Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacket 03-02-2004City of Cape Canaveral CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL ANNEX I Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida TUESDAY March 2, 2004 7:00 PM AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: PRESENTATIONS: Student Art Show Awards. CONSENT AGENDA: City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of February 17, 2004. ORDINANCES: Second Public Hearina: 2. Motion to Adopt: Ordinance No. 01-2004; Amending Chapter 82, Buildings and Building Regulations, Relating to the Permitting, Installation and Location of Temporary Storage Units, at second reading. 3. Motion to Adopt: Ordinance No. 02-2004; Amending Chapter 110 Relating to the Sale of "Fireworks", Providing for a Definition of "Fireworks"; Providing for the Fireworks Sales as Permitted Use within the Light Industrial (M-1) Zoning District, at second reading. 105 Polk Avenue - Post Office Box 326 - Cape Canaveral, FL 32920-0326 Telephone: (321) 868-1220 - SUNCOM: 982-1220 - FAX: (321) 868-1248 www.myflorida.com/cape - e-mail: ccapecanaveral@cfl.rr.com City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting March 2, 2004 Page 2 of 2 ORDINANCES: First Public Hearing: 4. Motion to Approve: Ordinance No. 03-2004; Amending Chapter 94, Signs of the Code of Ordinances, at first reading. 5. Motion to Approve: Ordinance No. 04-2004; Amending Chapter 10, Providing for a Definition of and Prohibiting the Commercial Use of Slot Machines or Devices, at first reading. DISCUSSION: 6. Florida Power and Light Utility Pole Relocation Request. 7. Mixed Use, Commercial/ Residential Concept, Martin Greene. 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 Clerk's office (868-1221) 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Memo TO: BENNETT C. BOUCHER, CITY MANAGER From: BUSINESS & CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BOAR Daft 2/23/2004 Ree PRESENTATION OF FRAMED ARTWORK TO WINNERS OF CAPE CANAVERAL'S 5T" ANNUAL STUDENT ART SHOW HELD FEBRUARY 7, 2004 We are requesting that the winner of the art poster contest, the four (4) Best of Show and the Sponsor's Choice be placed on the March 2"d City Council agenda. The winners are as follows: Art Poster Contest Winner - Sponsor's Choice - Best of Show (Capeview) - Best of Show (Cocoa Beach Jr/Sr High) Best of Show (Rockledge High School) Best of Show (Merritt Island High School) Thank you for your consideration. /kmm 1 James Joiner, 12"' Grade, Rockledge High School Douglas Brannon, Kindergarten, Capeview Elementary Kayla Dobie, 5°1 Grade Magdalena Leibrandt, 11"' Grade Marissa Kaczmarek, 12°' Grade Alycia Pollock, 11 m Grade CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL ANNEX 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida T Ell SDAY February 17, 2004 7:00 PM MINUTES CALL TO ORDER: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALF.: Council Members Present: Mayor Pro Tem Bob Hoog Council Member Steve Miller Council Member Jim Morgan Mayor Rocky Randels Council Member Richard Treverton Others Present: City Manager Bennett Boucher City Attorney Anthony Garganese City Clerk Susan Stills City Treasurer Andrea Bowers Recreation Director Nancy Hanson Public Works Director Ed Gardulski Building Official Todd Morley Interim Commander Gary Young PRgSENTATION• Virginia Haas, Administrative Assistant, CMC Commendation for Receiving International Municipal Clerk Certification Mayor Randels presented Ms. Haas with her Certificate. He noted that Ms. Haas has been influential in the City's technology advancement and he acknowledged how she developed a Welcome Information Packet for new City residents. Ms. Stills also commended Ms. Haas on her achievement and thanked her for applying her education to her job. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting February 17, 2004 Page 2 of 10 CONSENT AGENDA: 1. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of February 3, 2004. 2. Agreement with Brevard County for Lifeguard Services. Mayor Randels asked if any Council Member, staff or interested party desired to remove an item from the Consent Agenda for discussion. No request was made to remove an item for discussion. Ms. Hanson noted that the Lifeguard Contract terminates prior to the beginning of the school year. Mayor Randels clarified that the school year begins on August 10h and the contract ends on August 1St. Mr. Boucher inquired if action was taken and stated that the contract date is subject to change. Mayor Randels concluded that the weekend service begins on April 3rd and ends on September 6th and the daily service begins on May 21St and continues through August 1St. Mayor Randels expressed the Council's desire to see lifeguard service on the nine days prior to the school opening. A motion was made by Mr. Morgan and seconded by Mr. Miller to approve Consent Agenda Items No. 1 and 2. