Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacket 05-01-2007 Regularty of Cape Canaveral IL REGULAR MEETING 'HALL ANNEX Cape Canaveral, Florida TUESDAY lay 1, 2007 7:00 PM AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: 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. CONSIDERATIONS: 5. Motion to Approve: First Responder Agreement with the Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County. 6. Motion to Approve: 2008 Cape Canaveral "Images in Art" Festival at Manatee Sanctuary Park. DISCUSSION: 7. Central Florida Regional Growth Vision. 105 Polk Avenue • Post Office Box 326 • Cape Canaveral, FL 32920-0326 Zelephone: (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 May 1, 2007 Page 2 8. Administrative Appeals Related to the Zoning Code of Ordinances. 9. North Atlantic Avenue Roadway Improvements. 10. Resort Dwelling Units. 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 17, 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 Buzz Petsos Mayor Rocky Randels Council Member Shannon Roberts Council Members Absent: Council Member Leo Nicholas Others Present: City Manager Bennett Boucher City Attorney Anthony Garganese City Clerk Susan Stills City Treasurer Andrea Bowers Building Official Todd Morley Stormwater Administrator Jeff Ratliff PRESENTATION: Mayor Randels called on Ms. Judy Hale to present the 2007 Spring Beautification Award. Ms. Hale called on Ms. Marcia Lambert of 8200 Orange Avenue to receive the award. She informed that the residence was Ms. Lambert's mother's home. Ms. Hale commented on the impressive landscaping over the years and related how Ms. Lambert added to the upkeep. Ms. Lambert informed that many plants were low maintenance and she also credited her family for helping her to maintain it. Mayor Randels related that her mother had served on the Beautification Board. Mayor Randels announced the Annual Trash Bash on Saturday, April 21St. Mr. Hale requested that volunteers meet him at Cherie Down Park at 8 A.M. for the event. He would provide a bag, gloves, water, and suntan lotion. Mrs. Hale suggested that if just two City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2007 Page 2 neighbors would clean their street, this would significantly improve the City's aesthetics. She stated however that Cape Canaveral was one of the cleanest cities so there was not much litter. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 20, 2007. Mayor Randels asked if any Council Member, staff or interested party desired to remove Item No. 1 for discussion. Attorney Garganese noted a correction on page 5, in the second paragraph to strike the word diligence and insert the word process which read that, "the City acted with due diligence." A motion was made by Ms. Roberts and seconded by Mr. Petsos to Approve Consent Agenda Item No. 1 as amended. The vote on the motion carried 4-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, Absent; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For and Ms. Roberts, For. CONSIDERATIONS: 2. Motion to Approve: Appropriation of Funds for the Buchanan/ Orange Avenues Drainage Project. Mayor Randels explained how the City would lose the $100,000 Community Development Block Grant [CDBG] towards the project at Buchanan and Orange Avenues if it did not proceed without the anticipated Federal Emergency Management Act funding. Mr. Ratliff explained one of the City's options to accept the CDBG of $100,000; however, the City would need to contribute $74,900. He stated that the project would be completed within a few months; however, the City would contribute more in Option 2. Mayor Randels clarified that Option 1 would accept the $100,000 CDBG and the City would contribute the remainder. He informed that if the City received the FEMA grant, if would not occur for another year. Mr. Petsos expressed his favor to accept the Option 1 and to accept the $100,000 CDBG and he stated that the funding for the remaining costs would come from the Stormwater Utility Fund. A motion was made by Mr. Petsos and seconded by Mayor Pro tem Hoog to Approve Option 1: Appro nation of Funds for the Buchanan/ Orange Avenues Drainage Project The vo ofi the motion carried 4-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, Absent; Mr. Petabs, For; Mayor Randels, For and Ms. Roberts, For. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2007 Page 3 3. Motion to Approve: Counter Offer on the Kabboord and Marder Properties. Mayor Randels explained that this counter offer was for property to the north of City Hall where the Atlantic Veterinary office was now located. Mayor Randels explained further the Enterprise Car Rentals contracted for the property; however the City expressed an interest and Mr. Kabboord offered $2 million for sale. Mayor Randels informed that the City had two MAI Appraisals performed and the City Council then counter offered $1.5 million to Mr. Kabboord for the property; however, Mr. Kabboord subsequently counter offered $1.92 million for the property. Mr. Kabboord explained how he had a contract from Enterprise in hand. Mayor Randels pointed out the property location on the northeast corner of State Road A1A and Polk Avenue and explained that Mr. Kabboord submitted a package which included three lots owned by Ms. Marder and five lots that he owns. Mayor Randels informed that the property purchase was considered for the Sheriff's Office. He explained how there were few lots available for public safety purposes. Mayor Randels explained some of the benefits such as the properties being sold by one owner and the high visibility. Mayor Randels stated that the property purchase would tie in the campus plan for the Library, City Hall, Recreation, and Public Safety buildings. Mayor Randels pointed out the opportunity for separate access for Sheriffs Office personnel. He also stated as a strong point that the majority of the City's service calls were on the east side of State Road A1A. Mayor Randels related how the Architects recommended purchasing a building which would allow for the convenience of staff transfer during the new building construction. Mayor Randels also pointed out that the Sheriffs Office was open on the weekends and offered 24-hour, 7 -days per week service to the public. Mayor Randels spoke on these as some of the benefits. He summarized that the Council's task was to decide on the purchase. Mayor Randels pointed out that Mr. Kabboord's original offer was $2 million. He stated that the City submitted a buyer offer of $1.5 million. He noted that in the Council packet Mr. Kabboord included his contract for the Marder properties of $824,000 and if that were subtracted from the original offer, $1.95 million remained. Mr. Kabboord was paying $274,499 per lot for the Marder properties to compile the package and his lots were $219,000 each. Mayor Randels said that after removing Mr. Kabboord's fixed costs, $1.95 million would remain. Ms. Roberts stated that the normal process would be to counter Mr. Kabboord's counter- offer. Mayor Randels reminded that Mr. Kabboord had a contract offer in hand for Enterprise Rent-A-Car. Ms. Roberts clarified that the contract with Enterprise was to lease and not to buy. Mr. Petsos agreed with a counter proposal but stated that $1.95 a stretch. The City Manager related to a previous property offer for the Stottler, Stagg and Associates building for three-quarters of an acre and 7,000 square feet of office space for $1.65 million which the Council declined. Mr. Petsos stated the rationale of purchasing the property on State Road A1A and not returning to the Stottler property. Mr. Boucher then clarified for the record that the Stottler Building has 6,280 square feet. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2007 Page 4 Mr. Petsos proceeded to point out that the Stottler property was not adjacent to the City Hall campus and he was not in favor of another car rental facility. He concluded that for those reasons he would consider a counter offer. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog pointed out the advantageous benefits of using the Kabboord property in the City Hall master plan. Mr. Petsos pointed out that the City would need to return to this juncture again in future years due to insufficient space. Mayor Randels explained how the City has been working with Architects Design Group who performed a Space Needs Analysis up to the year 2025. Mayor Randels noted how the current Sheriffs Office was 7,000 square feet with a need for 15,255 of square feet. Mayor Randels pointed out that the Stottler, Stagg building at 6,280 was smaller for the Sheriff's Office than the existing building. Mayor Randels summarized that the consensus was for a counter-offer. Ms. Roberts explained to Mr. Petsos that Mr. Kabboord presented the property as a complete package and the adjacent property was independent and if the City did not accept the offer the properties would return to separate consideration. Mr. David Kabboord, owner of Kabboord Properties, stated that he placed the Marder property under contract in order to simplify the purchase process. Mr. Kabboord informed that he had a leasing contract with Enterprise Car Rentals for 5 -years with two, 5 -year extensions. Mr. Kabboord stated that he put together reasonable prices for the City's consideration. Mr. Kabboord informed that he negotiated his best offer for the Marder properties for the package. He said that the Council could make a counter-offer; however, his price was firm. If the Council had any further questions he was available. Mayor Randels stated that he was amenable to the $1.95 million. Ms. Roberts expressed the need for a counter-offer in good faith to the community. Ms. Roberts made a motion to counter-offer for $1.75 million. No second was made to the $1.75 million counter-offer therefore the motion failed. Ms. Roberts mentioned the two appraisals and expressed it to be mindful of those on behalf of the community. Mr. Petsos pointed out how the property would benefit the campus design. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that he was aware of the appraisals; however he was thinking of the City's future. Mr. Petsos suggested and Mayor Pro Tem Hoog agreed to counter offer for $1.825 million. Ms. Roberts went on record stating that the $1.825 million counter-offer was too high for the City. The City Manager and the City Attorney would draft a counter-offer proposal. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog expressed to Mr. Kabboord that if there were any way he could help the City it would be greatly appreciated. Mayor Randels publicly thanked Mr. Kabboord for his assistance in transferring a certain individual from one property to another. A motion was made bpi Mr. Petsos and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Hoog to Counter -Offer at $1.875 million. The vote on the Mdfion carried 4-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, Absent; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For and Ms. Roberts, For. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2007 Page 5 4. Motion to Approve: Annual Audit for the Year Ending September 30, 2006. Andrea Bowers, City Treasurer, stated that the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report [CAFR] included the time period of October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006. The CAFR provides financial reports, information on the City's assets, and a brief concept of the City's statistical summary. Ms. Yvonne Claybome, Audit Director, of McGladrey and Pullen formerly Bray, Beck, and Koetter informed that the City's CAFR was again presented to the Governmental Finance Officer's Association for an Award of Excellence. She stated that the City owns the document and McGladrey and Pullen own the audit and control and compliance reports. Ms. Clayborne stated that the firm conducted the Audit in accordance with Generally Accepted Auditing Standards and Government Auditing Standards. The unqualified opinion stated that the financial statements were presented fairly in all material respects and presented the financial position of the governmental activities, the business activities, the fund information, and the respective changes in financial position, basically the revenue and expenses. She referred to the Management Letter which was the City Manager's document and was un -audited; however, it was reviewed for consistency with the financial statements. The report on Compliance and Internal Control was tested for compliance with laws, regulations, contracts, and grants. Internal Control was also reviewed for risk assessment. No instance of non-compliance and no material weaknesses of internal control were found. Ms. Clayborne referred to Pages 85 through 90 in the Management Letter. She noted that the only two comments were repeated in the current year which related to new accounting and audit standards. Ms. Claybome reported on the anticipation of a Code of Ethics due to the Enron activities and next year's audit approach would reflect that change. The City Council was encouraged to present a Code of Ethics for inclusion in the Personnel Manual. This would establish written proof of ethical expectations. Ms. Clayborne referred to an Approved Vendor List which would allow for solicitation and purchasing from approved vendors upfront using the list. This would leverage the City's purchasing power, coordinate control of the purchasing process, allow for greater efficiency, and was considered by many to be a "best practice." Ms. Claybome referred to Fund Balances on page 16 of the document. She pointed out how the City has maintained a benchmark of 64.98 percent in the Unreserved Fund Balance. The firm anticipated a policy of set asides for 2.5 to 6 months. Ms. Clayborne referred to Long -Term Debt per population of $15 per citizen below a benchmark of $227 per citizen. Ms. Clayborne reviewed Governmental Fund Debt Service versus Expenses. Cape Canaveral was at .53 below the benchmark five percent. She pointed out that the City had the ability to leverage this buying power to obtain debt should the City consider it a need in the future and could still remain below the benchmark. Ms. Claybome informed that for the City to remain below 10 percent was considered favorable overall and the City was at 3 percent. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2007 Page 6 Ms. Clayborne reviewed Governmental Fund Revenues by Source and pointed out how the properties of previous years were coming online for inclusion in the City's property tax rolls and the valuations have increased over the years as well as the tax base. She informed that the City Council was challenged with finding other revenue sources. Ms. Claybome informed that charges for services have remained relatively stable. She noted that although building permits were down, miscellaneous revenue such as investment income had increased with more money available for investments. Ms. Clayborne referred to Governmental Fund Expenditures and noted Public Safety which includes Fire, Police, and Building Code Officials as the City's largest expense. The other areas of City government have maintained a fairly stable base. Ms. Clayborne referred to the Sewer Fund and noted a small fee deficiency in the revenue stream for the Sewer Fund. She explained how historically the Sewer Funds in the governmental industry was self-sustaining. Ms. Clayborne reminded that the City would want to realize enough to cover operating expenses and then set aside for Capital replacement. Mayor Randels noted how the Council took corrective action and pointed out how the expenses versus revenues leveled out over the last three years. Ms. Clayborne related that the numbers were evidenced from maintenance efforts such as the sewer pipe slip lining project that helped to maintain the infrastructure and allowed the City to handle its sewer capacity. Ms. Claybome stated that the City had much capacity remaining for its sewer system. She stated that the City infrastructure was sound. Mayor Randels pointed out that the City to this date had no bonded debt. Mayor Randels stated that in 2004 the tax millage was $3.45 per thousand, $3.37 per thousand in 2005, and $3.00 per thousand in 2006 and again in 2007. Mayor Randels stated for the record that the date for the paving project would begin on Monday, April 30th. He informed the audience that the Council set aside enough funding to perform the paving project to mill, grade and place crowns in the road. Mayor Randels referred to the auditors suggestion to establish a Fund Balance Policy to set aside funding for a specific purpose. Ms. Claybome explained how a formal policy would provide a written intent and would keep a future Council from denigrating the funds and would assist the current Council with setting priorities. Mayor Randels also referred to the auditor's advisement of a Qualified Vendors List. Ms. Bowers clarified that the City Manager would still approve large purchases. Ms. Roberts stated that the Qualified Vendors List was done at the Federal level and the Vendors had to meet certain quality standards. Mayor Randels encouraged the audience to seek out the CAFR for information on the City's finances. Ms. Clayborne noted that the statistical section was re -structured due to the Government Accounting Standards Board 42. She also noted that trend data presented in three and not ten years; however, each year's data would be added until the City reached ten years under the new procedures. Mr. Boucher thanked Ms. Bowers and her staff for managing the financial processes. He advised that going forward the City was in a healthy financial standing; however, in light of the State property tax reform the City needed to remain mindful of large expenditures. Ms. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2007 Page 7 Clayborne credited Ms. Bowers for continued work on the audit in the aftermath of the roof collapse in the Finance Department. Ms. Roberts asked Ms. Claybome if she had any examples from other cities of a Code of Ethics as well as Vendor practices. Ms. Clayborne affirmed that examples were available to the firm. A motion was made by Mr. Petsos and seconded by Ms. Roberts to Approve the Annual Audit for the Year Ending September 30, 2006. The vote on the motion carried 4-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, Absent; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For and Ms. Roberts, For. DISCUSSION: 5. Resort Dwelling Units. Mayor Randels informed that the City Attorney has drafted an ordinance on the issue. He related the Council's concern for the neighboring properties as well as an owner's property rights for use. Mr. Boucher summarized that the draft ordinance prohibits resort rental dwelling units in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zoning, with an amortization compliance scheme. At the previous meeting the Council accepted public input; however, this meeting would provide for Council's input before accepting public comment. Mayor Randels explained that the zoning code of R-1 through R-3 had a different meaning in the Florida Building Code. He stated that R-1 zoning in the Florida Building Code included transient dwellings, and R-2 and R-3 related to permanent dwellings. Mayor Randels clarified that the Council's discussion included one through four unit dwellings. Mr. Morley stated that discussion would relate to one through four units only. Mayor Randels referred to Chapter 509, Section 242, Item (g) from the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulations that defined resort dwellings. Mayor Randels read the definition. Mr. Morley stated that dwelling unit was synonymous with a dwelling house and a time share owner expressed his concern at a previous meeting; however, the definition was presented to clarify the previous four conditions and he asked the Building Official bring out this point for clarification. Attorney Garganese stated that the proper way to read it was that it applied to one, two, three, or four family dwelling houses or dwelling units. Mr. Morley agreed that he would read it that way as well. Attorney Garganese stated that throughout the evolution of this process, the State licenses a certain type of commercial establishment called a resort dwelling. This ordinance says whatever the State licenses, this is where it could be located in the City pursuant to the City zoning code and that is why the definition in the Code and the definition in the Statute were the same. Mayor Randels asked if there were any reason to change City code section 110-486, relating to the prohibition of renting of less than seven days. Mr. Morley responded that that was in additional restriction in the City code. Mayor Randels pointed out that the term might give anyone in the hotel industry some concern since the code reads that it shall be unlawful for any person to rent a dwelling unit City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2007 Page 8 for less than seven days." Attorney Garganese stated that one would refer to the definition of dwelling in the Zoning Code in Section 110-1. A dwelling unit was defined as, "one room or rooms connected together, constitution 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." Mr. Boucher clarified that Section 509.242 defined hotels and motels as public lodging establishments not dwelling units. Attorney Gargenese pointed out that there was a separate definition in the City's zoning code for hotels which means, "a building or combination of buildings in which lodging was provided and offered to the public for compensation and duly licensed pursuant to Chapter 509 under single ownership and operation, etc." Mayor Randels concluded that the language would exclude hotels which rent by the day. Mayor Randels summarized that the next step would forward the ordinance to the Planning and Zoning Board for review. Attorney Garganese clarified that the Council would discuss the item first. Ms. Roberts referred to page 2 of the Ordinance and questioned the case law precedent. She stated that some residents had expressed concern with subjecting themselves to any case law. Ms. Roberts asked the City Attorney if there were case law that the City should be taking into consideration. Attorney Garganese responded that there was much case law and probable opposing view. He proposed that some individuals would claim a vested right and they would have to meet certain criteria in case law. Attorney Garganese brought out that one of the things that this Ordinance does was allow anyone who was duly licensed have an opportunity to continue and that was for purposes of protecting someone who may claim to have a vested right. Attorney Garganee stated that it might not be on point; however, they could extrapolate from another case. Ms. Roberts also referred to the bottom of Page 2 and read the text verbatim. She questioned if the language covered all of Council's intent. Ms. Roberts raised this as a discussion point as it related to the safety interest and the residential character. She asked were there any other considerations. Mayor Randels pointed out that the safety aspect was the driving point of the ordinance. Ms. Roberts referred to Page 6 that referred to in C-1, low density, commercial district the following uses and structures are permitted which includes resort dwellings duly licensed by the State. She asked if the City would also want to include some language for those resort dwellings that have been licensed by the State. Attorney Garganese explained that if someone came to the City and desired to operate a new resort dwelling in the C-1 zoning district, it would be a permitted use provided that it was licensed by the State. In addition, even though it was not stated, if it required a change of occupancy, they would need to comply with another section of the code, such as building and fire codes. Ms. Roberts questioned for clarification that Section 110-332 still allowed for some safeguards. Attorney Garganese responded that nothing abrogates any of the other applicable codes. The operation could be duly licensed by the State; City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2007 