the average residential density is at least five dwelling units per acre, the average nonresidential intensity is at least a floor area ratio of 1.0 and vacant, developable land d es constitute more than 10 percent of the area. not (28) 'Projects that promote public transportation" means projects that directly affect the provisions of public transit, including transit terminals, transit lines and routes, separate lanes for the exclusive use of public transit services, transit stops (shelters and stations), office buildings projects that include fixed -rail or transit- torr.�.i:;al= - =t gs or transit oriented and designed to complement reasonablai L 04 the buiiding, and projects which are facilities. y proximate planned or existing public (29) "Existing urban service area" means built-up areas where public facilities and services such as sewage treatment systems, roads, schools, and recreation areas are already in place. (30) "Transportation corridor management" means the coordination of the planning of designate future transportation corridors with land use planning within and adjacent to the corridor to promote orderly growth, to meet the concurrency requirements of this chapter, and to maintain d the integrity of the corridor for transportation purposes. more local governments by agreement with the state land planning agency are allowed to address (31) "Optional sector plan" means an optional process authorized by s. 163.3245 in which one or development -of -regional -impact issues within certain designated geographic areas identified in local comprehensive plan as a means of fostering innovative planning and development strategies in s. 163.3177(1 a the ( )( ) and (b), furthering the purposes of this part and part I of chapter 380, g es reducing overlapping data and analysis requirements, protecting regionally significant resources and facilities, and addressing extrajurisdictional impacts. http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_niode=Display_Statute&Search String ns1, C1,IA ,