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Miller, For; Mr. Morgan, For; Mayor Randels, For and Mr. Treverton, For. CONSIDERATIONS: 3. Motion to Approve: Quarterly Budget Report and Transfers for the Period Ending December 31, 2003. Mayor Randels explained the rationale for budget transfers as the intent to adjust each account with significant changes subsequent to the Budget adoption. Ms. Bowers explained that expansion funds are incoming and reflected by certificates of occupancy. Mayor Randels stated that the City also received a private donation of $70,000 from a private entity. Ms. Bowers reported on a smooth transition with the Stormwater billing and the City of Cocoa expressed that they received no calls as a result of the stormwater utility citizen education efforts. A motion was made by Mr. Morgan and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Hoog to Approve the Quarterly Budget Report and Transfers for the Period Ending December 31, 2003. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Miller, For; Mr. Morgan, For; Mayor Randels, For and Mr. Treverton, For. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting February 17, 2004 Page 3 of 10 4. Motion to Approve: Contract with the Florida Department of Corrections for an Inmate Work Squad. Mayor Randels stated the cost as $47,177 to use a correctional work squad on a full-time basis with the cost attributed to the correctional officer's salary and a vehicle for transportation. Mr. Ed Gardulski, Public Works Director, stated that the squads are in - demand that makes as -needed availability and he commented on the essential role the inmates take in cleaning the City. Mayor Randels stated that their food, drink and uniforms are provided through the County. Mr. Gardulski replied to Mr. Treverton that the squad is given a task list and a City employee may be available periodically to answer any citizen concerns. Mayor Randels replied to Mr. Morgan that these are minimum risk inmates performing the work. Ms. Judy Hale expressed thanks for the inmates work in keeping the City clean. No formal motion was made on the item. A roll call vote to Approve the Contract with the Florida Department of Corrections for an Inmate Work Squad carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Miller, For; Mr. Morgan, For; Mayor Randels, For and Mr. Treverton, For. 5. Motion to Approve: Renewal of the Landscaping Agreement with Nick's Landscaping. Mayor Randels reviewed the scope of services and noted the inclusion of Thurm Blvd. and the palm trees at the ball field and Manatee Sanctuary Park. Mr. Gardulski stated that Nick has retained the rates of the original contract. He also noted that the City would bid the service in the upcoming year. Mayor Randels suggested including the maintenance of the North Atlantic sign and the North State Road A1A sign. Mr. Morgan also suggested including the new stormwater park. A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Hoog and seconded by Mr. Miller to Approve the Renewal of the Landscaping Agreement with Nick's Landscaping in the Amount of $104, 215.44. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Miller, For; Mr. Morgan, For; Mayor Randels, For and Mr. Treverton, For. 6. Motion to Approve: Interlocal Agreement with the City of Cocoa for Utility Billing Services. Mayor Randels explained that this is an update to the 1995 Water and Sewer billing service Interlocal Agreement with the City of Cocoa. Mayor Randels stated that the City contracted with the City of Cocoa to consolidate the sewer rate billing on the water bill. At this time the City of Cocoa requests an increase of a flat rate of $0.85 per and $0.35 per service for the billing service. Mr. Treverton expressed that the City Manager's recommendation to continue the billing service through the City of Cocoa has proven to be City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting February 17, 2004 Page 4 of 10 a good decision. Ms. Bowers pointed out that the City of Cocoa handles all administration and regulatory services. Mr. Nicholas asked if the Stormwater fee is an additional fee. Ms. Bowers replied that the cost is $0.85 for Sewer and all other services are $0.35 more per service. Mr. Boucher explained that during Garbage Contract negotiations this cost could be absorbed by the garbage company. Mayor Randels concluded that the total fee is $1.90. A motion was made by Mr. Morgan and seconded Mr. Treverton to Approve the Interlocal Agreement with the City of Cocoa for Utility Billing Services. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Miller, For; Mr. Morgan, For; Mayor Randels, For and Mr. Treverton, For. 7. Motion to Approve: Amendment to the Police Service Contract. Mr. Boucher reported a change in the previous request from nine to eleven laptop computers at a cost change from $21,681.00 to $26,785.00. Interim Commander Gary Young replied that two of the computers included in the count were on loan from the Computer Services Division. Commander Young stated that he also provided a change order from Dell to Gateways products in that the Gateways' have dual ports to facilitate quick downloads and uploads. He explained that the Gateway laptops also interface with Global Positioning System [GPS] technology. This assists in deploying officers to a crime scene. Mayor Randels asked why Windows 2000 was chosen as the