Page 9 however, if the building failed the building and fire prevention code requirements, the building could not be occupied as a resort dwelling. It would be unlawful. Ms. Roberts stated that all those who were licensed as of November 21, 2006 were allowed and she asked if the City was allowing for any other applicants. Ms. Roberts referred to Section C, on Page 7 that related to the procedure in which the City Manager would prepare a Written Notice of Non -Conforming Use Status and she expressed her concern with safety issues in that they were not mentioned in the Section. Attorney Garganese explained that if the applicant shows that they have complied with Subsection (b), then the City Manager would issue a Written Notice of Non -Conforming Use Statutes. Attorney Garganese explained that in order to show or demonstrate compliance with Section 110-121 it would require that the Building Official and the Fire Chief sign -off . They are the only persons with that authority under those applicable codes to make those determinations. The City Manager would have to rely on those two other officials to verify non -conforming use status. He could not make those determinations on his own. Ms. Roberts stated that the language might need simplification for the public's sake; however, she had no suggestions at this time. Attorney Garganese explained that there were other silent overlapping codes. He recommended amending the language to read," upon verification that a non -conforming resort dwelling use status exists, under Subparagraph (b) above, the City Manager shall... " Mr. Petsos asked it the language could be clarified to state a change of use. Mayor Randels stated for the record that discussion was under Page 6, Section 110-485, Subparagraph (b) and to insert the language, change of use. Mr. Morley pointed out that he was referring to a change of occupancy. Attorney Garganese clarified that technically it was a change of occupancy. Attorney Garganese explained that Mr. Petsos was correct in saying that a change of use results in a change of occupancy classification under the Building Code which then calls for different requirements. However, not all changes of use result in changes of occupancy classifications. Ms. Roberts asked if the Council planned to leave the language as stated or provide for some clarification. Ms. Roberts referred to Section D, and she recommended a Section D, Number 3 that would read, "the City determines that the dwelling does not meet the safety requirements or Certificate of Occupancy standards." Mr. Morley replied that the Fire Department would add this to their list of items for annual inspection. Ms. Roberts expressed her concern with waiting for a State inspection. Ms. Roberts explained that a citizen had expressed that there were some undesirable practices and these units should be automatically changed by the City. Attorney Garganese explained that if a resort dwelling became a chronic violator, then those dwellings would be eliminated. Ms. Roberts called for a third point that would allow for that action. Attorney Garganese stated that if the Council adopted additional performance standards at some point, certainly those would be included, but broader. Ms. Roberts stated that if the State's recourse were to not renew the license that might be immediate and the City needed to City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2007 Page 10 take immediate action if an unsafe situation exists. Mayor Randels asked the Building Official what the City would do if the occupancy was exceeded. Mr. Morley replied that Code Enforcement was the first step and the City would call the State and the annual renewal cycle would be interrupted. Ms. Roberts expressed that the City should add a third prerogative to take action. She stated that when safety was involved the Council should take immediate action to remedy the situation. Attorney Garganese advised that the Council might want to include this with Code Enforcement violations. He requested to give this consideration. Attorney Garganese explained that there were other situations in which the City might desire to take immediate action even so far as to seeking a Court injunction. In other types of situations wherein over a period of time someone becomes a chronic nuisance, perhaps a penalty of a loss of non -conforming -use status could occur. Ms. Roberts recommended after the passage of this Ordinance an allowance of 60 to 90 days for those who did not have an opportunity to apply the right to apply. Mr. Petsos stated that he disagreed with that view in that this placed a commercial establishment in a residential community. He said that this would not only allow continuance of existing operations but also add new ones. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog asked for someone to explain the difference between someone renting by the day/ week/ or month as an industry or an individual renting their property in a residential district. He agreed with more time for people to come into compliance. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog also stated his favor with a nuisance ordinance. He stated that the Council would drive people underground; however, the rentals would continue. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog re -stated for someone to convince him of the difference between someone renting in R-1 and R-2 by the month and someone renting in the commercial district by the week. Ms. Roberts stated that safety was her number one concern and there was a statistical reporting that demonstrated the safety difference for a short term rental. Mayor Randels clarified that Ms. Roberts was pointing out that a transient rental classified a different characteristic. Mr. Morley read that a higher potential of risk occurred within group the R-1 transient. He stated that the R-3 permanent, single-family was more stable in that these occupants were more familiar with their surroundings. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog pointed out that seeking the fire exits was a priority for any person in a transient situation such as a hotel room. Mr. Morley replied that the difference was familiarity levels and familiarity bred safety. Ms. Roberts expressed concern on behalf of the residents absent from the meeting who had concerns with the neighboring transient population and its different environment and she stated the concern with safety in the different nature of the transient weekly rental. However, the resort dwelling definition called for less than 30 days which provided some degree of stability. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that he resides in a single-family home adjacent to rental property. He informed that due to the high -dollar cost of resort rental properties, he did not feel that transient accurately described these people who were in no way indigent. Ms. Roberts noted that she resides next to the Ron Jon's Cape Caribe resort that has a transient population that affected the quality of life and security for residents of Solana City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2007 Page 11 Shores. She stated that it has a constant environmental effect on their quality of life, and the whole intent was to preserve the residential quality and nature of the City. Ms. Roberts stated that they could testify first hand of a lack of a quiet, residential community for those who live at Solana Shores next to a highly transient community. Ms. Roberts said that although Mayor Pro Tem Hoog thought that a chronic nuisance ordinance would suffice, they would need to apply the ordinance every day. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog re -stated that he resides in a rental area, although not near a hotel; however, he stated that he did not see a difference people between people who come and go daily in his neighborhood or near a transient rental community. Mr. Petsos referred to a petition signed by residents who were not in favor of having transient neighbors. Mayor Randels summarized that the length of time was not conclusive to whether a neighbor was good or disruptive. Ms. Roberts emphasized that the nature of a vacationer was different from the nature of a residential person. Mayor Randels pointed out that residents reside next to the hotels in Cocoa Beach. Mr. Petsos replied to Mayor Randels that there were at least three Council members in agreement on the issue in discussion. Ms. Roberts stated that she requested for more time for those who did not have an opportunity to apply for operation; however, she emphasized that the Council needed to move forward and take steps to preserve the City's quality of life. Ms. Roberts expressed that the Council could either have a beachside resort city or a residential city and she concluded that not taking prevented steps would allow for a beachside resort city. Mr. Petsos informed that there were more units than were disclosed. Ms. Roberts stated that the City was setting the tone and this would set a precedent that the City was moving toward a beach resort community. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog replied that there was no difference in a residence renting it property. Ms. Roberts stated that she did not fault the investors for using the property for investment purposes; however, she emphasized the need to set parameters. Ms. Roberts stated that if an investor was allowed to operate 30 -day rentals in an area other than C-1 zoning, this was allowing for a change. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that residential rentals have existed throughout his time of living in the community and it has not changed. Mr. Petsos stated that the City could either honor its mission statement and remain a residential community or proceed to become a resort rental community. He stated that the City needed to abide by the State statutes. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog responded that establishing the type of residential community that was being proposed would not allow for people to rent their property. Mayor Randels concluded that every resident in Cape Canaveral brought their property with the right to operate weekly rentals. Mayor Randels replied to Ms. Roberts that she purchased in a condominium community over which the City had no rights. Ms. Roberts stated that a number of residents expressed their concern that a weekly rental environment was constructed after their purchases. She expressed the thought that she purchased with the intent of residing in a residential community. Mayor Randels stated that he was not in agreement with prohibiting residential resort dwellings to the C-1 zoning district. He stated it was their City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2007 Page 12 legitimate legal right. Ms. Roberts replied that the Council would be taking away for the permanent resident a quality, quiet residential community when weekly rentals were allowed next to them. Mayor Randels replied that that was an enforcement issue. He replied that at this time not all have the right legal requirements for operation; however, he was not in favor of eliminating someone's property rights. Ms. Roberts related the difficulty of contacting the Building Official, Code Enforcement, or the City Manager to address behavioral problems with the transient rental dweller who leaves the area before the problem can be addressed. Mayor Randels responded that the weekly renter was actually the weekly owner because they own the property for that length of time if it were a time share. Mr. Petsos said that the adjacent residents had to tolerate the transient vacationer. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog related how he notified the police to address behavior problems with neighboring renters. He explained how a strong enforcement ordinance would allow for the issuance a citation. Ms. Roberts explained that the challenge for the residential owner was the fact of a transient situation that requirement actions every week disturbed the quality of life for that resident. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog explained how identifying problems beforehand would mean a violation would occur if the renter did not adhere to the established rules. Ms. Bea McNeely, Planning and Zoning Board Chairperson, reviewed that in 1998 the Board developed the hotel ordinance to cover every base using strict requirements. She asked why at this point there was continued discussion on hotels. Mr. Petsos stated that this would allow for mini -hotels throughout the community. Ms. McNeely informed that the Board discussed the requirement for hotels in order avoid a plethora of small hotels such as bed and breakfast's and sideline establishment. She noted how the Board set its focus on what the City would allow instead of identifying what was not acceptable. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that a single-family home renting on the beach was not defined as a hotel. Ms. McNeely opined that the Council was the elected officials and the final decision rested with the Council. Mr. Petsos reminded Ms. McNeely that legally the Planning and Zoning Board were required to review zoning issues prior to the Council's decision. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated for the record that he did not desire to be a party in removing the rights from a property owner. Ms. Roberts concluded that a no vote was costly to the City in its residential mission. Mr. Petsos stated that the Planning and Zoning Board had heard all of the input from the citizens and the Council. A motion was made by Mr. Petsos and seconded by Ms. Roberts to forward the Resort Dwellings Ordinance to the Planning and Zoning Board. The vote on the motion failed 2-2 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, Against; Mr. Nicholas, absent; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, Against and Ms. Roberts, For. Attorney Garganese clarified that the motion failed until the vote could carry by majority. Ms. Roberts requested to place the item on the item for the next City Council meeting. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2007 Page 13 The following items would be deferred to the next City Council Agenda for discussion. 6. Central Florida Regional Growth Vision. 7. Administrative Appeals Related to the Zoning Code of Ordinances. 8. North Atlantic Avenue Roadway Improvements. Mayor Randels announced the Guns and Axes Charitable Softball Tournament on Saturday, April 21St, at Space Coast Stadium beginning at 6:00 P.M. AUDIENCE TO BE HEARD: There was no additional comment from the audience. REPORTS: Due to the lateness of the hour, there were no reports. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the Chair adjourned the meeting at 10:00 P.M. Rocky Randels, MAYOR Susan Stills, CMC, CITY CLERK CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING CITY HALL ANNEX 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida TUESDAY April 17, 2007 7:00 PM MINUTES CALL TO ORDER: The Chair called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: Council Members Present: Mayor Pro Tem Council Member Council Member Mayor Council Member Others Present: City Manager City Attorney City Clerk City Treasurer Building Official Public Works Director DISCUSSION: Bob Hoog Leo Nicholas Buzz Petsos Rocky Randels Shannon Roberts Bennett Boucher Anthony Garganese Susan Stills Andrea Bowers Todd Morley Ed Gardulski 1. City Hall and Law Enforcement Facilities Plan - Architects Design Group Mr. Boucher explained how Kevin Ratigan and Susan Gantt of Architects Design Group would present different proposals related to Council's suggestions at a previous meeting and use the current properties for a campus plan. Mr. Ratigan explained how he and Ms. Gantt met with the City Manager and walked the site and then prepared this presentation. Ms. Gantt also met with staff and went through some of the conclusions. Council was given a handout of what was reviewed with staff. Afterward they took into consideration some of staffs concerns which Council just received at this meeting. Mr. Ratigan outlined the agenda as to briefly discuss the methodology, some of the on site issues, the site analysis and community concepts, and then some speck alternatives City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Workshop Meeting w/ADG April 17, 2007 Page 2 of 7 which would result in the recommended Master Plan concepts. He welcomed the Council's input during the discussion. Ms. Roberts mentioned that at a previous meeting she had asked to develop some assumptions for a common page before discussion. Mr. Ratigan responded that the development issues were the assumptions. Ms. Roberts explained that she was looking to begin with those assumptions such as purchasing Carver's Cove, the Kabboord properties, or establishing the major campus, and the staffing requirements. Mr. Ratigan explained how the methodology was a (3) phase process; Phase I was the actual space needs assessment, the second Phase to design the facility, the third Phase was construction. Mr. Ratigan stated that the firm was in the second Phase at this time. He explained that during the Space Needs Assessment the previous meeting's directive was to meet with staff and provide specifics on how much area existed. With that was the basis for developing the Master Plan alternatives. Mr. Ratigan stated that Option A would provide a new City Hall and Police Facility with associated parking with reinforced existing site amenities such as Veterans Park, the Library, and Recreational area. Option B would provide for a new City Hall and associated parking but consider Law Enforcement off-site. Option C, similar to Option A, would provide full compliance of parking and look at the whole site including Recreation. The firm attempted to address just City Hall, City Hall with the Police, and finally the whole complex. Mr. Ratigan stated that at the last meeting Council decided to keep Fire Station No. 53 at its existing location; therefore, Fire Station No. 53 was eliminated from the concept. He explained how the 7 acre parcel and a 1.15 acre parcel to the north of City Hall was what the City Manager had them to review. Mr. Ratigan reported that the existing City Hall and Law Enforcement space is 11,700 square feet, and the projections are 31,437 square feet. Mr. Randels noted the development issues with the 7 acre site: 1) provide adequate spatial opportunities for City Hall and the Sheriffs Office, 2) retain the Library and Recreation uses, 3) retain Veterans Park, 4) reinforce the civic presence, 5) and create an identity for a municipal complex which would create a town center aesthetic to the municipal complex, 6) create visual identity on State Road A1A, 7) enhance City services to the public, 8) minimize the cost of improvements facing considerations so that the existing building would not need to be demolished, 9) relocate staff, 10) build the new facility and relocate staff again, 11) look at the existing utilities, 12) the development should occur within the three block area, 13) there is a requirement to leave an out -parcel on State Road A1A, and 14) accommodate the zoning, building code, and regulations to include the parking and setbacks. Mayor Randels referenced that the second bullet under Development Issues would leave the Library and Recreation uses untouched. Mr. Ratigan affirmed that those changes were included. He stated that even though the Library was untouched the firm reviewed the site area around it and the parking was amended. Parking was one of the essentials of the plan in order to maintain the City Land Development Code. Mr. Ratigan pointed out the areas of City Hall, City Hall Annex, the Library, the Recreation Complex to include the five tennis courts, racquetball courts and shuffleboard courts. These facilities quantify the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Workshop Meeting w/ADG April 17, 2007 Page 3 of 7 7 acre land area: City Hall at approximately 3,200 square feet; City Hall Annex at 8,200 square feet; the Library at 16,800 square feet; and the Recreation building at 5,000 square feet and then the racquetball courts. He informed that the firm used the City's land development code in relation to each building use for parking. Ms. Roberts stated that she would like to see the staff analysis such as the current number of people in each use. Mr. Ratigan replied that the staff analysis was included in the Space Needs Analysis. He affirmed to Ms. Roberts that the existing staff number was not quantified in that fashion. The firm did not break out the number of staff, there was just the position assigned to staff. Ms. Roberts also asked if the firm assessed the number of the public based on what the City currently has relative to what Council proposes depending on new suggestions. Mr. Ratigan responded that the City would receive a Master Plan at the conclusion of this Phase once consensus was reached and subsequently, the Space Needs Analysis and accurate development costs associated with it. Ms. Gantt reported that one of the things done was to identify the existing square footage used by department and the number of existing parking spaces. Ms. Roberts replied that she was addressing the discussion from a Human Resources perspective and she needed a staff analysis as well as the community served in terms of facilities use relative to the projected facilities. Mr. Ratigan stated that what she anticipated would be provided in the Executive Summary. Mr. Ratigan stated that in terms of the zoning there were really two different zoning districts that occurred around the site: adjacent residential R-2 and adjacent commercial C-1; City Hall, C-1, the Library R-2, and the Recreation site, C-1. He questioned if the Library were a non -conforming use. Mayor Randels replied that the C-1 area ends at Poinsetta Avenue. Mr. Ratigan was confirmed that the Library was a conforming use. Mr. Ratigan explained how the investment that the City planned to make in the Municipal complex has to be a catalyst for reinforcing and influencing redevelopment in the area and the zoning was important. He explained the Municipal Complex would create a town center aesthetic. Mr. Ratigan pointed out in the Environmental Influences how the City established pieces through the City's parks and it new banners. He stated that every community is unique and the City has been influenced by the Port and the Space Center. Mr. Ratigan noted that Cape Canaveral should not use some place such as Palm Beach as a model since it already had an identity in more regional things. Mr. Ratigan pointed out how City Hall was in the approximate center of the campus plan. He explained how a series of massive studies showed the scale relationship between buildings to site and buildings to neighborhood. This was the firm's manner to display how the pieces would interact. Ms. Roberts recommended adding street identification before presenting this plan to the public. Mr. Ratigan responded that this meeting would provide more focus before presenting the project to the public. Mr. Ratigan explained the need for stronger architectural connections from one facility to another. He explained further how the plan developed into what the firm called, "The Esplande" that connected the site in an east -west direction. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Workshop Meeting w/ADG April 17, 2007 Page 4 of 7 Mr. Ratigan said that parking being an issue the existing City Hall area required 117 parking spaces and currently has 118 therefore it was in compliance with the zoning. Option A with a total build -out of 55,298 square feet and would require 198 parking spaces and they provided 163; therefore, it did not meet the objective. Option B would provide 199 and met the objective and Option C provided 200 parking spaces and also met the objective. Mr. Petsos questioned the 57,000 square foot figure to which Mr. Ratigan replied that the square footage in question included the Library. Mr. Ratigan affirmed to Ms. Roberts that these assumptions did not include the Carver's Cove or the Kabboord properties. Mr. Ratigan showed how the development of the Esplande and the outdoor room which connected to the Municipal Complex and creates another north -south access. In the space between they envisioned Administrative functions and the Council Assembly Chambers with a breeze -way or some transparent space that connects them. In order to get closer to parking, they considered the Recreation site and they proposed to eliminate the tennis courts and relocate them and racquetball courts would be re -built with additional storage. Option B would take the property to the north, placing Law Enforcement there, creating a larger interior parking space and leave the Recreation facility virtually untouched. They believed the Esplande, would provide for a civic icon such as a clock tower, or a message board or State Road A1A would attract the public as well as connecting it to Veterans Park and start to create a town center aesthetic. The idea would also connect to what could be an enhanced commercial activity. He suggested rezoning to extend the commercial activity to the edges of the site. The main attribute of this Option was that it did not touch the Recreation complex. Mayor Randels clarified that this Option would include the Kabboord property. Mr. Ratigan explained how Option C would gain all of the parking; however, it would eliminate one tennis court, the shuffleboard court and would require re -building the racquetball court. Mayor Randels did not feel that this was a good option in that it might not develop the highest and best use of the land by creating parking. Mr. Ratigan presented a visual model to show how the facilities would look using Options A, B, and then C. Mr. Ratigan explained how Option A would require removal of the property storage piece from the Sheriffs Office; however, staff would not need relocation. This concept began the progression of impacting the Recreation area. In Option B, that restraint was gone completely. Ms. Roberts questioned that the existing footprint showed the main City Hall closer to State Road Al and one of her perceptions was to still have the visibility of the main complex off State Road A1A and the concept present, showed it farther away. Mr. Ratigan explained how the proposed clock tower icon would provide a presence on State Road A1A. He explained that the existing City Hall would require demolition and relocate staff in order to obtain that site. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Workshop Meeting w/ADG April 17, 2007 Page 5 of 7 Mr. Ratigan displayed Site Enhancement photos and explained how the firm was attempting to create a civic room between the Library and City Hall with an opportunity to stage Farmer's Markets, Art Festivals, and community activities; however, placing a building closer to State Road A1A would split up the facilities and would not lend itself to the civic presence. Ms. Roberts asked for clarification if this would cut off Poinsetta Avenue. Ms. Roberts advised that the firm would want to make the public aware of this intent. Mr. Ratigan referred to the Site Master Plan Development Options costs for the New Buildings, Site Improvement and any additional costs for Options A, B, and C. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog asked how much of the Recreation area would change with Option B. Ms. Gantt and Mr. Ratigan affirmed that it would not. Mayor Randels cautioned that if the City had to close its Recreation facility for a length of time, people would then find leisure activities in other places; therefore, he did not see Option A as the best option. Mr. Petsos asked if the firm had considered closing the road at the Recreation area for more parking. Mr. Ratigan showed how they attempted to add parking along the street on Taylor Avenue; however, they concluded that it was better to close Poinsetta Avenue. Mr. Petsos stated that there were two entrances and exits from Polk and Taylor Avenues. Mayor Randels pointed out that closing Taylor Avenue would prohibit drop-off to the Recreation Center. Mr. Petsos said that he was suggesting leaving the 100 block for ingress from State Road A1A but adding needed parking. Mr. Ratigan informed that Option A had the most parking. Mr. Petsos clarified that Option A had the most parking; however, that included the Kabboord property. He was making parking suggestions that did not include the Kabboord property. Mr. Ratigan reported a cost of $4.8 million to the Kabboord property development for Law Enforcement. Ms. Roberts questioned if the Stottler, Stagg property was considered. Council members clamed that they had directed Mr. Ratigan to remain in the existing area and he had actually gone beyond that point by including the Kabboord property. Mr. Ratigan pointed to Option C; however, this would impact the Recreation area. Council members noted the need to review all of the options even that of using some of the Recreation Department. Mr. Ratigan replied to Mayor Pro Tem Hoog that Option C would include one of the tennis courts. Mr. Harry Pearson, speaking as a Library Board Member, pointed out how people can park at the Library and Option B would lose some of the parking privilege and that would inconvenience Library patrons. He stated that close access to the Library was still needed. Mayor Randels pointed out 28 additional parking spaces would occur along the street side. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog noted that Option B would eliminate parking on the west side of the Library. Mr. Ratigan replied to Mayor Pro Tem Hoog that Option B meets all the parking requirements. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog expressed his favor with the promenade. Mayor Randels reminded of a successful Wednesday -Friends day held at the Library and parking did not appear to be a problem. Mayor Randels explained that Option B would City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Workshop Meeting w/ADG April 17, 2007 Page 6 of 7 enable the City to conveniently transition the Police Department and phase the project construction. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog and Mr. Petsos both agreed to the need to perform the project in phases. Mr. Petsos pointed out that the City was not aware of its revenue sources at this time due to the State property tax issue. Mayor Randels summarized that taking in the Kabboord property during planning was beneficial. Ms. Roberts affirmed to Mayor Randels that she desired to have the building closer to State Road Al A. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog suggested transferring City Hall to the Police Department to accommodate the process. Mr. Petsos noted that the Esplanade, or walkway/ pathway would attract people to the buildings with an attractive walkway from State Road Al A. Mr. Ratigan emphasized the intent to create a civic presence. Mayor Randels reviewed some of the possibilities and the intent to not interrupt operations during the construction process. Ms. Roberts stated that she had suggested to have City Hall staff move to the Annex during construction while construction occurred closer to State Road A1A. Ms. Roberts expressed that there might be options for the parking issue and maybe make the campus larger. Mr. Petsos expressed concern with forcing the parking in the middle of the plan if they move forward. Ms. Roberts explained her thought to move the new building forward toward State Road A1A and this would provide additional green space in the middle and then find replacement parking in another location. Mr. Petsos pointed out concern with the loss of the Xeriscape Park. Ms. Gantt stated how trade-offs were necessary in order not to utilize the Recreation Center or Veterans Memorial Park. Mayor Randels reminded of the proposed angle parking on Taylor Avenue in order to retain the Xeriscape Park. He stated his discomfort with closing off Taylor Avenue. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog asked how many spaces were comprised using the Xeriscape Park. Ms. Gantt replied 64 in the total area of new spaces. She concluded that parking became the constraint in the layout process. Mayor Randels referred to an older drawing that depicted Xeriscape Park and showed how 21 parking spaces were created angled on one side of Taylor Avenue. Discussion concluded that the entrance was proposed from Poinsetta Avenue. Mr. Ratigan expressed that the firm could review what could be gained from the Mayor's last suggestion. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that he would prefer to do this than to use the Xeriscape Park. Mr. Ratigan brought out a shared parking agreement with the United Agencies Building. The Building Official pointed out that the owner's dumpster was located in the northeast corner of his parking lot. Mr. Ratigan pointed out the plan's viability. Ms. Roberts asked if the firm would move forward with the City Hall and to retain the Xeriscape Park with a shared use parking agreement with the United Agencies Building. Mr. Ratigan summarized that the subsequent Council meeting would establish if the City would purchase the Kabboord property. After that meeting, if the direction was to review some variations on Option B, then they would review the Council's suggestions and take these into consideration and develop a refined plan. Mr. Ratigan pointed out that the clock tower as a landmark would enhance the municipal complex and they would like to retain that aspect. Mr. Roberts mentioned using a replica shuttle instead of a clock tower. Mr. Petsos agreed that a model shuttle was the City's landmark. Mayor Randels pointed City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Workshop Meeting w/ADG April 17, 2007 Page 7 of 7 out the security feature at the proposed Sheriff's Office if the building were closer to State Road Al A. Mr. Petsos clarified on the cost of $12 million plus for Option B and clarified the $4.8 million portion that was separated from the total cost for the Sheriff's Office. Mr. Ratigan concluded that the firm would like to create a phasing plan reviewing these issues and placing dollar figures to the phases. He said that developing Polk Avenue first provide the main element. Mr. Boucher requested that the firm leave their model for additional consideration. Mayor Randels thanked Mr. Ratigan and Ms. Gantt for the presentation. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the Chair adjourned the meeting at 6:45 P.M. Rocky Randels, MAYOR Susan Stills, CMC, CITY CLERK CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING CITY HALL ANNEX 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida TUESDAY April 10, 2007 5:30 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER: The Chair called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Council Members Present: Mayor Pro Tem Bob Hoog Council Member Buzz Petsos Mayor Rocky Randels Council Member Shannon Roberts Council Members Absent: Council Member Leo Nicholas Others Present: City Manager Bennett Boucher City Attorney Anthony Garganese City Clerk Susan Stills RESOLUTION: 1. Motion to Approve: Resolution 2007-13; In Support of the Letter to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, dated March 27, 2007 prepared by Ms. Ruth Anders. Attorney Garganese prefaced his remarks by stating that this is a policy Resolution that would address a certain audience such as the Governor, the Secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection [DEP] , the Local Central District Director of the Environmental Protection Agency in Orlando and the Brevard County local delegation. The purpose was to draw attention to what the Council believes was a policy problem. Before the DEP issued permits, then the DEP should be required to come before the local zoning jurisdiction and ask if this would be permitted. If DEP does not do this, then they ignore the policy directives of local elected officials that set land use and zoning policies for their respective jurisdictions. Attorney Garganese related how the City of Orange City was addressing a similar problem with a solid waste facility which DEP was required to permit. Orange City was also working with their local legislative delegation to make a policy change. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Special Meeting April 10, 2007 Page 2 Attorney Garganese concluded that the Resolution made two policy statements: 1) DEP should be required to check to local zoning officials prior to issuing any new construction permits for facilities that they permit for environmental purposes, and 2) that the City Council opposes the issuance of a construction permit by DEP for the expansion of Coastal Fuels because DEP did not ask the City if Coastal Fuels were properly zoned for that expansion prior to issuing that construction permit. Attorney Garganese stated that he went through trying to outline some of the case's facts. He attempted to convert 150,360 barrel storage tanks in gallons and based on industry standards it equated to 6,315,120 gallons of petroleum per tank which was a considerable amount of fuel. If this expansion were to occur it would increase the capacity of Coastal Fuels terminals by 72.36 percent. Current capacity is 415,560 barrels for gasoline storage and they proposed to add another 300,000 plus barrel capacity for gasoline which was an increase of 72.36 for that type of storage tank. This proposal has substantial impact on the Cape Canaveral community including but not limited to the environment, life safety and fire prevention. The proposed location of the expansion is less than 800 -feet from away from a large residential condominium within the City. The City has police powers granted to it from the Municipal Home Rule Powers Act as well as the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulations Act for the purposes of making land use decisions within the City that have been recognized by the United States Supreme Court. The City has a Comprehensive Plan Policy which says that all development must be compatible with adjacent land uses. DEP did not consider these types of land uses when they issued the construction permit because they did not provide the City notice that they were considering this construction permit. Another point for emphasis is that DEP's position as represented by its ombudsman through E-mail was to ignore the elected officials and make administrative decisions. Attorney Garganese also made the point that the Building Official has made a determination that this expansion was not allowed in the City based on his interpretation of the zoning code which was adopted by the Council. Attorney Garganese read from the third WHEREAS clause on Page 3, "in the spirit of intergovernmental cooperation, efficiency, and common sense, DEP should be required to consult with local zoning officials and jurisdictions to determine zoning compliance before issuing a final permit before the construction of any facility." When they do not it would eventually cause conflicts between construction permits issued by DEP and local zoning decisions. It would allow FDEP permit holders to make unjustifiable claims that they may have a right to proceed in violation of City zoning regulations. The fourth WHEREAS clause outlines that the Florida Division of Alcohol and Tobacco has a policy that is completely contrary to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Attorney Garganese referred to Page 7 of that application which required the signature of the local zoning official before approving the permit. He stated that in his opinion, that defied common sense and he made that point in the Resolution. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Special Meeting April 10, 2007 Page 3 Attorney Garganese stated that the Resolution proceeds to urge the Legislature to amend Chapter 403 of the Florida Statutes to require DEP to consult with local jurisdictions and also urges DEP to amend its own rules, if they can, to require local zoning approval before issuing any permit for the construction of facilities. Attorney Garganese concluded that those were the recitals and they were restated in Sections 2 and 3 of Page 4 of the Resolution. Section Two was a request to DEP and the Legislature to change the law. Section Three was a statement of the Council's opposition of DEP's issuance of the construction permit for the expansion of Coastal Terminals facility without consulting the City officials for purposes of determining whether the expansion complied with local zoning regulations. Attorney Garganese reviewed who would receive a copy of the Resolution under Section Four. He concluded that the City of Orange City was also interested in the Resolution. Mayor Randels explained how the City Attorney reviewed Ms. Ruth Anders' letter dated March 27th for the development of the draft Resolution. Ms. Roberts raised the question of adding the word "security" in Page 2, Line 3. Attorney Garganese replied that terrorism was not raised; however, life, safety, and fire prevention were inclusive. Ms. Roberts referred to the fourth WHEREAS and addressed the "less than 800 -feet" parameter and stated that she favored Ms. Anders' suggestion of 375 -feet. Attorney Garganese replied that he could not substantiate 375 -feet; however, he had knowledge that related to less than 800 -feet. Ms. Roberts noted Page 4, Section 4 and she pointed out that there may be some peripheral State agencies that may need to be advised as well. Mayor Randels acknowledged at this time that Mr. Boucher's father passed away in Louisiana and he was unable to attend the meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog informed that the Resolution was presented to 14 of the 15 municipalities; and all fourteen of the Mayors and delegates present from the Space Coast League of Cities were in support of the Resolution and planned to take it to the Legislator's in Tallahassee. Mr. Petsos expressed his favor with the Resolution; however, he did not choose to enter a point and counterpoint situation with Coastal Fuels. Attorney Garganese affirmed that it would not. Mr. Petos expressed his favor with the Resolution's focus on ignoring of Local Home Rule and the contrary to the procedures of the Alcohol and Tobacco Department. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog informed that Senator Haridopolous was made aware of the issue during their visit to Tallahassee. Mr. Dick Biel, of Solana Lakes, stated that he wanted the audience to understand that this Resolution requested the DEP to change their policies and procedures; however, it did not resolve their particular problem of delaying or them renewing their building permit. Mr. Biel stated that there were certain facts such as their initial legal advertisement that did not fully disclose their identity as everyone knows them in doing business as Coastal Fuels, not Transmontaigne. He said that this omission did not offer a chance for rebuttal. Mr. Biel stated that the company was seeking a two-year extension. He concluded that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection should deny their extension and direct them to resubmit their appeal under their full proper legal name. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Special Meeting April 10, 2007 Page 4 Mr. Petsos questioned Attorney Garganese on the legality of Mr. Biel's request. Attorney Garganese replied that the extension issue was narrow and the original construction permit was issued in July of 2006. Once the notice was published, any person or entity that chose to challenge had 21 days after the notice was placed in the paper. Attorney Garganese informed that in May Coastal Fuels would come before the Board of Adjustment to challenge the Building Official's interpretation on the zoning decision. In Attorney Garganese's view, this was the larger issue in which that City was best postured to address the issue. Mayor Randels clarified the City Attorney's view that the City's position was stronger in defending its zoning regulations. Attorney Garganese informed that there was documentation on record with DEP that Coastal Fuels had changed its name to Transmontaigne subsequent to a merger. When the Legal Ad was posted the name Transmontaigne was used. He stated that there was enough in the Notice to draw attention to the location aside from the name. Ms. Roberts questioned if Transmontaigne decided to appeal were there any advantage for the City to take a stronger position in the Resolution. Attorney Garganese replied that the Resolution was a non -factor before the Board of Adjustment. Ms. Roberts clarified that the City's stronger position was the zoning issue and the Council would not expend the City's resources with the DEP. Mr. Biel made the argument that the Resolution would not effectively stop them from obtaining a permit. Attorney Garganese stated that his general understanding of the law for the benefit of the Council and the audience, was that DEP issued two permits for the types of tanks. Assuming that the tank was constructed, they would then need an operations permit which addressed how the tank operated and whether it met all of the emissions requirements. Coastal Fuels had not yet applied for such a permit. The only issue that DEP has handled was whether or not they could construct a tank and there were certain requirements under administrative code regarding the construction of these tanks. An engineer certified their engineer, without any challenge and DEP stated that the tank met their requirements and permitted it for construction. The discussion at hand was why the tank was permitted without verification that it had been permitted under the local zoning regulations. Attorney Garganese concluded that this was a waste of resources issuing these types of permits that would not be implemented. Mr. Werner Grewe of Solana Lakes asked the City Attorney if the advertisement was directed to the public at large or if it were directed to the City. Attorney Garganese replied the public at large. Mr. Grewe questioned why they would address the public at large if they would not hear from the public. Attorney Garganese replied that Notice of Intent was part of their procedures. Mr. Grewe also stated, as Mr. Biel had pointed out, that the correct company name was not used. Mr. Grewe concluded that perhaps the citizens group could add that lack of the correct name to Ms. Anders' letter in an attempt to delay the permit extension. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Special Meeting April 10, 2007 Page 5 Mayor Randels read the Resolution by title. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, REQUESTING THAT THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION RECOGNIZE LOCAL ZONING LAWS AS PART OF ITS PERMIT PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS; OPPOSING THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION'S ISSUANCE OF A CONSTRUCTION PERMIT TO COASTAL TERMINALS, LLC. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO 160,360 BARREL PETROLEUM STORAGE TANKS WITHOUT CONSIDERING COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL ZONING REGULATIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF THIS RESOLUTION TO STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS; REPEAL OF PRIOR INCONSISENT RESOLUTIONS, EVERABILITY, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Hoog and seconded by Ms. Roberts to Approve Resolution 2007-13. The vote on the motion carried 4-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, Absent; Mr. Petsos, For, Mayor Randels, For, and Ms. Roberts. Mr. Petsos questioned if staff would draft a letter in support of Ms. Anders' letter. Ms. Roberts pointed out that Ms. Anders also asked the City to substantiate the facts of her letter. Attorney Garganese responded that he did not have an opportunity to verify if that was done with the Building Official. Attorney Garganese advised that there were several statements in Ms. Anders' letter that he was not sure that the City would want to establish a position on in light of the pending Board of Adjustment hearing. Attorney Garganese informed that there were some statements in Ms. Anders letter that the Building Official might not have a problem substantiating; however, there were other provisions or issues that the City would address but not at this time. Mr. Petsos suggested that the City Attorney and the Building Official pull out and substantiate those statements in Ms. Anders letter that were facts. Mayor Randels stated that the letter was sent for use as a Notice of Intent to Petition under Section 125.9 would make the City a party to those statements. Mr. Petsos stated his expectation for the City Attorney and the Building Official to remove the facts and send a letter of substantiation based on those facts. Ms. Roberts suggested that the City Manager send a cover letter to Ms. Anders to confirm the data. Mayor Randels replied that Mr. Boucher would not return in time to draft the letter. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog said that the City Attorney recommended not divulging certain facts prior to the Board of Adjustment hearing. Attorney Garganese stated that to the extent that the Building Official could confirm without adversely affecting the City; however, he advised that there were some things in the letter that he did not think it appropriate for the City to confirm. Ms. Roberts explained how staff could go through her letter and substantiate the statements and then send an administrative letter to Ms. Anders from the City to substantiate the facts in a spirit of support. Ms. Roberts stated that this would also provide substantiation and clarification for the community. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Special Meeting April 10, 2007 Page 6 Mayor Randels concluded that the City Attorney and the Building Official would substantiate the factual information and forward a letter to Solana Shores, Solana Lakes and Ruth Anders. A motion was made by Mr. Petsos and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Hoog to Review Ms. Anders' Letter Dated March 27, 2007 and to Substantiate Them as True. The vote on the motion carried 4-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, Absent; Mr. Petsos, For, Mayor Randels, For, and Ms. Roberts. DISCUSSION: 2. Municipal Feedback Questions from Mayor Mike Blake, City of Cocoa. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog explained that Mayor Blake requested input on this feedback survey by April 6th related to: limited municipal spending, Consumer Price Index caps, eliminating local taxes, raising sales tax, and a one time transfer on Save Our Homes. Mr. Petsos replied that he spoke to the City Treasurer and she calculated that the City would lose 37.19 percent in revenue if taxes were rolled back to the 2004 rate. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog reminded that Cape Canaveral was one City with a unique Ad Valorem taxing structure. He informed how he related that Cape Canaveral's Council was in favor of removing the School Tax and imposing a one and two -cent Sales Tax; however, City of Melbourne and City of Titusville were not in favor. He explained how this would affect their tourist industry. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog informed that on the Save Our Homes issue the consensus was to strike the one-time transfer and retain indefinitely. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog informed that he needed the Council's consensus. Council members agreed to meet on Thursday, April 12th at 5:30 P.M. for discussion. Mayor Randels pointed out that the current revenue was slightly over $2.4 million and if it were cut back the amount was just enough to pay the Sheriffs Department with nothing for the Fire Department or Streets. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog replied that the Council did not have to support it and he agreed that the City Treasurer was needed during the discussion. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog informed that one of the reforms was taxing on the highest and best use of a property. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that the double homestead exemption was also discussed which would allow for no taxes and would adversely affect some counties. Mayor Randels clarified for the record to have the City Treasurer perform research related to the result of a response to each of the survey questions. Mayor Randels recommended that each Council Member to give thought to their responses. Mr. Petsos welcomed comments and suggestions from the City Treasurer. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog requested that the City Clerk distribute the "How Shall We Grow" information from the Florida League of Cities and to agenda discussion on it for the next City Council meeting. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Special Meeting April 10, 2007 Page 7 ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 6:40 P.M. Rocky Randels, MAYOR Susan Stills, CMC, CITY CLERK WHEREAS, public works services provided in our community are an integral part of our citizens' everyday lives; and WHEREAS, the support of an understanding an informed citizenry is vital to the efficient operation of public works systems and programs such as water, sewers, streets and highways, public buildings, solid waste collection; and WHEREAS, the health, safety, and comfort of this community greatly depends on these facilities and services; and WHEREAS, the quality and effectiveness of these facilities, as well as their planning, design, and construction, is vitally dependent upon the efforts and skill of public works officials; and WHEREAS, the efficiency of the qualified and dedicated personnel who staff public works departments is materially influenced by the peoples attitude and understanding of the importance of the work they perform. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Rocky Randels, Mayor of the City of Cape Canaveral, Brevard County, Florida, do hereby proclaim the week of May 20 - 26, 2007 as National Public Works Week in the City of Cape Canaveral, and call upon all citizens and civic organizations to acquaint themselves with the issues involved in providing our public works and to recognize the contributions which public works officials make every day to our health, safety, comfort, and quality of life. Amosicall 'PNUliG Ne.45,A550614il0l 710.00'a CharE¢r February 27, 2007 Re: "Public Works: Moving Life Forward" To The Supporters of Public Works: This year, National Public Works Week will be celebrated May 20-26, 2007. The theme of Public Works: "Moving Life Forward" clearly seeks to enhance the prestige of the often -unsung heroes of our society -the professionals who serve the public good every day with quiet dedication. By promoting this event, government officials, business leaders and citizens will learn from you about the positive impact of public works projects. Public Works professionals have been participating in events and activities to increase public awareness and appreciation of the profession since 1960 when President Kennedy proclaimed that this event would serve as an annual reminder of the value that public works professional contribute to our lives. During this week, there are also many activities and events you may implement to remind the public that our work improves the quality of life for everyone in the community. Some communities hold special community events to showcase the services provided by employees, others have held equipment rodeos and give away prizes to employees or door prizes to the public. Ideas and suggestions are welcapssst,.yourfQllow, I:W�okonals. .,3 - To learn more about the Anicitc n Public Works A"iation and Nations frubL ;Works Week; go the website www.apwa.net. You can click on About Us and heave item, PWA CeleratestNahonal'Pubtc, Works Week Mcry 20-26 to get more information. One simple thing you can do 'e a �. 8 on issued i ur o `tecognli National Public Works Week. In � this -"ay, you will acknowledge the tens of thousands of men and women in North America who provide and maintain the infrastructure and services collectively known as public works. It is quite an impressive sight to see all the proclamations displayed at the FL Chapter Annual Tradeshow. With your participation, we can continue the show of continued support to those in the Public Works field Please, mail your original proclamation to me at the address below so that your proclamation will be proudly displayed for all to see in Orlando at the APWA FL Chapter Annual Meeting and Tradeshow April 23-27, 2007. A sample proclamation has been enclosed for your review. Please return your proclamation to me no later than April 20a`, 2007. If you have any questions, or require any assistance, please call, email or write me. I look forward to receiving your proclamation. Sincerely, Tracy Quintana FL Chapter Committee Chairman City of Punta Gorda Public Works Dept. 326 W. Marion Avenue Punta Gorda, FL 33950 941-575-5066 phone 941-575-5044 fax guintana(a�ci.punta-eordaRus n:lap�tinlproclamation 1tr.doc Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Date: 05-01-07 AGENDA Heading Consideration Item 5 No. AGENDA REPORT CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION: FIRST RESPONDER AGREEMENT WITH THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BREVARD COUNTY DEPT/DIVISION: PUBLIC SAFETY/FIRE Requested Action: City Council consider the approval of the First Responder Agreement with the Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, as recommended by the fire chief. Summary Explanation & Background: The City will receive compensation pursuant to Section (6) of the agreement. I recommend approval. Exhibits Attached: 04-10-07 letter from Brevard County; Agreement; E -Mail City ManWxIs Office Department PUBLIC SAFETY/FIRE - r cape-nt\kim\my s\admin\council ting\2007\OS-01-07\firstresponder.doc April 10, 2007 BREVARD COUNTY INTER -OFFICE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEMORANDUM To Whom It May Concern: Enclosed you will find two (2) agreements for the First Responder Program. Please review for accuracy and if you find any discrepancy with the dollar portion of the agreement, please call me at 633-2056 as soon as possible. Sections 5, 13, and 17 have been added by the County Attorney's Office. Otherwise, the language in the agreement is the same as last year's. The dates and amounts have been updated as well. Please sign both agreements and return to my office by Friday, April 27, 2007, so they can be execution at the May 22, 2007 Board meeting (the last meeting before July, 2007). Our Department will then send you a fully executed agreement for your files. Also, please ensure the signature is witnessed by someone in the "Attest" section. Please return to: Sue Douzanis, Asst. to Dept. Director Brevard County Fire Rescue 1040 S. Florida Ave. Rockledge, FL 32955 Thank you so much for your cooperation. 11 Sty LQ PUTA"_� Sue Douzanis, Asst. to Dept. Director Brevard County Fire Rescue Page 1 of 1 Bennett Boucher From: Farmer, William L [Bill. Farmer@brevardcounty. us] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 11:33 AM To: Dan Rocque; Dave Sargeant; jmacdonald@indialantic.com; Larry Hellmann; Paul Forsberg; Rick Allen; Rick Plummer; Scott Shear; Talbert, Rick; boucher-cape@cfl.rr.com; Carol McCormick; cbillias@cityofcocoabeach.com; Chris Chinault; citymanager@melbourneflorida.org; Dave Reynal (Rnowal); dyonts@grantvalkaria.org; feldml@palmbayflorida.org; Jim B.; jmcknight@cityofrockledge.org; mark.ryan@titusville.com; Robert Downey Cc: Busacca, Peggy A; FR_Senior Staff; Richardson, Morris Subject: First Responder Agreements Ladies and Gentlemen: The First Responder Agreements for next year will be sent to your Cities within the next two (2) weeks. As you are all well aware there is a fair amount of uncertainty with regard to property taxes. The Legislation has shown ever changing plans and timelines regarding how to handle this issue. With that said, I caution everyone to not budget this money for essential functions of your respective fire departments. I say this because it may be in your best interests to budget this money in such a way that you could access it to enhance your first responder programs, but if the County was unable to fund this program it would not disable your day-to-day level of service. Hopefully, there will be some resolution long before our respective budgets are finalized, and intact enough to continue the First Responder. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Fire Chief William L. Farmer, Director Brevard County Fire Rescue 321-633-2056 4/2/2007 AGREEMENT This Agreement entered into this day of , 2007 by and between the CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, hereinafter referred to as the "City" and the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as the "County". WHEREAS, the County has authorized a portion of the Emergency Medical Services Assessment be utilized to assist Primary First Responders with delivery of emergency medical care; and WHEREAS, the County authorized an increase to the Emergency Medical Services Assessment to provide funding to Primary First Responder Agencies; and WHEREAS, the County and Municipal Fire Departments are improving Fire Rescue Service to the citizens in the areas of Brevard County through the implementation of Mutual and Automatic Aid Agreements; and WHEREAS, the First Responder funding provided to each agency will assist in the improvement and quality of Emergency Medical First Response Service; and WHEREAS, the First Responder Program provides an incentive for Primary First Responder Agencies to provide Advanced Basic Life Support and/or Advanced Life Support care to persons awaiting ambulance transport; and WHEREAS, during the budget process for Fiscal Year 2006/2007, the Board of County Commissioners authorized the First Responder Program to continue with a 3% increase over the previous year; and WHEREAS, it has been proven that early intervention by highly trained first responders greatly improves a patient's chance of survival. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of $75,261.82, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged by the City and the County, the parties hereto do hereby enter into this Agreement under the terms and conditions set forth herein. SECTION 1. RECITALS: The above recitals are true and correct and by this reference are hereby incorporated into and made an integral part hereof. SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS: Primary First Responder - Paid Fire Fighters who have the primary responsibility of providing First Responder Services. Advanced Basic Life Support -The utilization of Certified Emergency Medical Technicians who are trained and equipped with Automatic External Defibrillators and Advanced Airway Devices and can perform all aspects of Basic Life Support care. Advanced Life Support - The utilization of Certified Paramedics who are trained and equipped to perform all aspects of Advanced Life Support care. Front Line Unit - A fully staffed engine or squad utilizing paid personnel assigned to immediately and primarily respond on a 24 hour basis to a specific jurisdictional area. SECTION 3. TERM: This Agreement shall be effective upon the signing of both parties for one (1) year. SECTION 4. SERVICES PROVIDED: The City Fire Department agrees to provide First Response Emergency Medical Services to all persons in need of medical assistance within their area of jurisdiction and in accordance with any Auto or Mutual Assistance Agreement the City may have with another jurisdiction. Service shall be provided utilizing qualified, certified and equipped Emergency Medical Technicians and/or Paramedics. 2 SECTION 5, EMPLOYEE STATUS: Persons employed by a parry for the performance of services and functions pursuant to this Agreement shall have no claim on the other party for pension, worker's compensation, unemployment compensation, civil service, or any other employee benefit, right or privilege granted by operation of law, or otherwise, to the officers and employees of the other party to this Agreement. This Agreement does not create any third party beneficiary status for any employee, officer or agent of either party or the public. SECTION 6, COMPENSATION/PAYMENT: The County agrees to pay the Cape Canaveral Volunteer Fire Department the sum of $31,476.46 for each of 2 Advanced Life Support Front Line Units, $4,612.13 for Medical Direction Fees and $7,696.77 for consumable supplies. Payment for the first response units, Medical Direction and supplies for the fiscal year will be processed in February/March of 2007. The payment will be made to "Cape Canaveral Volunteer Fire Department" at the request of the City Manager. SECTION 7. POINTS OF CLARIFICATION: The First Responder Rate Schedule (attached hereto as Attachment "A") applies to the units which provide either Advanced Basic Life Support or Advanced Life Support First Response for the entire fiscal year commencing October 1, 2006. The County will provide first responder funding for units placed in service after October 1, 2006, on apro-rated basis utilizing a daily pro -rating method. For the purposes of this Agreement, a first response unit must be an engine or squad which has permanently assigned personnel on each shift who provides first response services 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. A unit which utilizes or depends on or "shares" personnel assigned to other units (engines, specialty vehicles, etc.) are not recognized as first response units and will not be authorized to receive first responder funding. 3 SECTION 8. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT: This Agreement may be terminated by the City or the County for any reason upon providing thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. The County has the sole authority to approve of an acceptable level of care which must be provided by the City. If the County determines that the service levels provided by the City have declined below the established acceptable level of care, the County may, at its option, provide the City with notice of the decline and an opportunity to cure, or immediately terminate this Agreement upon written notice. In the event of any termination by the County or City pursuant to this Section, the City agrees to return a pro -rated amount of First Responder funding to the County from the effective date of termination through September 30, 2007. SECTION 9. NOTIFICATION: Notifications should be sent to the following personnel and addresses: Fire Chief David Sargeant William L. Farmer, Fire Chief Cape Canaveral Volunteer Fire Department Brevard County Fire Rescue 8970 Columbia Rd. 1040 S. Florida Avenue Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920 Rockledge, Florida 32955 SECTION 10. ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS: In the event of any litigation between the parties arises out of this Agreement, each party shall bear its own attorney's fees and costs. SECTION 11. SEVERABILITY: If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Agreement, is for any reason held by a Court to be unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holding shall not affect the remainder of this Agreement. SECTION 12. LIABILITY: Each party to this Agreement will be responsible for their own negligence and will maintain appropriate insurance as necessary to meet any incurred liability under Section 768.28, F.S. Nothing 4 in this Agreement shall be construed to waive the limited liability conferred to both parties to this Agreement under Section 768.28, F.S. SECTION 13. LIABILITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES (a) Neither party hereto, nor its respective officers, employees, or agents shall assume any liability for the acts, omissions, or negligence of the other party or the other parry's officers, employees, or agents. (b) All of the privileges and immunities from liability, exemptions from laws, ordinances and rules, and all pensions and relief, disability, Workers' Compensation and other benefits which apply to activity of the officers, employees, or agents of a party when performing their respective functions on behalf of the respective party shall also apply to the same degree and extent to the performance of such functions and duties when accomplished pursuant to this Agreement. (c) Except as herein otherwise provided, all liability for injury to personnel and for loss or damage of equipment shall be assumed by the party employing such personnel and owning such equipment. (d) Patient pre -hospital emergency medical care for both agencies shall be in accordance with Brevard Regional Emergency Medical Services Standing Orders. SECTION 14. AUDITING. RECORDS AND INSPECTIONS: In the performance of this Agreement, the City shall keep books, records, and accounts of all activities, related to the Agreement, in compliance with generally accepted accounting procedures. Books, records, and accounts related to the performance of this Agreement shall be open to inspection during regular business hours by an authorized representative of the office and shall be retained by the City for a period of three (3) years after termination of this Agreement. All books, records, and accounts related to the performance of this Agreement shall be subject to the applicable provisions of the Florida Public Records Act, Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. W1 No reports, data, programs, or other materials produced, in whole or in part for the benefit and use of the County, under this Agreement shall be subject to copyright by the City in the United States or any other country. SECTION 15. ASSIGNABILITY: The City shall not assign any portion of this Agreement without the written permission of the County. SECTION 16. JURISDICTION. VENUE AND CHOICE OF LAW: All questions pertaining to the validity and interpretations of this Agreement shall be determined in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. Any legal action by either party against the other concerning this Agreement shall be filed in Brevard County, Florida which shall be deemed proper jurisdiction and venue for the action. SECTION 17. NOT A JOINT VENTURE OR, AGENCY: Nothing contained in this Agreement is intended, or shall be construed, to create any joint venture between the parties or constitute either party as the agent or representative of the other party for any purpose whatsoever, nor shall this Agreement be deemed to make the City a "business associate" of County for the purposes of requiring the city to meet administrative requirements under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or regulations promulgated thereunder. SECTION 18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Agreement, including the exhibits, riders, and/or addenda, if any, attached hereto, sets forth the entire Agreement between the parties. This Agreement shall not be modified except in writing and executed by all parties. G SECTION 19. AUTHORIZATION/EFFECTIVE DATE: Effective date of this Agreement will be October 1, 2006. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the date and year written above. ATTEST: M. By: Scott Ellis, Clerk Jackie Colon, Chairperson ATTEST: AS APPROVED BY THE BOARD ON Reviewed for legal form and conte CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL 7 Bennett Boucher, City Manager City of Cape Canaveral ATTACHMENT "A" FIRST RESPONDER RATE SCHEDULE Paid, Full Time, Advanced Life Support Unit .............................................$31,476.46 Paid, Full Time, Advanced Basic Life Support Unit ......................................$18,257.87 Consumable Supplies: *Allowable Per Call................................................................. $ 5.19 Advanced Life Support Medical Direction: *Allowable Per Call................................................................. $ 3.11 Basic Life Support Medical Direction: *Allowable Per Call................................................................ $ 1.83 *Call Load Based on Previous Calendar Year (Close Out) Totals For the purpose of the "First Responder Agreement", "first response unit" must be an engine or squad which has permanently assigned personnel who are immediately available to provide first response services 24 hour per day, 7 days per week. A unit which utilizes or depends on (or "shares") personnel assigned to other units (engines, specialty vehicles, etc.) are not recognized as first response units and will not be authorized to receive first responder funding. Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Date: 05-01-07 AGENDA Heading Consideration Item 6 No. AGENDA REPORT CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION: 2008 CAPE CANAVERAL'S "IMAGES IN ART" FESTIVAL. AT MANATEE SANCTUARY PARK DEPT/DIVISION: BUSINESS & CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD/ADMINISTRATION Requested Action: City Council consider approval of co -hosting with T -N -T Events, Inc., the Second Annual "Images in Art" Festival at Manatee Sanctuary Park on March 29-30, 2008 as recommended by the Business & Cultural Development Board. Summary Explanation & Background: This year's festival had 70 vendors and was attended by approximately 500 patrons. Exhibits Attached: B&CD's memo dated 4/23/07 City Manager!s-.Office Department B&CDB/ADMINISTRATION a im\myd uments\a in\council\mee ng\2007\05-01-07\tnt.doc CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL PUBLIC WORKS MEMO TO: Bennett C. Boucher, City Manager CC: i-6usan Stills, City Clerk Nancy Hanson, Director, Parks and Recreation FROM: John Anderson, Chair, Business and Cultural Development Board SUBJECT: 2008 Cape Canaveral "Images In Art" Festival at Manatee Sanctuary Park DATE: April 23, 2007 The Business and Cultural Development Board would like for the City of Cape Canaveral City Council to host with T -N -T Events Inc the 2008 Second Annual "Images In Art Festival" at Manatee Sanctuary Park. This year's festival had 70 vendors and was attended by approximately 2500 patrons. After speaking with most of the vendors, many patrons and the representative from T -N -T Events, Inc., it is the unanimous consensus of the board that this event be hell again on March 29-30, 2008. We request that this event be an agenda item of discussion at the May 1, 2007 City Council Meeting Thank -you. John Anderson Chairperson, Business and Cultural Development Board /leml Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Date: 05-01-07 AGENDA Heading Discussion Item 7 No. City Manager's Office AGENDA REPORT CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL SUBJECT: DISCUSSION: CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL GROWTH VISION DEPT/DIVISION: LEGISLATIVE Requested Action: Mayor Pro Tem Bob Hoog requested this as a discussion item for City Council. Summary Explanation & Background: See attached draft of the Central Florida Regional Growth Vision. Exhibits Attached: Draft Growth Vision City Manager's Office Department LEGISLATIVE cape- im\myd c15e s\admin\councsr\-meec-Lily \�vv 1\V -­ . ...How ShAl W' G-row7. creating a shared Vision for Central Florida,4 op Central Florida Regional Growth Vision O Proposed Regional Growth Compact Partnership agreement to be signed by public, private, and civic leaders at the conclusion of the "How Shall We Grow" process committing to the following: • Regional Growth Vision. We acknowledge that the Central Florida Regional Growth Vision is a community -generated guide for the future development of the region. • Continued Regional Cooperation. We agree to enhance existing or develop new institutions and practices to continue cooperation and consensus building at the regional level to implement the Central Florida Regional Growth Vision. These institutions and practices may include: - Establish a regional forum for continued cooperation among regional elected officials. - Establish a regional mechanism for coordinating public, private, and civic activities in support of the Vision. - Work with the seven county legislative delegations to establish regional legislative delegation meetings and priorities. - Work with the legislature to make statutory changes identified by the region as critical to implementation of key regional priorities consistent with the Vision. • Guiding Principles. We agree to consider the following six regional growth principles in making future public, private, and civic investment decisions. - Preserve open space, recreational areas, farmland, water resources and regionally significant natural areas. - Provide universal access to the highest quality of education, health care, and cultural amenities. - Provide a variety of transportation choices. - Encourage a diverse, globally competitive economy. - Foster distinct, attractive and safe places to live. - Create a range of obtainable housing opportunities and choices. We agree to ensure coordinated regional action in these six areas through enhancing existing or developing new regional partnerships in each area. Project Fundh* Partners: Central Florida MPO Alliance Florida Department of Community Affairs-Yree---g East Central Florida Regional Planning Council Florida Department of Transportation Orlando Regional Chamber of Commerce • Coordination with Regional and local Plans. We acknowledge that comprehensive plans and other regional and local plans are the critical tools for translating the regional vision into action. We agree to: - Develop or update strategic regional policy plans, community visions, local government comprehensive plans, transportation plans, resource agency plans, and economic development plans to develop more specific goals, policies, and programs to manage long range growth and guide infrastructure investments consistent with the regional vision. - Consider the vision and the six regional growth principles in future updates to these plans. - Coordinate local and regional plans with those of neighboring and overlapping government entities, as well as key statewide plans. • Intergovernmental Agreements. We agree to work toward additional intergovernmental agreements when necessary to address opportunities for joint action or to resolve inconsistencies among regional and local policies and plans. Understanding and Support. We agree to Implement an overall strategy to effectively promote understanding and support of the Vision by public, private, and civic leaders, as well as the community. • Progress Reporting and Future Updates. We agree to implement processes for monitoring progress on implementing the Vision (including the use of regional indicators) and for updating the Vision over time. R'Wmd RegtnN✓ &vwM CwpW - M[FT — fNrWIP 23� 2W7 HowShall Wye Grow. •�` Creating a Shred Vision for Central Florida Central Florida Regional Growth Vision AW ftopomd Regional Polio/ Framework and Action A. Preserve open Space, Recreaftwol Areas„ Farmland. WaW Resowces and Regkmuft Skolficairt Natural Areas 1. I&,"y y and develop a "green pilin,' which is defined as an intw-connected 1 2 3 4 5 network of regionally significant conservation lands, open space and recreational areas. implemwerlwaon GaridaKL- a. Use the "green prim' to set priorities for acquiring, managing, and providing access to open space, recreational areas, and conservation areas. Rdled the "green pati" in slate, regional, and local comprehensive, transportation, and resource agency mans. b. Esbg*sh dedicated regional funding sources for environmental Investment to allow significantly greater acquisitions than are possible today. c. Develop policies and programs that prcvide Incentives for private landowners to conserve open space, recreational areas, and envitorliniewdal network lands, and that ensure that new development Is accompanied by increased preservation. Encourage use of innovative piamjng tedmicluees such as transfer of development rights, Rural lards Stewardship, Rural Cluster Development, and Sector Plans, which provide for permanent protection of conservation areas while allowing private laird owners to retain economic viability of their lands. d. Educate staloeholders and policy makers regarding the Importance of the seven Natural Jewels of Central Florida, those strategically sigrWicant natural areas that are part of our overall quality of rife and enrich our community. (These include Indian River lagoon, take Wales Ridge, Green Swamp, Wekiva-Ocala Greenway, Volusia Conservation Corridor, St. Johns River, and Greater ftsirnmee Prairie.) 2• Work with landowners to develop and prcrnote strategies that encourage 1 2 3 4 5 sustainable agriculture in the region. ImPkMen&WW GL blame a. Expand the use of conservation easernenls that retain lards In agriculture that is economically and environmentally viable. b. Work cooperatively with the agricultural extension services and other groups representing fanners to maximize the application and value to agn oAture of their research and programs. Revised Drag' — March 28, 2007 Project Funding Partoem. Central Florida MPO Alliance Florida Department of Community Affairs -Yrw-.mg East Central Florida Regional Planning Council Florida Department ofTranspoctation Orlando Regional Chamber of Commerce ORAFf 3. Implerna t o regional strategy for water use. 1 2 3 4 5 imptoenbWon ( ihiatarxa° a. Develop an equitable regional plan for water supply including alternative water sources. This plan should include coordination among water management districts, Public and private ublidm and major and minor consumers. The plan should design and implement best practice mechanisms b equitably distribute the cost of developing alternative water supply sources. b. Develop a regional approach to water conservation, indudng incentives for reuse and practices that limit water use. c. Increase the alignment of water supply planning and pig per• B. Provideweatm acce too the fuiyhest quality of education, hwM care, MW cURUF+d rr nenhk& Education, health care, and cultural amenities all relate to quatiy of I% and the values of Central Honda's dtiaerh, The Central Florida Regional Growth Vision and policy framcwwrk focuses on those aspects of education, health and vrdkuess, and cultural amenities that are related to V; -I of development and the built enOorwnent Other regional cooperation efforts will address the quality and delivery of education health care, and cultural amenithm 1. Develop ao ninnies In a way that erthamces the health and wellrhess of residents 1 2 3 4 5 and fatltitates access to health care facilities. Lr�hterneruhi7rbbn Gbbbruce a. Encourage development standards that Promote walkaWity and other dhararheristis of a built environment that enhances health and wellness. b. Ensure that local lard use planning throughout the region allows for a range of facilities that collectively can provide a flu eondnutrn of care. 2. promote effective local planning processes that coordinate the location of school 1 2 3 4 5 sus with assodated lard uses (especially parks and recreation) and transportation services. 3. promote cooperation among the pubk private and civic sen ors to develop 1 2 3 4 5 regional strategies for aeating, preserving, and Providing access museums, performing arts, public art, historic properties, and other cultural amenities. Revised DrdR — Mandl 28, 2W7 �RAF1 G Provide a variety of tr-sportation dmdoes. 1. Continue to develop and art a cornprehensi e, tong-berm regional multi- 1 2 3 4 5 nodal transportation Plan for moving people and height that addresses the needs of residents, visitors, and businesses. G(Atk ore a. Build upon the work to date on regional long-range plarming for highways and transit by the Central Florida MPO Alliance. b. Balance priorities for funding among key regional transportation fates in a manner that pennks a silt of the region's transportMon opacity investrnents from highways toward t arrsrti c ImPWnent bWSportabon system oomponents that support the regional vision for tsban centers, open space, and associated concepts, while aontributirg to iniproved ar quality and ffvnwfmzmg kripacts on weber quality. d. Provide increased public transportation service and facilitate travel by means corer than single oaaipan y vehicles. e. Coordinate transit and other pubic transportation services at a regional level. f. Develop a regional greenways and trait strategy that provides bicycle and pedestrian access within and between centers. g. Address enusgency evacLobon and response needs. 2. Develop a regional approach to managing the eonaurren y of trarnporbtion 1 2 3 4 5 investments with neve devieJopment. 3. Create a regional multi-anodal transportation authority with resporsibiity for all 1 2 3 4 5 surface transportation Planning (Urduding transit and roads). The autho ft also should have responsibility for developing and irrrplententUrg ptatrrring, financing, and operating the regional mW"wdal trarnportadon plan and the regional trarsporwon concurrency systern. ALTBMTIW TEXT BOW P1ROPOSM BY 77L E CBVTRAL FLORM4 AM AWAKE 4. Develop a regional strategy for funding anuli-modal transportation that levgages 1 2 3 4 5 available Federal, sbbe, and local government (tax) funding, private funding, and user fees. Re med Drag – laid128, 2W7 �RAFt D. Encourage a Avow, glo6410r omrnpeltitire Economic development and is a aftal goal for the future of the region. A regional economic development sbrategy should bold on the strength of the region's exiong k*asbvcWm in aerospace, tourism, biomedical, and other industry dusters, while providing the tleucibiiity to capitalize on new opporturiltim The Central Rorida Regional Growth Vision and policy framework focuses on those aspects of economic development that are related to patterns of development and the built environment. Other regional cooperation d%rts will address waldoroe, business dirnate, marketirig, and tither eoorwrnic developinert issues. 1. Work with economic development commissions, higher education, and other public 1 2 3 4 5 and private stakeholders to develop a regional economic devdopmernt strategy, Byptena la tlon adkfxe a. Create infrastnuct im that attracts, retains, and grows high-wage industries and high-skilled workers. These may include educatioray clitoral, exhvnonrrnetfal, and lifestyle amenities, and the full range of information, communication, brinspodation, workforce training, and other systems, b. Include a regional land use strategy to ensure the ready availability of sutiicmil: land appropriately designated or zoned for economic centers with appropriate transportation and other inhaAructure already in place. L Fostm diistinWhwe, attractive and safe places to lure. vocal government land use policies and planning processes in the region must be aorsirl m I with all aspects of the Central Florida Regional Growth Vision and porky framework, including the Ivey strategies outlined in this document nelatad tD water, environment, and transportation. In addRlon, the following specific land use and developrrm t strategies are ideri ied. 1. Revise compressive plans, land development codes, and building industry 1 2 3 4 5 practices to encourage creativity in designing distinctive places to Flue. A, ' Xe ne►ufaffanGUAA- a. Remove obstacles to, and accts incentives for, nwced-use, hVier densly centers where appropriate. b. Provide mechanisms; tD ensure desig and functional aonsisterncy in centers that cross jurisdictional lines, where appropriate. c Create strategies to recognize and build an the distinctive dnaractr#ics of each place, including strategies to pnbect rural commurnities. d. Create incentives for redevelopment: e. Encourage master planning and Minimize piecemeal development f. Identify and enhance current policies that promote good designs including green b HOV and development Revish:�d Dalt — March 28, A707 pRAFt 2. S rmgthen or create regional resources to provide communities with ammUn oe with mum such as design guidelines, sample smart growth plan elements and codes, and related issues. 1 2 3 4 5 F. Create a range of obbunable housing opporbudbes and choices. 1. Develop a regional market-oriented obtainable housing ar begy. Grim 1 2 3 4 5 a. Establish a regional definition far obtainable housing, including both rental and ownership housing. b. Include strategies tD maintain the affordabhW of obtainable housing over time. c Enoorrage each eonmmity to provide an appropriate share of regional obtainable housing. d. Provide bwmv *,es for obtainable housing. e. Ensure that obtainable housing is integrated with market -rate housing in its design and location. f. Educate citizens about obtainable housing. ReKwd Drag — ftfE 4 28, 20107 Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Date: 05-01-07 AGENDA Heading Discussion item 8 No. Discussion only. AGENDA REPORT CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL SUBJECT: DISCUSSION: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS RELATED TO THE ZONING CODE OF ORDINANCES DEPT/DIVISION: LEGISLATIVE Requested Action: City Council review the Administrative Appeals Section of the Zoning Code of Ordinances. Summary Explanation & Background: Council Member Roberts expressed concern at the 03-06-07 City Council Meeting that council did not act upon appeals related to zoning code issues and requested a review and discussion about the existing appeals process. Discussion only. Please advise. Exhibits Attached: City Codes 110-40; 110-87 City Manager's -Office - Department LEGISLATIVE t-2-zz I 1 d ^ cape- im\myd cumen dmin\counci1\meeting\2007 SOS-01-u1\appea s. c DIVISION 5. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS Page I of 1 DIVISION S. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS Sec. 110-40. Administrative appeals. (a) Any final administrative decision regarding the enforcement or interpretation of this chapter, where it is alleged there is an error by an administrative official, can be appealed as set forth in this section. Any of the following may seek review of an administrative decision pursuant to this section: (1) city council; (2) Planning and zoning board; (3) Any person aggrieved or affected by any decision of the building official in the interpretation of any portion of this chapter. (b) Appeals shall be taken within 30 days after such administrative decision is made by filing a written notice of appeal with the building official and the board of adjustment stating the name of the decision maker, date of the decision, applicable code provisions and the specific grounds for appeal. Upon receipt of the notice of appeal, the building official shall schedule the appeal before the board of adjustment and transmit all documents, plans, papers or other materials constituting the record upon whichthe action appealed from was taken. (c) The board of adjustment shall be required to review all administrative appeals and prepare written findings constituting its final decision on the administrative appeal based on the criteria set forth in this section. (d) Review of administrative decisions shall be based on the following criteria: (1) Whether the applicant was properly afforded procedural due process; (2) Whether the decision under review is supported by competent, substantial evidence; and (3) Whether the decision under review complied with applicable law, including a proper interpretation of any provision under this chapter. (e) An administrative appeal filed pursuant to this section stays all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from, unless the building official from whom the appeal is taken certifies in writing to the board of adjustment after the notice of appeal is filed that, because of facts stated in the certificate, a stay would, in the building official's opinion, cause imminent peril to life and property. In such case where the building official makes such certification, proceedings shall not be stayed otherthan by an injunction, which may be granted by the board of adjustment or issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. (f) The board of adjustment shall have the right to reverse or affirm, wholly or in part, or may modify the order, requirement, decision or determination as ought tto be made, and to that end, The concurring vote of shall have all the powers of the officers from whom the apps al is four members of the board of adjustment shall be necessary to reverse any order, requirement, decision or determination of the building official. Secs. 110-41-110-85. Reserved. http:l/libraryi.municode.com/mecIDocView/12642/l/2541256/261 3/15/2007 DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Page 1 of 1 Sec. 110-87. Interpretation of chapter. It is the intent of this chapter that all questions regarding the interpretation and application of the provisions of this chapter shall be first presented to the building official and that such questions shall be presented to the board of adjustment only on appeal from the decision of the building official and that recourse from the decisions of the board of adjustment shall be to the courts as provided by law. It is further the intent of this chapter that the duties of the city council in connection withthis chapter shall not include hearing and deciding questions of interpretation and enforcement that may arise. The procedure for deciding such questions shall be as stated in this section and this chapter. Under this chapter the city council shall have only the duties of: (1) Considering and adopting or rejecting proposed amendments or the repeal of this chapter, as provided by law; and (2) Establishing a schedule of fees and charges. (Code 1981, § 645.35; Ord. No. 3-94, § 1, 2-1-94; Ord. No. 02-2006, § 2, 3-21-06) http://libraryl.municode.com/mcc/DocView/12642/l/254/262/263 //lib 1.municode.com/mcc/DocView/12642/l/254/262/263 3/15/2007 Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Date: 05-01-07 AGENDA Heading Discussion item 9 No. Estimated construction costs: $1,366,078. AGENDA REPORT CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL SUBJECT: DISCUSSION: NORTH ATLANTIC AVENUE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS DEPT/DIVISION: PUBLIC WORKS/STREETS Requested Action: City Council review and comment on the proposed North Atlantic Avenue roadway improvements. Summary Explanation & Background: The county's consultant, Dyer, Riddle, Mills and Precourt, has prepared a construction cost estimate and before/after renderings for the North Atlantic Avenue roadway segment between Central Blvd. and George King Blvd. Estimated construction costs: $1,366,078. Discussion only. Exhibits Attached: Construction estimate; before/after renderings (hand-out) City Manager's -Office Department PUBLIC WORKS/STREETS ca -kim\myd cum s\admin\council\meeting\2007\05 VL-ui\roauway.uoc NORTH ATLANTIC AVENUE ROADWAY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE .�.eerry lbwr IIPRICE I ANOUNT Project Schedule Final design - 4 Months (Based on 2 Week City/County Review Periods) Estmated Constru tion Time - 12 Months C:\Documents and Settinys\kshin9ledeckerll.oc811 Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB\SidTabShoet ROadwey.)& PAY REM pEztc,rwr r rvn -_.- - NO' NO. 1 LS WA 100.000 1 101-1 Mobilization 7 WA $100000 2 102-1 Maintenance d Traffic 24 EA. 5200.00 54.800 3 10410-1 Na bales SJ00 L.F. $4.00 $14000 4 10413 Staked Form 1/2.4 LS/AC 753.73 $21,009 5 110.1.1 Clears and G Jun 16 LS/C.Y. $8.00 000 6 120.1 PAWar E=avatlon 1/400 LSJC.Y. $8.75 $34W 7 120 8 160.4 iFmbenkmerd Siabilizatiorr, T 'B' 12' Thick ti00 S.Y. 55.00 000 8 Shell Base Course 9' Thick 7336 S.Y. $7.86 $56194 9 285 702-981 Cemented T 'S' R —6C creta 21/2'Thick 7338 S.Y. 13.86 101604 10 11 331-72-22 337-7-5 Concrete Friction Course 1-1/2 FC -e 587 TN. $700.00 $58 7009 $89 12 339-1 PevemeM Micellarxals Conti 1 10 TN. C.Y. $89.21 5420.18 $4 202 13 4001-15 Concrete C1eas 1 aneolra Conti 3868 L F. $20.00 3� 14 5201-10 Conerecte Curb and c3uner 8 Ind. ti Walkaroundc 4890 S.Y. $45.00 $220.050 15 522-2 Concrete P 2323 S.Y. 78 719 18 575-1 Soddi C 100 S.Y. $2.35 $238 17 575-1-4 Soddi St 1 LS400 $33.400 18 Signing & Pavement Me no Orsi atioNStonn Sewer SJRWMD Permit ErdiRr 7 LS .000.00 19 TOTAL a 51 28%CONTINGENCY a 18 TOTAL a S1rm,07111 Note: This swipimm does not Include an fRIW eoett Project Schedule Final design - 4 Months (Based on 2 Week City/County Review Periods) Estmated Constru tion Time - 12 Months C:\Documents and Settinys\kshin9ledeckerll.oc811 Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB\SidTabShoet ROadwey.)& Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Date: 05-01-07 AGENDA Heading Discussion Item 10 No. Attached exhibits: AGENDA REPORT CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL SUBJECT: DISCUSSION: RESORT DWELLING UNITS DEPT/DIVISION: LEGISLATIVE Requested Action: City Council discuss the regulation of resort dwelling units. Summary Explanation & Background: The city attorney was directed to prepare an ordinance as follows: Prohibit resort dwelling units within the R-1, R-2 and R-3 zoning districts and establish as a principal use within the C-1 commercial district. Attached exhibits: 1. Proposed Ordinance No. 19-006 2. City Attorney's Executive Summary 3. City Manager's Analysis 4. Building Official's E -Mail on the (4) Residential Occupancies 5. P&Z Board's 09-27-06 Recommendation 6. Article - Short -Term Vacation Rentals: Residential or Commercial Use? Discussion only. Exhibits Attached: Listed above. City Manager's j e _ : /' Department LEGISLATIVE cape-nt oc en sNd n c 1\mee .Lng\20U \­ -�� DRAFT March 27, 2007 ORDINANCE NO. 19-2006 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;" PROVIDING FOR RESORT DWELLINGS AS PRINCIPAL USES IN THE C-1 ZONING DISTRICT; SETTING FORTH A PROCEDURE FOR ESTABLISHING A NONCONFORMING STATUS FOR CERTAIN RESORT DWELLINGS IN THE R-1, R-2 AND R-3 ZONING DISTRICTS BASED ON CERTAIN EXISTING LICENSE AND TAX FACTORS SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED HEREIN; PROVIDING FOR EXPIRATION OF SUCH NONCONFORMING STATUS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; AMENDING THE SUPPLEMENTAL ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS TO RESTATE THAT ANY RENTAL OF A DWELLING UNIT SHALL BE FOR A MIMMUM 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 V a 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 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 onlythose uses that are expressly provided for under the list of principal uses and special exception uses for each zoning City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 19-2006 Page 1 of 8 DRAFT March 27, 2007 category; and WHEREAS, all other uses not expressly provided for as a principle use or special exception are intended to be prohibited; and WHEREAS, resort dwellings are not currently expressly listed as a principle or special exception use within any zoning district; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that it is necessary to list resort dwellings 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 of Indian River Shores, 379 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 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 protections to existing licensed resort dwellings that will become nonconforming under this ordinance, the City Council seeks to balance the competing interests between existing uses and 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 deems it to be in the best interests of the citizens of the City of Cape Canaveral to provide for resort dwellings as an additional permitted use in the C-1 Low City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 19-2006 Page 2 of 8 DRAFT March 27, 2007 Density Commercial zoning districts; 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 strikeatit 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 dwellin g 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 (D 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 reaularly rented for periods of less than thirty (30) days or one (1) calendar month whichever is less. ARTICLE VII. DISTRICTS City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 19-2006 Page 3 of 8 DRAFT March 27, 2007 DMSION 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. Dwelling tulit Mn mFvf jess dm -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 densityresidential 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. 110-292. 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 City of Cape Canaveral Ordinanca No. 19-2006 Page 4 of 8 DRAFT March 27, 2007 (4) Public schools. Notwithstanding the foregoing, there shall be no more than 15 dwelling units per net residential acre; 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. Notwithstanding the foregoing, there shall be no more than 15 dwelling units per net residential acre; DIVISION 5. C-1 LOW DENSITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 19-2006 Page 5 of 8 DRAFT March 27, 2007 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 duly licensed by the state. ARTICLE IX. SUPPLEMENTARY DISTRICT REGULATIONS DMSION 1. GENERALLY Sec 110485 Resort Dwellings,• nonconforming use status, exAration. (a) Subiect to strict compliance with the requirements set forth in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, any resort dwelling existing as of November 21 2006 on real property zoned R 1 R-2, or R-3 shall be deemed a nonconforming use subject to the provisions of Chapter 110 Article V Nonconformities. of this Code. (b) In order to be considered existing, as of November 21 2006 the person claiming a nonconforming resort dwelling on real property zoned R-1 R-2 or R-3 must demonstrate that as ofNovember 21 2006 the resort dwelling was licensed by the Division of Hotels and Restaurants of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation and applicable transient rental taxes pursuant to section 212.03 Florida Statutes, have been dul Raid. Further said person must also demonstrate that the resort dwelling is in compliance with the certificate ofoccupancyregnirements set forth in section 110-121. City Code within ninety (90) daps of the effective date of this ordinance. (c) Any person claiming that a resort dwelling should be deemed nonconforming under this section shall be required to file an application with the city manager within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this ordinance The application shall be on a form provided by the city manager and shall be for the purpose of verifying whether or not a particular resort dwelling should be deemed nonconforming under this section. The application shall be accompanied with copies of all applicable licenses tax receipts, and certificate of occupancies which are necessary for the city manager to determine whether or not the resort dwelling should be declared a nonconforming use In the event a person demonstrates City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 19-2006 Page 6 of 8 DRAFT March 27, 2007 compliance with the license and tax requirements set forth in paragraph (b), but can not demonstrate compliance with the certificate of occupancy requirements at the time the a lication is filed the city manager shall render a final decision on the application at the time the requisite certificate of occupancy is filed with the city manager, or at the end of the ninety (90) day time period, whichever occurs first Upon verification that a nonconformi resort dwelling use status exists the city manager shall issue to the applicant a written notice of nonconforming use status for the particular resort dwelling. Upon the passing of the ap lication deadline set forth in this subsection all persons shall be barred from claiming nonconforming use status under this section. (d) Anv resort dwelling deemed nonconforming pursuant to this section shall lose its nonconforming status if any one (1) of the following occurs:_ _ (1) The resort dwelling 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 license for whatever reason or if said license should otherwise expire or lapse at any time. 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. 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 City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 19-2006 Page 7 of 8 DRAFT March 27, 2007 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 22007. ROCKY RANDELS, Mayor ATTEST: For Against Bob Hoog Leo Nicholas Buzz Pctsos Rocky Randels SUSAN STILLS, City Clerk C. Shannon Roberts 1" Legal Ad Published: First Reading: 200 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. 19-2006 Page 8 of 8 BROWN, GARGANESE, WEISS & UA.GRESTA, P.A. Debra S. Babb-Nutcher` Joseph E. Blitch Usher L. Brown' Suzanne D'Agresta° Anthony A. Garganese° J.W. Taylor Jeffrey S. Weiss 'Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer "Board Certified City, County & Local Government Law Via Email Correspondence Bennett Boucher, City Manager City of Cape Canaveral 105 Polk Avenue Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920 Attorn ys at Law Offices in Orlando, Kissimmee, Cocoa, Ft. Lauderdale & Tampa March 30, 2007 Re: Resort Dwelling Executive Summary Vivian Cocotas Michael O'Brien Colgan Scott J. Domstein Mitchell B. Haller Katherine W. Latorre Amy J. Pitsch Erin J. O'Leary Catherine D. Reischmann William E. Reischmann, Jr. Of Counsel The City Council and Planning and Zoning have held numerous meetings and have evaluated numerous proposals regarding the regulation of vacation rentals within the City. Given the number of meetings and proposals, I felt it would be helpful to provide the following executive summary of the most recent draft ordinance. A. Purpose The proposed ordinance is a zoning regulation. It regulates the use of land within the City. The specific purpose of the proposed ordinance is as follows: 1. It adds the statutory definition of "resort dwelling" to the zoning code. Resort dwelling is a statutory term of art that will be incorporated into the City Code. Section 509.242(1)(g), Florida Statutes, provides: Resort dlvellin- 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 225 East Robinson Street, Suite 660 • P.O. Box 2873 • Orlando, Florida 32802-2873 Orlando (407) 425-9566 Fax (407) 425-9596 • Kissimmee (321) 402-0144 • Cocoa (866) 425-9566 • Ft. Lauderdale (954) 670-1979 Website: www.orlandolaw.net • Email: firm@oriandolaw.net Bennett Boucher March 30, 2007 Page 2 of 5 This is a difficult definition to apply. Stating it a different way may be helpful. For example, in order for a dwelling unit to be classified as a resort dwelling, the unit must: A. Be a one, two, three, or four family dwelling house or unit, and B. One or both of the following must be met: (1) The unit must be rented more than three (3) times in a calendar year and the rental period must be less than thirty (30) days or one calendar month, whichever is less; and/or (2) The unit is advertised or held out to the public as a place regularly rented for the time periods stated in (1). 2. It adds resort dwellings to the list of principle uses in the C-1 zoning district. Currently, "resort dwellings" are not listed as either a principle or special exception use in any zoning district. The City Code provides that "all uses and structures not specifically or provisionally permitted (in the zoning district classifications] are prohibited." Therefore, resort dwellings are technically not an allowable use in the City. The purpose of this Ordinance is to expressly permit resort dwellings within the C-1 commercial zoning district. Thus, resort dwellings will continue to be prohibited in every other zoning classification. B. Grandfather Existing Resort Dwellings. General Background Despite the fact that resort dwellings are not technically an allowable use in the City, the City Manager has uncovered during the public hearing process the fact that the State of Florida has issued approximately seven (7) resort dwelling licenses in the City of Cape Canaveral. These resort dwellings have also apparently complied with the City Code provision that prohibits the rental of dwelling units for less than seven days. It is my understanding that these resort dwellings are not located on property that is zoned C-1. Given these facts, the Council has wrestled with the issue of grandfathering (nonconforming status) these, and perhaps other, resort dwellings operating within the City. 2. Who is Grandfathered? Upon adoption of the proposed Ordinance, any resort dwelling located in the R-1, R-2, or R-3 zoning district will be grandfathered as a nonconforming use, provided: A. The resort dwelling was in existence on November 21, 2006; B. The resort dwelling was licensed by the Division of Hotels and Restaurants of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation on November 21, 2006; Bennett Boucher March 30, 2007 Page 3 of 5 C. Applicable transient rental taxes pursuant to section 212.03, Florida Statutes, have been duly paid; and D. The resort dwelling is in compliance with the certificate of occupancy requirements set forth in section 110-121, City Code within ninety (90) days of the effective date of this ordinance. However, although it is within the council's discretion to grandfather certain resort dwellings through the adoption of an ordinance, it may be questionable whether any resort dwelling currently operating within the City would meet the generally accepted legal definition of a grandfathered use. Typically, in order to be considered "grandfathered," the use must have been lawfully in existence before a change in law made them unlawful. In this case, although several resort dwellings were licensed by the State, the City Code appears to prohibit resort dwellings because they are not listed as a principle or special exception use in any zoning district. Furthermore, as explained below, resort dwellings, as a transient use, have a different occupancy classification than permanent residential dwellings under the Florida Building Code. Converting a permanent residential dwelling to a transient residential dwelling, like a resort dwelling, requires that the building official issue a new certificate occupancy. In order to receive a new certificate of occupancy, the resort dwelling must satisfy the applicable building and fire codes for transient residential dwellings. See e.g., Section 110-121, Cape Canaveral Code. It is uncertain at this time whether the existing resort dwellings which are licensed by the State are in compliance with the applicable building and fire codes. Thus, if it is determined that these resort dwellings are not in compliance, it is doubtful they would technically be declared "lawfully" in existence at the time this Ordinance was adopted by the City Council. Therefore, it is debatable whether these licensed resort dwellings would be entitled to nonconforming status under the law because they are technically not in compliance with the City's current zoning code and may not be in compliance with the City's certificate of occupancy requirements and Florida's Building and Fire Prevention Codes. Notwithstanding, the City Council can expressly provide nonconforming status by this Ordinance. Who Authorizes Grandfathered Status? Under the Ordinance, the City Manager must authorize a resort dwelling being declared a nonconforming use. The proposed Ordinance provides a procedure for eligible resort dwellings to receive such a declaration. Particularly: A. An application must be submitted within thirty (30) days of the adoption of the Ordinance; B. The application shall be accompanied with copies of all applicable licenses, tax receipts, and certificate of occupancies which are necessary for the City Manager to determine whether or not the resort dwelling should be declared a nonconforming use. Bennett Boucher March 30, 2007 Page 4of5 If the applicant demonstrates compliance with the nonconforming status requirements, the City Manager shall issue a written notice of such status. Any person seeking nonconforming status after the thirty (30) day time period will be barred from seeking nonconforming status. 4. Can Grandfathered Status Be Terminated? If nonconforming status is granted by the City Manager, it may be terminated if: A. The resort dwelling use is abandoned under the nonconforming use section of the City Code; or B. The State of Florida revokes the resort dwelling's license or the license expires or lapses. C. Other Technical Amendments. The proposed Ordinance also: 1. Restates the Minimum Seven (7) Day Rental Requirement In The Supplemental Zoning Regulations. A new section 110-486 is created that provides, "It shall be unlawful for any person to rent a dwelling unit for less than seven (7) consecutive days." Because this provision will be codified in the supplemental zoning regulations, the seven day minium rental requirement will apply to a dwelling unit in any zoning district, including resort dwellings. 2. Clarifies the Intent and Purpose of the R-1, R-2, and R-3 Zoning Districts. The following language will be added to the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zoning districts to declare that the districts are intended to be "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." D. Other Policy Considerations. 1. The North American Industry Classification System, United States, 2002 Edition, classifies "Lessors of Residential Buildings and Dwellings" (531110) as an industry comprised of "establishments primarily engaged in acting as lessors of buildings used as residences or dwellings, such as single-family homes, apartment buildings, and town homes. Included in this industry are owner -lessors and establishments renting real estate and then acting as lessors in subleasing it to others. The establishments in this industry may manage the property themselves or have another establishment manage it for them." Bennett Boucher March 30, 2007 Page 5 of 5 Therefore, it appears that resort dwellings should be categorized as an industry, not a residential use. 2. Section 110-121, Cape Canaveral Code provides: 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 therefor. 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. According to the building official, a resort dwelling is a transient residential type use classification under the Florida Building Code. It does not have the same use classification as a permanent residential use. In other words, in accordance with section 110-121, if a property owner converted, or sought to convert, a permanent residential use to a transient residential use, like a resort dwelling, the property must be inspected to ensure that the dwelling complies with the applicable provisions of the Florida Building and Fire Prevention Codes and a new certificate of occupancy will need to be issued if the dwelling were in compliance. Consequently, substantial life safety issues are at issue whenever a permanent residential dwelling is converted to a transient residential dwelling. Again, it is unclear at this time whether the existing resort dwellings, whether licensed by the State or not, have been properly inspected to determine compliance with applicable building and fire codes. Should the City Council decide to grandfather the resort dwellings already licensed by the State, the proposed ordinance will require that the resort dwelling seek, and receive, from the City a new certificate of occupancy under the transient residential use classification set forth in the Florida Building Code. If the resort dwelling can not comply with the building and fire codes within that time period, the resort dwelling will not be grandfathered. I look forward to discussing this matter more fully at the City Council meeting. Sin re y, Antho arganese City Attorney 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 i'or or occupied by three or more ramilies, 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 Bor 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. 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. 110-275. 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, 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, § 637.17; Ord. No. 17-96, § 1, 10-1-96) 0 Page 2 Sec. 110-295. Prohibited uses and structures. In the R-2 medium density residential district, all uses and structures not specifically or provisionally permitted in this division are prohibited. (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. 110-315. 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. e 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 rage 1 of i Bennett Boucher From: Todd Morley [morley-cape@cfl.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 4:24 PM To: 'Bennett Boucher'; 'Anthony Garganese'; 'Bob Hoog'; 'Buzz Petsos'; 'C. Shannon Roberts'; 'Leo Nicholas'; 'Rocky Randels' Cc: dsargeant@ccvfd.org Subject: RE: resort dwelling Hello everyone. The Florida Building Code breaks down residential occupancies into 4 categories (R1. R2, R3 &R4). We have to be careful not to confuse these with our Cit} zoning classifications — a ver-• different issue. R is transient residential (less than 30 days). R2 is permanent residential (more than 30 days) and multi -family R3 is permanent residential (more than 30 days) and one or two-family R4 is residential care/assisted living facilities for not more than 16 occupants. If a property owner wishes to change from one occupancy classification to another. both the Building Code and the City Ordinance (Sec. 1 10-121) require a that person apply for and obtain a permit for a change of occupancy classification. A permit and inspections will be required. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained for the new use. There are occupant load compliance issues. R2 and R3 permit one occupant for every 200 s.f. That means a 3.000 s.ff transient residential unit could have 15 occupants. If a property achieves a Change of Occupancy Classification to RL then the fire code allows one occupant for every 150 s.f. That means a 3,000 s.f. transient residential unit could have 20 occupants. There are 25% more people and they are transient. So this becomes a more intense use as far as life safety. When changing to a new. more "life -safety -intense" occupancy classification (i.e. from R3 to R1), the building code specifies that a number of improvements must be made to protect life safety. Among the requirements the Fire Dept. and Building Dept. are currently reviewing are provisions for a fire protection system. a fire alarm system, separation requirements, egress modifications. plumbing facilities and ADA modifications. There will also be zoning code compliance issues (i.e. parking spaces and sewer impact fees). I'll let you know more tonight. -Todd 3/20/2007 To: City of Cape Canaveral Bennett Boucher, City Manager Susan Stills, City Clerk From: Bea McNeely, Chairperson, Planning & Zoning Board Re: Recommendation to City Council Proposed Ordinance No. 19-2006 Clarifying The Intent Of The R-1, R-2, and R-3 Regulations Residential Zoning Districts At the Planning & Zoning Board meeting, held on September 27, 2006, by a vote of three for and two against, the Board recommended approval of the above referenced proposed ordinance. Please schedule this item for an upcoming City Council meeting. 105 Polk Avenue - Post Office Box 326 • Cape Canaveral, FL 32920-0326 Telephone: (321) 868-1222 - SUNCOM: 982-1222 - FAX: (321) 868-1247 www.myflorida.com/cape - email: cc:apecanaveraWef .mcom PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 Page I of 4 A Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on September 27, 2006, at the City Hall Annex, 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Chairperson Bea McNeely called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The Secretary called the roll. MEMBERS PRESENT Bea McNeely Lamar Russell John Fredrickson Donald Dunn Harry Pearson John Johanson OTHERS PRESENT Duree Alexander Todd Peetz Kate Latorre Bennett Boucher Robert Hoog Buzz Petsos NEW BUSINESS: Chairperson Vice Chairperson 1 st Alternate Acting Secretary City Planner Assistant City Attorney City Manager Mayor Pro Tem Council Member 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes: Se tp ember_ 13, 2006. Motion by Donald Dunn, seconded by Harry Pearson, to approve the meeting minutes of September 13, 2006. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. l�0 it Re: Proposed Ordinance Re 2. Review and Recommendation to City Council Regarding Vacation p g Rentals - Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney. Todd Peetz, City Planner, gave an overview of the agenda item. He explained that the agenda item was discussed several months ago and most of the issues had been resolved at that time. The item was put on hold to see the outcome of the Brevard County lawsuit regarding short term rentals. However, at the last City Council meeting the Council requested staff move forward with the item. /J Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney, explained that this ordinance had been revised based on City Council recommendations to prohibit vacation rentals for less than ninety (90) days in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 residential zoning districts. She stated that the Brevard County lawsuit was in the beginning stages and that no significant ruling had been made which would provide any type of guidance. Consequently the Council requested that staff move forward and prepare the ordinance. Chairperson McNeely asked if the City Council had any specific recommendations. http://www.myflorida.com/cape/Archived%20Minutes/P&Z/2006/09-27-06.htm 4/23/2007 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD Page 2 of 4 Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes September 27, 2006 Page 2 Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney responded that the City Council's specific instructions were to prohibit vacation rentals in all residential zoning districts for single family dwellings or multiple family dwellings with four (4) or less units for periods of less than ninety (90) consecutive calendar days, which would exclude larger condominiums and apartment complexes. She stated that the intent of each zoning district was amended to further explain and promote the City's intent for permanent residency of families in these districts; the ordinance specifically prohibits what staff has defined as "transient commercial use" in these zoning districts and has been added to the definition section of Chapter 110; to avoid conflict, the sentence "dwelling unit rentals of less than seven days are expressly prohibited" has been stricken from the R-1, R-2 and R-3 residential zoning districts. Bea McNealy, Chairperson asked if there was a provision for penalties in the ordinance. Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney responded that there was no provision in this particular ordinance; however, she asked that the Board consider a period of time for existing rentals to come into compliance. There was open discussion by the board members regarding the ninety (90) day time limit recommended in the proposed ordinance; the issues of short term rentals in regards to noise, parking and number of people residing in the units for short periods of time; and the effect on the long term residents. Donald Dunn asked how Brevard County and other municipalities are regulating the amount of time allowed for short term rentals. Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney responded that she believed the County is limiting the short term rentals to sixty (60) or ninety (90) days and that the State pre-empts local regulation to a certain extent. She stated that due to the numerous concerns presented to City Council that the intent of this particular amount of time is to eliminate some of the problems that are associated with the short term rentals as previously discussed. There was open discussion by the board members regarding permitting requirements for existing short term rentals; fire inspections; and owner contact information being posted in the rental units. John Johanson asked if City staff had reviewed other City's ordinances regarding short term rentals. Todd Peetz, City Planner stated staff had reviewed a dozen or more ordinances ranging from three (3) days to thirty (30) days, with some jurisdictions prohibiting short term rentals altogether. http://www.myflorida.com/cape/Archived%20Minutes/P&Z/2006/09-27-06.htm 4/23/2007 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD Page 3 of 4 Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes September 27, 2006 Page 3 Timothy Levensaler, 419 Jackson Avenue, Cape Canaveral, stated he is opposed to the new ordinance. He owns properties that are short term rentals in the City and has obtained all the required licenses to operate his business. The problems that have been addressed by the board, such as noise, number of people and parking; he has addressed with his tenants and surrounding neighbors. He stated that he has posted his personal contact information in all his rental units and resides at one of the short term rental properties. He stated that he felt the only problem may be parking. Burt Patrick, prior City Manager addressed compliance with the current zoning ordinance which allows pre-existing uses to be grandfathered and asked that the board consider grandfathering the existing uses. Todd Peetz, City Planner stated that a time amortization schedule would be created to amortize those uses so that they would not have a grandfathering ability. Bill Correnti, 8774 Live Oak Ct., Cape Canaveral, stated that he is opposed to the new ordinance; he believes that long term residents are more of a problem than the short term renters; and that short term renters are not the same as transient rentals. Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney provided a definition for transient rentals. Annie Tenenbaum, 8194 Lake Drive, Unit 306, Cape Canaveral, stated her concerns regarding not allowing short term rentals. Shannon Roberts, 703 Solana Shores Drive, Unit 505, Cape Canaveral, stated her concerns regarding the short term rentals; the noise factor when short term rentals are introduced into a quiet residential area; difficultly in dealing with weekly renters whose concerns are here only to have fun; consideration of time shares which are different from condominium associations. Motion by Bea McNeely, seconded by Lamar Russell that the board recommend approval of the draft Ordinance to the City Council with the condition that an amortization period be added for existing agreements to expire in one (1) year. Discussion followed regarding regulating noise; number of people; enforcement; type of amortization schedule. Members voted as follows: Donald Dunn, for; John Fredrickson, against; Bea McNeely, for; Harry Pearson, against; and Lamar Russell, for. Motion passed three to two. OPEN DISCUSSION Bea McNeely, Chairperson opened the floor for discussion. http://www.myflorida.com/cape/Archived%20Minutes/P&Z/2006/09-27-06.htm 4/23/2007 ORDINANCE NO. 19-2006 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 "TRANSIENT COMMERCIAL USE;" PROHIBITING TRANSIENT COMMERCIAL USES IN THE R-1, R-2 AND R-3 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS OR MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS WITH FOUR (4) OR LESS UNITS FOR PERIODS OF LESS THAN NINETY (90) CONSECUTIVE CALENDAR DAYS; ESTABLISHING AN AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE FOR TRANSIENT COMMERCIAL USES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS WHICH WERE IN EXISTENCE, LICENSED BY THE STATE AND PAID APPLICABLE STATE TRANSIENT RENTAL TAXES BY DATE CERTAIN AS SET FORTH IN THIS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING FOR EXTENSIONS; MAKING CONFORMING AND MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 110, ZONING; 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 US. 365 (1926); Miller v. Board of Public Works, 234 P. 381 (Cal. 1925); and WHEREAS, limitations on transient commercial uses of residential dwelling units 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 Council has considered and relied upon, in part, studies entitled A Rezoning Study, prepared by Tuttle-Armfield-Wagner dated May 2, 2005 and Brevard County EconomicAnalysis of Residential Rezoning Draft Report, prepared byTindale-Oliver & Associates, City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 19-2006 Page 1 of 8 �� Z' ---2 % — c7 (-, Inc. dated May 2005 for purposes of determining a reasonable time period, formula and procedure for amortizing nonconforming transient commercial uses; 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 strikevnt 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 1. 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: *** Transient commercial use means the rental or use of a residential dwelling unit as a bed and breakfast hostel hotel inn lodge motel resort or other transient lodging uses for compensation money, rent or other bargained for consideration given in return for occupancy. possession or use of the dwelling unit. ARTICLE VII. DISTRICTS DIVISION 2. R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 19-2006 Page 2 of 8 Sec. 110-271. Intent. The requirements for the R- l 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. 110-275. Prohibited uses and structures. (a) The transient commercial use of a single-family dwelling for less than ninety (90) consecutive calendar days is prohibited However, any dwelling being utilized as a transient commercial use which was in existence and licensed by the Division of Hotels and Restaurants of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation on (INSERT DATE) and that has paidapplicable transient rental taxes pursuant to section 212.03. Florida Statutes shall be subject to the amortization provision in section 110-485 of this Code. _ All other 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 homes parks, 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. Sec. 110-295. Prohibited uses and structures. (a) The transient commercial use of a single-family dwelling or a multiple -family dwelling with four (4) units or less for a period of less than ninety (90) consecutive calendar days is prohibited. However, any dwelling being utilized as a transient commercial use City of Cape Canaveral ordinance No. 19-2006 Page 3 of 8 which was in existence and licensed by the Division of Hotels and Restaurants of the Florida D_ apartment of Business and Professional Regulation on (INSERT DATE) and that has paid applicable transient rental taxes pursuant to section 212 03 Florida Statutes, shall be subiect to the amortization provision in section 110-485 of this Code. (bL Dwelling unit rentals of less than seven (7) days shall be prohibited in multi -family structures of five (5) units or more. All other uses and structures not specifically or provisionally permitted in this division are prohibited. 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 coneestion and overpopulation to promote the permanent residency of families and to enhance and maintain the residential character and integnty of the area. Sec. 110-315. Prohibited uses and structures. (aa) The transient commercial use of a single-family dwelling or a multiple -family dwelling with four (4) units or less for aperiod of less than ninety (90) consecuttve calendar days is prohibited. However, any dwellinp-,being utilized as a transient commercial use which was in e ' t nce and licensed by the Division of Hotels and Restaurants of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation on (INSERT DATE) and that has paid hpplicable transient rental taxes pursuant to section 212.03. Florida Statutes. shall be subject to the amortization Qrovision in section 110-485 of this Code. (b) Dwelling unit rentals of less than seven (7) days shall be prohibited in multi -family structures of five (5) units or more. All other uses and structures not specifically or provisionally permitted in this division are prohibited. City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 19-2006 Page 4 of 8 ARTICLE IX. SUPPLEMENTARY DISTRICT REGULATIONS DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Sec. 110-485. Dwellin • transient commercial use,• amortization schedule,• extensions. (a) Any dwelling which is subject to this section shall cease operating as transient commercial uses within one (1) year from (INSERT DATE) and shall thereafter be used in a manner consistent with the zoning district applicable to the property where the dwelling is located. LL Owners of any dwelling which is eligible for amortization under this section shall provide written proof of state license and payment of applicable state transient rental taxes. (c) Extensions. L12 Owners of dwellings subject to this section who cannot reasonably recover their allowable unrecoverable costs within one (1) year after (INSERT DATE) may file a written request for an extension on the Vounds that the one (1) year amortization period is insufficient with respect to an individual transient commercial use Such extension request shall be filed with the City Manager within ninety (90) days from (INSERT DATE) Failure to file a request for an extension within said time period shall bar the filing of an extension. The amortization period is to be determined by (INSERT DECISION MAKING BODY/PERSON) using the following formula: Allowable unrecoverable costs divided by annual transient commercial use income equals the number of amortization years or fraction thereof. fjj The owner of the dwelling_has the burden of proof by preponderance of the evidence to present sufficient documentation evidencing the values for allowable unrecoverable costs and estimated annual income. Allowable unrecoverable costs means those costs that are specifically related to managing a transient commercial use Allowable unrecoverable costs must be costs incurred for the sole use in the transient commercial use. Such costs include but are not limited to: costs associated with state licensure (safety signs. fire extinguishers etc.). kitchenware (silverware pots pans dishes. etc); linens and bedding (tablecloths sheets pillows etc) and furniture (beds. couches. chairs. etc). Such costs must have accrued within five (5) years before the effective date of this ordinance Additionally, such costs must be depreciated 20 percent (20%) per year. City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 19-2006 Page 5 of 8 SS5) Allowable unrecoverable costs does not mean costs that add value to the 1ropertv despite its use Such ineligible costs include but are not limited to: roofing repairs-, landscaping including^paving; pools hot tubs and tacuzzis. room expansions,• remodeling: and air conditioning systems. Annual transient commercial use income means the income received from rents of the transient commercial use minus expenses incurred solely for operation of the transient commercial use Expenses for operating the transient commercial use include but are not limited to: mortgage interest for actual rental periods: commission to a rental agent• utilities ordinary maintenance (not major repair)• and cleaning services Ex2gnses not directly related to the operation of the transient commercial use such as mortgage interest for non -rental periods are not to be included in the calculation of transient commercial use income. ja In determining the amortization Mriod the (INSERT DECISION MAKING BODY/PERSON) shall consider any bona fide contracts entered into before (INSERT DATE) for violation with the Impairment of Contracts Clause, Article I, Section 10 of the Florida Constitution and adjust the amortization period to lawfully address the term of the existing contract. *** Section 3. Conforming Amendments. The following conforming amendments are made to Chapter 110, Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances, City of Cape Canaveral, Florida (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 VII. DISTRICTS DIVISION 2. R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Sec. 110-272. Principal uses and structures. The principal uses and structures in the R-1 low density residential district are as follows: City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 19-2006 Page 6 of 8 Single-family dwellings. In no case shall there be more than one principal structure per lot or parcel. DIVISION. 3. R-2 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 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; DIVISION 4. R-3 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 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 residentialac , . City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 19-2006 Page 7 of 8 Section 4. 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. Section 5. 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 6. 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 7. 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 .2006. ATTEST: ROCKY RANDELS, Mayor For Against Burt Bruns Bob Hoog Leo Nicholas SUSAN STH.LS, City Clerk Rocky Randels Buzz Petsos First Reading: 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. 19-2006 Page 8 of 8 Application for Resort Dwelling Amortization Pursuant to City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance 19-2006 Resort Dwelling Address: Owner Name: Owners Mailing Address: Contact Phone Number: DBPR License #: (attach copy) Sales Tax Certificate #: (attach copy) Are you requesting an impairment of contracts (if yes please attach copies of the contracts) Amortization i Total Allowable Unrecoverable Costs from z As defined in secdon 110485(c)(4), City Code Please state the number of worksheets atta Total Rents Received Annualized ("Rents") As defined in section 110485(c)(8), City Coda Please attached documentsre lied ori' deter e: �; _. How many supporting documents ate attache, 1 ula in years or fraction of years: is ( ) minus Expenses ( )l I hereby certify , ` the information contained in this application is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Date: Signature Printed Name Applicant must prove by preponderance of the evidence. Short -Term Vacation Rentals: Residential or Commercial Use? By Nate Hutcheson: What happens when people live and mericans love to vacation as much as they love their vacation destinations, and demographers have noticed. New migration patterns into some of the fastest growing communities in the country—resort towns—suggest that many people are relocating to the places char were once just summer or weekend getaways. According to Peter Wolf, author of Hot Towns, "A new species of American is on the move: not, as in the past, the needy, but the comfortable, well-educated, and well- trained; not the job seekers and risk takers, but those with leisure, choices, and the wherewithal to seek out the best." By Wolf's estimates, this migration includes anywhere from 700,000 to 1.6 million people per year. The strong 1990s economy brought a wave of second -home purchases as investments and family retreats. Resort areas —coastal, mountain, and lakeside—have what these trendsetters want: natural beauty, fresh air, and recreation. Communities with such amenities are prime candidates for conflicts in land -use planning. What happens when people live and vacation in the same town, where vacation homes and permanent homes are often side by side? Regulations that govern short-term rentals in residential districts are getting more attention as planners and residents notice that these vacation homes can have a much greater impact on the community than chose that house year- round residents. Angry neighbors say short-term rentals look like single-family homes but function more like commercial uses. The crux of the matter for planners is finding a balance between the interests of year-round, seasonal, and vacationing people while considering the effects on property rights, economic vitality, and the sanctity of residential neighborhoods. this issue of Zoning News. The dynamics vary from one town to the next, but the issue seems to grow more contentious as more vacationers and year- round residents live next to one another. A survey of almost 40 tourist -oriented communities was taken for this issue of Zoning News in order to shed light on this increasingly vexing land -use phenomenon. Relevance and Research Background In 2001, APA's Planning Advisory Service recorded an increase in the number of inquiries about planning for and regulating short-term rental properties in residential areas—particularly single-family districts. The survey revealed that a significant percentage experienced an increase in conflicts between these and adjacent land uses. While some have recently draped ordinances to address the short-term rental problem, others are still in the process of doing so or have expressed the need for change, and because resort communities have different attitudes toward tourism, each approaches the issue in a different way. Impacts The impact of a short-term vacationer compared with year-round residents can be significant. Seasonal populations live and work in the community, and thus become somewhat integrated. Naturally, they increase demands on infrastructure and services. Impacts associated with short-term vacationers, however, are more nuisance related, often generating noise and light pollution. Generally, the shorter the stay, the less inclined one might be to respect neighbor diplomacy. Late-night music and merrymaking, floodlights, garbage taken out to the street on off days, dogs at large, illegal parking, and negligent property maintenance are ,arden-variety complaints often cited by annoyed neighbors. leighbors, planners, and property owners point to the :orrelation between such problems and length of stay for the ental property. In other words: the shorter the stay, the higher he impact. The stereotypical "weekend warrior"—trying to pack .he most fun into the least amount of time—will invariably venerate more trips to the store or beach, keep later hours, and :reate a greater disruption with light and noise. Still, for some :ommunities, the concern is not so much the negative impacts as he lack of community involvement typical of transients. Affordable Housing A more insidious problem with short-term rentals is their impact on housing costs. When property owners decide to increase their "rent strcarri' with short-term rental agreements rather than renting by the season or year, they essentially "squeeze" the Politics Planners admit to a dilemma: Many property owners rely on the rent streams and spending dollars generated by vacationers, but locals want to preserve their neighborhood's residential character. Furthermore, business owners would prefer to see an expansion of the local vacation lodging market. When property owners are unwilling to forfeit certain rights, leaving them at odds with neighbors who want the relative quietude expected in a single-family neighborhood, what should be done? Indeed, people "vote with their feet" when choosing vacation destinations or a permanent home, so politicians try to appease the greatest number of constituents. Invariably, residents will threaten to abandon a once -beloved community or resort locale if renting a house on the beach or settling into a neighborhood means an endless stream of nuisances from disruptive vacationers. supply of housing, pushing up the demand and, subsequently, the cost. Ty Simrosky, planning director for Key West, Florida, says, "Its another means of financing the acquisition of local housing by non -local people and it fuels speculation in a rising housing market." Simrosky explains that by allowing short-term rentals, investors can cover the carrying costs of a house for a year or two while the property appreciates in value and then sell it for a healthy profit. Simrosky also says that while long-term homebuyers are strongly opposed to short-term rentals in a prospective neighborhood, investment buyers are less inclined to care if a neighboring property is a short-term rental. This can create a snowball effect that eventually replaces year-round neighborhood residents with vacationers. Communities most affected by a housing shortage are those With businesses that rely on lower -paying service and tourism jobs. High housing costs have pushed many workers out of the community, even beyond commuting distance. Simrosky also speculates that there are workers being bused in from the Florida mainland to sleep in bunk -house conditions just to work for three- or four-day periods in Key West. (Above, left) Short-term rentals in Ship Bottom, Atew jersey. Paved yards and excessive members of vehicles at short-term rental houses are a common complaint of neighbors. Believe it or not, these are the fronts of the houses. (Above, right) Most short-term renters are unaware ofgarbage collection schedules. (Left) Boat and recreation vehicle parking is an unpleasant sight for neighbors in this Monroe Count}; Florida, neighborhood. Residents of Monroe County, Florida, put the issue on a ballot, narrowly deciding -51 to 49 percent—against allowing short- term rentals in improved subdivisions (single-family districts). Subdivisions retained the right to vote on the issue separately. Health, Safety, and General Welfare Historically, property owners in resort communities could rent a home, regardless of the duration of the stay, by claiming that the house was not used "primarily for commercial purposes." What this really meant was that the structure could not be used for such purposes for more than 50 percent of the year. However, planners claim that approach is difficult to monitor and easy to abuse. Most feel zoning codes and a licensing system offer a better solution despite the time and expense required for administering and enforcing new regulations. Most of the surveyed communities deal with short-term rentals through the zoning code. Imperial Beach, California, justifies its interim short-term rental ordinance with a purpose and intent that states "there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare of its citizens by owners or their agents renting or selling units for periods of thirty made to achieve accuracy and thoroughness, but variations in ordinance language, format, and local practice made This matrix is not exhaustive. Every reasonable attempt was a %ompinc" matrix impossible. Thus, it is meant only as a quick reference guide for readers of this article. The short-term rental survey evolved as i[ was being conduced, so not all questions were asked uniformly or of every survey participant. I. This indicates any section of the code that is dedicated to short-term rentals, such as interim ordinances or amendments. 