operating system. Commander Young explained that Windows 2000 worked most effectively with the other law enforcement software programs. Mr. Morgan asked what is being done with the old equipment. Mr. Boucher replied that these laptops might have limited use due to the processing speed. Mr. Treverton asked why this purchase was not included during the budget cycle. Commander Young replied that the intention was to use funds remaining in the budget; however, it was the City's decision to use those funds for other purposes. Mr. Michael Zucco asked if there were any value in using NEXTEL phone services since their product features some GPS functionality. Commander Young replied that the NEXTEL does not interface well with existing public safety products. A motion was made by Mr. Morgan and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Hoog to Approve the Amendment to the Police Service Contract in the Amount of $26,785.00. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Miller, For; Mr. Morgan, For; Mayor Randels, For and Mr. Treverton, For. 8. Motion to Approve: Code Enforcement Lien Settlement Agreement. Mr. Todd Morley, Building Official, stated this was a request from Mr. Patel. The Code Enforcement Board called for lot paving prior to releasing the lien. The City concurrently desired to acquire an easement to beautify the sign area in front of Mr. Patel's business. Ms. Alexander inspected the parking lot and found it near compliance. Mr. Patel submitted a quote for $6,000 to have the paving work done. Mayor Randels expressed concern with City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting February 17, 2004 Page 5 of 10 the time taken so far for Mr. Patel to come into compliance. Mr. Patel purchased the property in 2001 and he made some repairs in that he did not need a permit to do so. In 2002 an inspection found him in noncompliance. He made further repairs but did not call the Building Department for a subsequent inspection and the Code Board imposed a lien. Mayor Randels recounted that Mr. Patel was first cited and received an order to comply with the City Code by October 21, 2001 and obtain a permit to pave the parking lot. The City filed a lien. However, Mr. Patel replied in July that he did not need a permit and stated that he was in compliance. On August 5, 2003 Mr. Patel requested a hearing before the Code Enforcement Board and was heard on August 21, 2003. Mayor Randels related that Mr. Patel made a request for reconsideration of the imposed fine; however, nothing was ever done with the parking lot. Mr. Patel asked if the parking lot needed to be done before the landscaping effort. Mayor Randels replied that Mr. Patel was asking the City to forego a lien of about $20,000. Mayor Randels stated for clarification that the City would move Mr. Patel's ground sign, pay a cost of up to $3,000 for the ground sign relocation and also release the lien without any reciprocal effort on Mr. Patel's part. Mr. Treverton asked the City Attorney for clarification on the Mayor's concern with Mr. Patel not completing the final action and inquired as to the City remedies. Attorney Garganese replied that Mr. Patel received a quote for repaving and due to beautification efforts from the City, the City would move his sign and Mr. Patel would come into compliance by paving his parking lot. Mr. Morgan reminded that the release of lien was contingent upon Mr. Patel's action of paving the parking lot. Attorney Garganese clarified that the satisfaction would not be recorded until Mr. Patel paves the parking lot. Attorney Garganese pointed out that the Release of Lien application process was the result of an ordinance that allows the Council to set the conditional agreement for said release. This could be clarified with language in paragraph 4.2 in that the Satisfaction and Release of Lien would only occur upon paving of the parking lot. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog asked if Mr. Patel would continue with the south half and six months later north half of the building? Mr. Morley said that the Council decided on the lot coverage size at a previous meeting. Mr. Morley stated that the plan was to gain the easements, then Mr. Patel would pave the parking lot and the City would release the lien. Mayor Randels read a letter dated August 21, 2003 in which the Board recommended to the Council that at the completion of the parking lot that the City would release the lien. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog requested clarification on what portion of the lot would be paved. Mr. Boucher stated that if the southern half was the only half in violation, then that was the portion to be paved. The northern half might be another issue. Mr. Boucher explained that the Code Enforcement Board's recommendation to the Council was based on what needed to be done. Mayor Randels recommended a motion to table the item until adequate language for the agreement could be established. Mayor Randels requested to know the correct amount of the lien. Mr. Morley said that his understanding was that the lien was frozen when Mr. Patel came into compliance. Mr. Jim Hale stated that the Code Enforcement Board did freeze the lien at $12,000 with the stipulation that Mr. Patel would acquire a paving permit within the next six months. Mr. Gene Petre asked if there were City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting February 17, 2004 Page 6 of 10 any stipulations on the paving standards. Mr. Morley replied that one -inch paving is the requirement. A motion was made by Mayor Randels to table the item. The motion to table failed for lack of a second. A motion was made by Mr. Treverton and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Hoog to Approve Code Enforcement Lien Settlement Agreement Contingent Upon Mr. Patel Re -Paving the South and Side Parking Lot Areas within Two Weeks After Completion of the Beautification Project and Re -Paving Completion within 30 days. The vote on the motion carried 4-1 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Miller, For; Mr. Morgan, For; Mayor Randels, Against and Mr. Treverton, For. ORDINANCES: FIRST PUBLIC HEARING: 9. Motion to Approve: Ordinance No. 01-2004; Amending Chapter 82, Buildings and Building Regulations, Relating to the Permitting, Installation and Location of Temporary Storage Units, at first reading. Mayor Randels read Ordinance No. 01-2004 by title. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 82, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, RELATING TO THE PERMITTING, INSTALLATION AND LOCATION OF TEMPORARY STORAGE UNITS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF PROOF INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS, INCORPORATION INTO THE CODE, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mayor Randels explained the development of the Portable On Demand Storage [PODS] ordinance to protect public safety and to provide for aesthetic value. The ordinance addresses two items in residential areas: 1) one POD per lot; maximum size of 10 ft. by 24 ft. long by 9 -ft. in height, and 2) maximum time use of 30 -days with 2 placements per year. For commercial property: 1) one POD per half acre, not to exceed three PODS per lot, 2) maximum time use of 30 -days with 2 placements per year and 3) a no -stacking regulation. Mr. Morgan asked that the Council consider this ordinance running concurrently with building construction due to time constraints on such projects. Attorney Garganese replied that Section (e)(1) addresses construction purposes. Attorney Garganese pointed out that there is a requirement in the ordinance to remove the portable storage prior to an imminent hurricane. Mr. Treverton asked if the portable storage had a setback requirement? Mr. Morley stated that he would want to ensure accessibility, however a POD is for temporary use. Mr. Morley requested to address the supplier's responsibility. Mayor Randels read that a supplier is required to obtain a permit prior to POD use. The permit contains the date, time of issuance, installation, removal and name and address of POD recipient. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting February 17, 2004 Page 7 of 10 A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Hoog and seconded by Mr. Treverton to Approve Ordinance No. 01-2004 at first reading. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Miller, For; Mr. Morgan, For; Mayor Randels, For and Mr. Treverton, For. 10. Motion to Approve: Ordinance No. 02-2004; Amending Chapter 110 Relating to the Sale of "Fireworks"; Providing for a Definition of "Fireworks"; Providing for the Fireworks Sales as Permitted Use within the Light Industrial (M-1) Zoning District, at first reading. Mayor Randels read Ordinance No. 02-2004 by title. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA; AMENDING CHAPTER 110 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO THE SALE OF FIREWORKS, PROVIDING FOR A DEFINITION OF FIREWORKS; PROVIDING FOR FIREWORKS SALES AS A PERMITTED USE WITHIN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (M-1) ZONING DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS, INCORPORATION INTO THE CODE, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mayor Randels explained the sales, display and storage of fireworks is an evidenced safety hazard by the Consumer Products Safety Commission 2002 Annual Report and the Florida Statutes Chapter 791, 2003. The County Commission plans to limit the sale of fireworks to the heavy industrial zoning district areas and these fireworks facilities would look to the cities next to establish a business. The Council chose to address this issue for the City's safety since the County ordinance would not apply. Mr. Morgan asked if annexation should occur would the two existing establishments be grandfathered -in. Attorney Garganese replied that an ordinance could be drafted to address their non- conforming use. Mr. Boucher noted that zoning issues would need to be addressed during an annexation process. Mr. Buzz Petsos said that this ordinance would alleviate any future establishments and he recommended a fine on those individuals that discharge fireworks. Mr. Morgan replied that law enforcement related the difficulty of enforcing fines during a previous workshop meeting. Mr. Jim Hale stated that Animal Control fines are $40.00 and he called for a larger fine. Mr. Petsos stated that the City of Cocoa Beach has set a fine. Attorney Garganese stated that both the police and code enforcement regulate those fines. Discussion ensued on an amount of fine. Officer Bob Aoun addressed the need to establish who is fined if the perpetrator is younger than 18 -years -of -age. Mr. Gene Petre concurred with Mr. Petsos on the fireworks discharge problem. The Council directed the City Manager to research a method of issuing tickets. Mr. Petsos requested to agenda the fireworks discharge regulatory efforts portion. A motion was made by Mr. Morgan and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Hoog to Approve Ordinance No. 02-2004; Amending Chapter 110 Relating to the Sale of "Fireworks" at first reading. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting February 17, 2004 Page 8 of 10 follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Miller, For; Mr. Morgan, For; Mayor Randels, For and Mr. Treverton, For. 11. Motion to Approve: Ordinance No. 03-2004; Amending Chapter 94, Signs of the Code of Ordinances, at first reading. Mayor Randels read Ordinance No. 03-2004 by title. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 94, SIGNS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES REVISING THE PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE CHAPTER MODIFYING DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION OF TEMPORARY SIGNS; AMENDING THE SIGN APPLICATION AND PERMIT PROCEDURES; AMENDING APPENDIX B SCHEDULE OF FEES RELATED TO SIGN PERMIT FEES; MAKING CONFORMING AMENDMENTS; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS, INCORPORATION INTO THE CODE, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. Mayor Randels reviewed the Code amendments and pointed out that specific references to signs were eliminated. Attorney Garganese explained that the amendments to the code ensure that all on -premise temporary signs were given the same treatment. Mr. Treverton inquired about political campaign signs that are placed long before an election when our new code requires 60 -days. Discussion established that the signs might be removed for a time and then reinstalled. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog referred to how the 60 -day time limit would apply to the political signs that are currently erected. Mayor Randels replied that the ordinance is consistently applied to all signs. Mr. Morgan called for some flexibility until another community enacts regulations. Attorney Garganese stated that similar temporary on -premise sign regulations exist in the City of Casselberry and others. He stated that for 120 days or 1/3 of the calendar year, a person could post a temporary on -premise sign as long as the size requirements are met. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog addressed Section 94-76 referring to public interest as an exemption and posed if an election related to public interest. Mayor Randels read the definition of a public interest as "a charitable, educational or religious public event." Mr. Petsos inquired about liability due to freedom of speech. Attorney Garganese replied that the ordinance would impose time, place and manner restrictions. Mr. Morgan and Mayor Pro Tem Hoog expressed concern since this ordinance would apply to a current election in which the candidates have already qualified. Mayor Randels pointed out that this would apply to future elections by reason of the time it is adopted. Mr. Boucher reminded of signs yet to be installed due to the upcoming Presidential election year. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog expressed that enforcement was minimally applied during previous City elections. Attorney Garganese concluded that addressing temporary on -premise signs in a consistent manner would benefit the City. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting February 17, 2004 Page 9 of 10 A motion was made by Mr. Treverton and seconded by Mr. Miller to Approve Ordinance No. 03-2004; Amending Chapter 94, Signs of the Code of Ordinances, at first reading. A motion was made by Mr. Treverton and seconded by Mr. Morgan to Table Ordinance No. 03-2004 until the next City Council Meeting on March 2, 2004. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Miller, For; Mr. Morgan, For; Mayor Randels, For and Mr. Treverton, For. RESOLUTIONS: 12. Motion to Adopt: Resolution No. 2004-09; Officially Naming Streets Joe Place, Maria Court and Manny Lane in the Perlas Del Mar Subdivision. Mayor Randels read Resolution No. 2004-09 by title. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA; OFFICIALLY NAMING JOE PLACE, MARIA COURT AND MANNY LANE, ALL LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL IN THE PERLAS DEL MAR PROJECT AND MORE PARTICULARLY DEPICTED ON COMPOSITE EXHIBIT "A' ATTACHED HERETO; REQUESTING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO PLACE THE NAMED PRIVATE ROADWAYS ON THE OFFICIAL MAPS OF RECORD; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY THE REPEAL OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT RESOLUTIONS RECORDATION AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mayor Randels stated the location of these streets on North Atlantic Avenue as the former site of Maggie's Mini Nursery. Mr. Boucher replied to the Mayor that the City orders street signs when a private road intersects a public street. There was no further comment. A motion was made by Mr. Miller and seconded by Mr. Treverton to Adopt Resolution No. 2004-09; Officially Naming Streets Joe Place, Maria Court and Manny Lane in the Perlas Del Mar Subdivision. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Miller, For; Mr. Morgan, For; Mayor Randels, For and Mr. Treverton, For. REPORTS: 1. City Manager Mr. Boucher reported that the Sister City visit from the Portugal is scheduled for July 12th and 13th. There are eight public officials anticipated in the tour and those officials are responsible for their guests. Mr. Boucher attended the Brevard County Transportation Impact Fee meeting and acquired $50,000 for the design and engineering for the North Atlantic Avenue and Central Blvd. intersection project. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting February 17, 2004 Page 10 of 10 • Mr. Boucher met with developer Mr. Martin Greene who is proposing a mixed-use European concept on 7 -acres of land. If Council were receptive, Mr. Greene could present his concept plan to the Planning and Zoning Board. • Mr. Boucher reported that Rick Harris of the Royal Canadian Bank was appointed the Chair of the Freedom 7 Senior Center and asked if the City would consider a proposal of leasing the Cape Canaveral City Hall for the Freedom 7 Senior Center. Mr. Boucher reported that the Johnson Controls building is still for sale at $1.3 million with an additional cost for renovations. Mr. Ron Ordway, of VDC Display Systems, expressed that he too bid on the Johnson Controls building and asked why the City would counter bid private industry that generates more business and employment. The City Manager will provide additional information on City Hall expansion/ relocation and will continue discussion with Rick Harris. • Mr. Boucher asked how many Council members planned to attend Legislative Days and scheduled a Code Review Meeting for March 2nd at 5:00 P.M. Mayor Randels would attend Legislative Days. 2. Staff Public Works Director • Mr. Gardulski reported on the completed stormwater box on International Drive. Building Official • Mr. Morley reported on forthcoming land clearing for the Majestic Bay project. City Attorney • Attorney Garganese reported that the ordinance on adult arcade slot machines would be on the next agenda. There were no other staff reports. 2. City Council Mayor Pro Tem Hoog • Mayor Pro Tem Hoog addressed the Space Coast League of Cities nomination of Attorney Paul Gougelman, III for the Attorney of the Year award. He requested a letter from the City in support of the League's resolution. Council members agreed. AUDIENCE TO BE HEARD: There was no public comment. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 10:00 P.M.. Rocky Randels, MAYOR Susan Stills, CITY CLERK Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Date 03-02-04 AGENDA Heading Ordinances -2°d Reading Item 2 No. Exhibits Attached: AGENDA REPORT CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL SUBJECT: ORDINANCE NO. 01-2004, AMENDING CHAPTER 82, RELATING TO THE PERMITTING, INSTALLATION AND LOCATION OF TEMPORARY STORAGE UNITS DEPT./DIVISION: GROWTH MANAGEMENT/PLANNING & ZONING BOARD Requested Action: City Council consider the adoption of Ordinance No. 01-2004, amending Chapter 82, relating to the permitting, installation and location of temporary storage units, as recommended by the Planning & Zoning Board. Summary Explanation & Background: See attached ordinance. I recommend approval. Exhibits Attached: Ordinance No. 01-2004 City Man s Office ' " Department GROWTH MGMT/PLANNING `-/ --' &ZONING BOARD — im\myd cum dmin\council\meeting\2004\03-02-04\01-2004.doc ORDINANCE NO. 01-2004 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 82, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, RELATING TO THE PERMITTING, INSTALLATION AND LOCATION OF TEMPORARY STORAGE UNITS; 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 Florida Constitution to exercise any power for municipal purposes, except when expressly prohibited by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the use of temporary storage units by residents and businesses of the City have dramatically increased in the past few years; and WHEREAS, this increase in use of temporary storage units has posed new aesthetic and safety concerns for the community which should be legislatively addressed by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Cape Canaveral recognizes the need to protect property values by restricting the installation of temporary storage units; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby recognizes and finds that prohibiting the installation of temporary storage units, except on a temporary basis for limited purposes, furthers the aesthetic and historical character of the