2. Language varies from code to code in terms of how they specify a time period. Where a month or four weeks was used as the length of the term, 30 days is the default response. 3. Community preferred not be mentioned by name. 4. Decision made by subdivision bylaws. 5. Sr Rs not permitted by right in any of the zones. 6. In most restrictive districts, they are pemirted to rcpt three times or fnver per year far a total of 30 dais or less. 91 Permitted Regulate Short -Term Specific Ordinance Number of Consecutive Number of Times Zone license Required Year Adopted Legal Challenges Community Rentals Provisions' Term Used Days' Per Year By Aspen, CONo . . . . . . . . . . . ,... , NO . Yes . . . . .No. . . . . . . . . . . . Boone, N( No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Burlington, VT . . No Cope Cad, MA No Yes Transient 30 Prohibited 1975 Cormel•by-the-Seo, CA Yes Commercial Use . Cocoa Beach, .FL Yes Yes Transient lodging. . . . 3. . . . 3 . Yes . . . . 2000 Colchester, VT Ito . . . .per/PUDt . Eagle (aunty, CO Yes Yes Short-term Rental 30 Prohibited .Yes . . Yes 2001 Yes Imperial Beach, (A Yes Yes Vacation Rental . . . Yes Islamorodo, FL Key West, Fl Yes Yes Yes Transient Lodging . 0 . .Yes Yes 1998 In draft' Yes Kiawah Island, S( Drafling Shad -term Rental 30 Maggie Valley, N( No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manchester, VT No Yes Yes Vacation Rental 30 Yes Yes 2000 Marathon, FL Melbourne Beach, (A YesNo Resort Dwelling 30 . . Yes Yes 1987 Mendocino County, CA Yes No Transient Habitation 30 30 Yes Yes Yes/Upheld Monroe County, FL Yes Yes No Shod -term Prohibited Monterey, (A Yes Residential Rental 30 Muskegon, Ml Yes No ........7. 30 Yes Yes No Yes Myrtle Beach, SC Yes Yes Accommodation Tnsien . . . . . . ............ Yes Nonlu&el, MA No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ocean City, MD NoRental Yes Yes 30 . . . 3 Yes Yes 1999 Pasco County, FL Yes Yes Seasonaall Renlnl seasonal 4 months Prohibited Yes Sara, ME Daily Rental 1 . . . . . . . 1998 San Juan County, VIA Yes Yes Accommodation/ 30 Residence/Guesthouse Yes Yes 2001 Sanibel, FL y� Yes Resod Housing 30 . . . 1984 Santa Cruz, CA No/Transit Occupancy Tax . . short-term Rental Saugatuck, MINo South Haven, MI Yes Yes Shod -term 2 Yes No . Dwelling Unit . . . . . . _ Stowe, VT NO. _ Sturgeon Bay, WI Ho/Tronsit Sullivan's Island, S( Occupancy Tax Yes Yes Vacation Rental 30 . yes Yes Telluride, CO Yes Shod -term Dwelling Unit . 1992 Xr . . . . . . . . . . . Traverse City, MI to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i Vail, (0 No Yes Transient Renlnl 30 Allowed in Yes 1992 _ _ Yachats, OR Yes all Zones made to achieve accuracy and thoroughness, but variations in ordinance language, format, and local practice made This matrix is not exhaustive. Every reasonable attempt was a %ompinc" matrix impossible. Thus, it is meant only as a quick reference guide for readers of this article. The short-term rental survey evolved as i[ was being conduced, so not all questions were asked uniformly or of every survey participant. I. This indicates any section of the code that is dedicated to short-term rentals, such as interim ordinances or amendments. 2. Language varies from code to code in terms of how they specify a time period. Where a month or four weeks was used as the length of the term, 30 days is the default response. 3. Community preferred not be mentioned by name. 4. Decision made by subdivision bylaws. 5. Sr Rs not permitted by right in any of the zones. 6. In most restrictive districts, they are pemirted to rcpt three times or fnver per year far a total of 30 dais or less. 91 consecutive calendar days or less ... and that such rentals in the residential zones of the city... may create adverse impacts." Commonly cited reasons for drafting an ordinance or provision for short-term rentals include protecting residential character, maintaining housing affordability, managing infrastructure and service requirements, and complying with hurricane evacuation capacity. Zoning ordinances, business permits, and transient occupancy taxes are ways of managing this quasi -commercial use. Definitions are often at the root of governing short-term rentals. Unfortunately, many zoning codes have a discrepancy between defined terms and the provisions that use them. Terms are sometimes defined at the beginning of the ordinance but then never used in the provisions. Conversely, provisions may contain undefined terms, rendering the code too ambiguous. For example, some towns prohibit "transient rentals" in certain districts without about what actually is a short-term rental. Length of stay (where not determined by a definition of transient) is an important factor in defining short-term rentals. There is a wide range of occupancy tenure in a short-term rental ordinance. Communities specify the maximum length of stay in days, weeks, or months. Some simply distinguish the use by type of occupant, usually transient or tourist, in which case the terms should be clarified in the definitions section. Measures of occupants' permanency can include everything from specifying the length of stay to whether the residence is the legal address of its occupants. At this fundamental level, communities can best begin to guide local land -use practices. Here, parameters are set largely according to the nature of a community's tourist population, the importance of tourism on the local economy, and community goals. (Above, left) Short -tern: rental property prominently displayed on a corner lot in Lewes, Delaware. The impact: Vehicles of vacationers spilling over frorn the driveway onto the street, The problem: This type of impact occurring for weeks or months on end. (Above, right) Apparently, more pavement, less yard means more parking and las yard maintenance for this short -tern rental property in Monroe County, Florida. (Right) Driveway signs for a Kiawah Island, South Carolina, short -tern: rental welcome the nest round of families sharing a house. defining the term "transient." Distinctions can be easily made between the various types of lodging and rental property, and only those uses that are specifically listed as permitted or conditional should locate to designated districts. However, where single-family residences are a permitted use, and the length of tenure is unspecified, nothing in the ordinance can stop property owners from renting the house on a short-term basis. For communities grappling with such disputes, clear definitions are essential. Other terms for short-term rentals include transient commercial use, vacation rental home, vacation property, transient lodging, resort dwelling, and resort housing. Because transient also is used in the definition of other terms, it too should be defined in context to alleviate confusion and ambiguity. These terms are defined using various criteria, such as structure type, length of stay, measures of occupants' perma- nency, number of occupants, and the type of occupants (family members or unrelated people). The type of structure (single or multifamily) often is not specified in the ordinance, allowing room for interpretation Regulating the number of occupants also can mitigate the impacts of rental properties. Some communities specify total number of occupants by persons per bedroom, family members, or non -related persons, not withstanding local fire codes. Islamorada, Florida, limits occupancy to two people per bedroom plus two additional persons. Other communities simply limit occupancy to single family, as defined in their ordinance (see "Definitions and Distinctions" for examples and commentary on relevant terms). Defining family also can complicate the matter. Restricting the use of single-family homes to families can be a difficult way to regulate short-term rentals, mainly because the term family i; open to a wide range of literal and legal interpretations. Even st "traditional" families are not devoid of impact risks, including noisy infants or rowdy teenagers. The ever-changing family paradigm does not make it the best measure by which to regulate short-term rentals. Once Defined, Where Are Short-term Rentals Allowed? Tolerance levels about the impacts of short-term rentals will vary mmnnv communities. Communities with an intense interest in DEFINITIONS AND DISTINCTIONS n BED AND BREABTAST Commentary: Bed and breakfasts are similar in appearance and location to many short-term rentals in residential areas. However, the primary distinction is the mitigating presence of the owner/ operator. Definitions: Generally small, owner -op- erated businesses providing the primary financial support of the owner. Usually the owner lives on premises. The building's primary usage is for business. Inns advertise, appropriate taxes, and post signs. Breakfast is the only meal served and only to overnight guests. The inn may host events such as weddings, small business meetings, etc. Room num- bers range from four to 20 with a small, . but increasing number up to 30. Reser- vations my be made directly with the property. (Professional Association of a Innkeepers international Bed and breakfast means the use of an owner -occupied or manageroccupied residential structure providing no more than four rooms for temporary lodging for transient guests on a paying basis. A "Bed and Breakfast Inn" may Include meal service for guests. (Blue Springs, MO.) ers. The definition of family or single- family house is not the most widely used or recommended tool for short-term rental regulation. ])efnitions: One or more persons Occupy' Ing a single dwelling unit, as a single . housekeeping unit, provided that unless all members are related by blood, mar riage, or adoption, no such family shall contain over six persons, Including any roomers, boarders and/or domestic ser vents. A home for independent living with support personnel that provides room and board, personal care and habilitation ser- vices ervices in a family environment as a single - housekeeping unit for not more than six resident elderly or disabled persons (men- tally and/or physically impaired) with at least one, but not more than two resident staff persons shall be considered a fam- ily. (Tulsa, Okla.) One or more persons, related by blood, marriage, or adoption, occupying a living unit as an individual housekeep- ing organization. A family may include two, but not more than two, persons not related by blood, marriage, or adoption. (Iowa City, Iowa) One or two persons or parents, with their direct lineal descendants and n BOARDING HovsE adopted or legally cared for children (and Commentary: A boarding/rooming/lodg- including the domestic employees thereof) Ing house differs from the short term together with not more than two persons rental house because it has multiple rooms not so related, living together in the whole or units for rent and occupants share com- or part of a dwelling comprising a single mon kitchen or dining facilities. Occupants housekeeping unit. Every additional of a boarding house also tend to be less group of four or fewer persons living in transient (the definition of which depends such housekeeping unit shall be cousid- on community standards). ered a separate family for the purpose Definitions_ A single-family dwelling of this code. (St. Paul, Minn.) where more than two, but fewer than six Two or more persons related to each rooms are provided for lodging for defi- other by blood, marriage, or legal adop- nite periods of times. Meals may or may tion living together as a single house - not be provided, but there is one common keeping unit; or a group of not more kitchen facility. No meals are provided to than three persons who need not be re - outside guests. (Champaign, 111, which lated by blood, marriage, or legal adop- I uses the term "boa.rding1roominghouse") tion, living together as a single house - An establishment with lodging for keeping unit and occupying a single five or more persons where meals are dwelling unit. (Lake County, Ill.) regularly prepared and served for com- One or more persons occupying a pensation and where food is placed upon premises) and living as a single house - the table family style, without service keeping unit as distinguished from a or ordering of individual portions from group occupying a boardinghouse, lodg- a menu. (Venice, Fla.) ing house, or hotel as herein defined. (Scottsdale, Ariz.) n FAMILY Commentary: Restricting the use of single-family homes to families can be a problematic way to regulate short-term rentals, mainly because the term fam- ily is open to a wide range of literal and legal interpretations. Even so, a "tradi- tional" family is not without impacts, such as vocal infants or rowdy teenag- pgfknition: Guest house (accessory dwelling unit) means a detached or at- tached accessory structure secondary to the principal single-family residen- tial unit designed and most commonly used for irregular residential occu- pancy by family members, guests, and persons providing health care or prop- erty maintenance for the owner. (San Juan County, Wash.) n GUEST HOUSE oR GUEST CoTTAGE cbmmentarv: Guest cottages can present a loophole for short-term rentals in single-family residential districts unless certain specifications are made—namely that usage is only allowed for non-pay- ing guests. n HOTEL OR MOTEL ('ommentarv: Hotels/Motels typically have separate entrances and an on-site management office. Pe f n'tions: A building in which lodging is provided and offered to the public for compensation, and which is open to tran- sient guests and Is not a rooming or boarding house as herein defined. (Boone County, Mo.) A building or group of buildings in which lodging is provided to transient guests, offered to the public for compen- sation, and in which access to and from each room or unit is through an exte- rior door. (Cecil County, Md.) n TRANSIENT j l`ommentarv: "Transient" can be used to describe a person or a land use. Am- biguous or subjective words—"short," "long," "seasonal," "temporary"—should be either avoided altogether or clarified with precise units of time—number of hours, days, weeks, or months. When a community defines a transient as a per- son living in a dwelling unit for "a short time only," the term "short" could be interpreted in a variety of ways. To al- leviate further confusion, the nature of a person's stay may be clarified, as is done in the definition below from Stur- geon Bay, Wisconsin. Def ni ions: A person who travels from place to place away from his or her per- manent ermanent address for vacation, pleasure, recreation, culture, or business. (Stur- geon Bay, Wis.) Any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, li- cense or other agreement for a period of 30 consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days. Any such person so occupy - Ing space in a visitor accommodation fa- cility shall be deemed to be a transient until the period of 30 days has expired unless there is an agreement, in writ - Ing, between the operator and the oocu- pant providing for a longer period of oc- cupancy. (Monterey, Calif-) promoting tourism may be more permissive, allowing them in restricted districts, while others will diligently protect residential districts. In the most restrictive communities, short-term rentals may be prohibited outright in residential districts. Monroe County, Florida, prohibits them unless a majority of homeowners vote them into a subdivision. Communities may permit short-term rentals as a conditional use or allow them only when rented fewer than four times each year. Conditional Uses and Licensing Whether short-term rentals are allowed by right or as a conditional use, additional requirements to benefit both the occupants and neighbors are recommended. For example, operating a short-term rental may require physical inspection to determine the safety of the structure from hazards such as fire and over occupancy. Other requirements might include posting a "notice to occupant" reminding visitors of mandatory evacuation in case of a hurricane (in prone areas) or a "code of conduct" for the neighborhood, which might list regulations for occupancy, parking, boat dockage, fines, or helpful information such as garbage and recycling pick-up. Both should be printed in a large font and prominently displayed. Regulating by Ratio Mendocino County, California, settled on an acceptable ratio of short-term rental properties to year-round residents: Locals deemed 13 year-round resident houses to one short-term rental house tolerable. The community requires operating permits for short-term rental properties. An additional vacation rental permit is issued for every 13 new residential units. The number of permits is finite but siting is still flexible. To maintain an orderly and fair distribution of permits, the county does not allow them to be sold or transferred. The county considers short-term rentals a commercial use, allowing additional short-term rentals as part of a 50/50 mix of commercial and long-term residential dwelling units in mixed-use districts. To avoid a takings challenge, communities that have recently enacted more restrictive codes also have included an amortization schedule that phases out short-term rental properties. Islamorada allows two years for amortization and Imperial Beach is proposing five-year amortization. Sullivan's Island, South Carolina, requires proof of use as a short-term rental during the previous 12 -month period to reduce the number of rental properties. Those that lapse are not eligible for future licensing. Enforcement Detection of problem rentals can occur either from complaining neighbors or a dedicated municipal enforcement staff. Penalty fines range from $100 a day in Saco, Maine, to $500 for each day of violation in Kiawah Island, South Carolina. Other penalties include denied permit renewals, permit revocation, or misdemeanor citations. Fines are a comparatively small expense for property owners whose short-term rentals generate healthy returns, so some owners virtually ignore the restrictions, says Monroe County planner Marlene Conway. Saco requires property owners to renew permits annually. A history of complaints is kept on file and those with more than two recorded complaints will not be issued a permit for the coming year. Administering a short-term rental ordinance burdens both the budget and staff. Issuing permits and code enforcement takes time and money. Permit or licensing fees and taxes on short-term lodging can offset these expenses. Fees vary from a fixed amount to a sliding scale based on the percent of income generated per calendar year—both of which usually amount to $100 to $200. In states that grant local governments the authority to tae this type of land use, the taxes for the lodging fee can range from four percent on the low end to seven percent in Deschutes County, Oregon. Santa Cruz, California, taxes 10 percent. Legal Challenges Legal challenges will invariably arise in neighborhoods where homeowners enjoying the comforts of a quiet back yard are suddenly interrupted by noise or light from an adjacent short- term rental property. Places with restrictions on short-term rentals such as Key West and Imperial Beach have faced legal challenges, which may include vesting, consistency with the comprehensive plan, definition of Family, and allowable time for amortization. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that the longer an ordinance has been in place, the more accepted it is. Most of the planners interviewed for this article were confident in the defensibility of their short-term rental ordinances. Mitigation and Amortization Some of the mitigation tools used to offset the impacts of short- term rentals include having a 24-hour contact person or management service, vehicle registration, and short-term rental medallions—a sign or badge on the front of the home identifying the residence as a vacation property, the name of the management company, and a contact person. The use of medallions is widely criticized because critics say they invite thieves and vandals. Such mitigation measures are typically paid for and provided by the property owner as a condition of receiving an operating permit. Other measures, such as increasing code enforcement staff—as is done in Key West—or bolstering visitor awareness through signage to politely inform them of the neighborhood's quiet residential character may be paid for with tax revenue generated from short-term rental properties. Conclusion Technology, telecommuting, and lifestyle priorities will continue to fuel the infiltration of newcomers into resort communities with long-established residents. For these and other reasons, the populations of traditional get -away destinations will surge and change, bringing with them increased pressure to adapt to new people and new land -use challenges. Deciding whether shorr- term rentals are commercial or residential land uses is an important first step in addressing the issue. Perhaps the zoning code is the best defense in preserving the tranquility that made such places attractive in the first place. Selected ordinances from the short-term rentals survey are available to Zoning News subscribers. Please contact Michael Davidson, Co-editor, Zoning News, American Planning Association, 122 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60603, or e-mail mdavidson@planning.org. Zoning Nems is a monthly newsletter published by the American Planning Association. Subscriptions are available for $60 (U.S.) and $82 (foreign). W. Paul Farmer• mU. Executive Director. V illiam R. Klein, mcp, Director of Research. Zoning Nrua is produced at APA. Jim Schwab, Ater• and Michael Davidson. Editors; Barry B AKR Heather Campbell, Fay Dolnick. Nam Hutcheson, San)av leer. ACCP, Megan Lewis, Ata Mary. Morris, ACCP, Reporters; Sherrie Muthcws, Assistant Editor. Lisa Barton, Design and Production. Copyright 02002 by American Planning Association, 122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60603. The American planning Association also has offices at 1?i6 Massachuse Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20036: www.planning.org All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form at any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, rccording, or by any infortna storage and rctricv i system, without permission in writing from the Amcrican Planning Association. Printed on recycled paper, including 50•i096 recycled fiber and 1096 poscconsumer waste.