community, especially residential neighborhoods and furthers the safety and security of property and life during serious weather situations; 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 reference as legislative findings and the intent and purpose of the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral. City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 01-2004 Page 1 of 4 Section 2. Code Amendment. Chapter 82, Buildings and Building Regulations, of the Code of Ordinances, City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, is hereby amended as follows (underlined type indicates additions and strikeont type indicates deletions, while asterisks (* * *) indicate a deletion from this Ordinance of text existing in Chapter 82. It is intended that the text in Chapter 82 denoted by the asterisks and set forth in this Ordinance shall remain unchanged from the language existing prior to adoption of this Ordinance): CHAPTER 82. BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS *** ARTICLE XVI. TEMPORARY STORAGE UNITS Sec. 82-400. Temporary storage units. (a) Definition. For purposes of this section, "temporary storage unit" shall mean a structure designed and used primarily for storage of building materials, personal or commercial goods and belongings, and other such material, and that is not intended for permanent installation. Permit Required. A supplier of a temporqa storage unit shall obtain a permit issued by the building department prior to supplying and installing or allowing to be installed a temporary storage unit within the City of Cape Canaveral. The permit shall be limited to a specific address and shall allow the installation at such address pursuant to the requirements of this Section and applicable provisions of the City Code including, but not limited to, zoning provisions. Aep rmit fee shall be required by resolution of the city council and collected by the city. The permit shall contain the dates and times of issuance, installation and removal, the name of the person to whom the tempora storage unit is supplied, and the address at which the tempor , storage unit will be installed. (c) Residential Proper a. Temporary storage units are permitted on property zoned or used for residential purposes under the following criteria: A maximum of one (1) temporary storage unit is allowed per lot. The maximum size of the temporary storage unit is ten (10) feet wide, twenty-four (24) feet long, and nine (9) feet high. The maximum time for the temporga storage unit to remain on the lot shall be thirty (30) consecutive days with a maximum of two (2) placements per City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 01-2004 Page 2 of 4 Commercial and Industrial Property. Temporary storage units are permitted on property zoned or used for commercial or industrial purposes under the following criteria: A maximum of one (1) temporary storage unit is allowed per half acre, not to exceed three (3) temporary storage units per lot. The maximum time for the temporary storage unit to remain on the lot shall be thirty (30) consecutive days with a maximum of two (2) placements per year. The temporar storage torage units shall not be stacked on top of one another. (e) Exceptions. The regulations set forth in Subsections (c), (d)(1) and (d)(2) shall not apply to temporary storage units that are: Installed for construction purposes and in conjunction with a valid and unexpired building_ permit, in accordance with Section 553.73(8), Florida Statutes, or Authorized by resolution of the City Council and installed during any period declared an emergency within the City of Cape Canaveral by any governmental authority. (f) Weather Emergency Removal. In the event of a tropical storm or hurricane watch issued by the National Weather Service, the city shall have the right to order the supplier and property owner to remove the temporM storage unit by providingthe supplier at least twenty-four (24) hours notice of removal. In the event of a tropical storm or hurricane warning issued by the National Weather Service, the tempora yry storage unit shall be immediately removed by the supplier and property owner after the warning being issued. In such situations, the city shall have the right to enter the property and remove the temporary storage unit if the supplier and property owner do not remove the temporary storage unit as required by this subsection. The supplier and property owner, jointly and severally, shall be liable for all removal costs incurred by the city and failure to pay said costs, upon demand b the he city, shall constitute a code violation and shall result in a lien being imposed pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, in the amount of said costs. (M Permit Extensions. For good cause shown by the owner of the property at which the temporary storage unit will be supplied, the time periods set forth in subparagraphs (c) and (d) may be extended b try manager, provided an extension granted by the city manager shall not extend more than thirty (30) consecutive days. Good cause being limited to emergencies and situations where there exists a reasonable risk or threat to life and property damage. City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 01-2004 Page 3 of 4 Liability. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, the supplier and property owner shall be jointly and severally liable for any violation under this Section 82-400. 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. Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word or provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, whether for substantive, procedural, or any other reason, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, this day of .2004. ATTEST: SUSAN STILLS, City Clerk First Reading: Legal Ad published: Second Reading: ROCKY RANDELS, Mayor For Against Approved as to legal form and sufficiency for the City of Cape Canaveral only: ANTHONY A. GARGANESE, City Attorney Bob Hoog Steve Miller Jim Morgan Rocky Randels Richard Treverton City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 01-2004 Page 4 of 4 Sent By: BROWN,SALZMAN,WEISS&BARQANESE; 407 425 9596; Feb -11-04 5:33PM; Page 1/4 Brown, Salzman, , eiss & Garganese, P, A. livo Landmark Cinler 225 Last Robinson Street, .Swire 660 Pnst Office Box 2873 orlundo, Floridu 32802-2873 (407) 425-9566 (407) 425-9596 f= e-mail address: ftrtn(u;urlundulcn•v. net Uext4. 11�hruay y J/, 2004 To: Bennett Boucher Fax: 321-868-1224 From: Jeffrey P. Buak Pages (including this one): 4 File: Cape - General Subject: Temporary Outdoor Storage Ordinance - PODS If there are any questions regarding this fax, please call 407/425-9566. Thi: faatatile tme.ewge tt anrrrneyielientprivilered material and ia, accordinxty, Confidential. %lilt message it intended am6-, far the individual nr entity nunted ubuve. ijdw re(-viveer of tltlS jow%yage is pied the intonded recipient, Plea- her a&ised that anydi88ominalkw, d4fribxdiun, up, cuyying nJtHia enmmuniennnn ic.atrict!}'prnhtbimd t%you have recenvd this communication ite error. please notify ut by telephone imtnediatelyami return the original mexraW to eilher above uthHrss ria the U.B. Mail. t hank you. COMMENTS: ttennett, attached is Information received by the PODS company at last nights cocoa Council Meeting. Please attach to the agenda for Cape Council review. This information confirms the danger these storage containers pose, especially on a arrier island such as Cape Canaveral. IJ you have any questions, please call. Sent By: BROWN,SALZMAN,WEISSBGARGANESE; 407 425 9596; Feb -11-04 5:33PM; Page 2/4 �ay(01'DtoE 't irz E 9 C" EnginGering 0) Dovplas Avenuo • Sutto C • Dur'00h rl 3469tf 1oio f'l'rwV Aprir 18, 2000 (727) 785.8$44 FAX (727) 736.2953 Recycrng syslems E -Mail: 0MYkxrn04h",C0m Ethanol WN11" Piot:ess EnglneorN Mr. Roy Courtney PODS 606145- St. North St. Petersburg, FL 33714 Re: Wind Load Calculations Dear Roy: In accordance with your request we have evaluated both the 12 foot and the 16 foot PODS to determine wind velocities that can be withstood prior to overtuming. We have evaluated these both empty and full. Our findings are as follows! The 12 foot POD will withstand approximately 79 to 80 mile per hour winds empty. This is baked upon an empty weight of 2,106 pounds and the dimension that you have provided. This same POD with the addition of 2,260 pounds will withstand 110 mile per hour winds, 2. The 16 foot POD will withstand approximately 75 mile per hour winds based on 2,500 pounds empty weight. This same POD with the addition of 3,312 pounds will withstand 110 mile per hourwinds prior to oveRum. ---- Oh4dously- several-taeEors play- -lho dew elopMerrt.,of-wfnd-'wad calculations -ancl what -can reattr - — happen. Specifically, it is assumed that the PODS are sitting fiat on the ground other than the 4 x 4 posts. It also assumes a uniform toad of dead weight in the box Please advise if you need anything further in this regard. Sincerely. MJGlag MICHAEL J. GAYLOR, P.E. E ncl. P W 4k d Ar *Ia00.M4 Sent By: BROWN,SALZMAN,WEISS&BAROANESE; 407 425 9596; !gayfo% Engin-eapt y CMI rrovmo lnp Lord Plor" Recrcq V Sl"ems Eth" Plonk Process Ervw* vv PODS, INC. 6061 W St N. Saint Petersburg, FL 33714 Alin, Mr. Roy Courtney Feb -11-04 5:33PM; Page 314 40000JOkSAV*rw o • Sidle C - Ours Fl 3ae9a (727) 795-0 4 FAX (727) 7362953 May 16, 2000 E -Mal' govim" eaw.cem RE: Stress evaluation of 16'_gnd 12' RQDs storage containers The following Is a report of our findings of the stress analysis of IS' and 12' PODS storage containers under slacking conditions. The analysis evaluated the 12' PODS container system only, It was found to be under a greater stress than the 16' container. The analysis was based on drawings, weights, and loads furnished by PODS INC. 1.0 EVALUATION CONDITIONS - 1.1 16' unit loaded weighs 17,500 each. Uniformly distributed loading. Weight of Container and internal load. 12' unit loaded weighs 16,001) each. Uniformly distributed loading: Weight of container and Internal load. 16' unit at 12,500l1'6487.3 Ibaftrtning R.. 12' unit at 10,000/12;$33.3 IbOunning ft " 1.2 Evaluate a1 two units stacked on top of a third bottom unit. Total loading on the bottom unit is 20,000 lbs. 1.3 Load is placed directly down on top of bottom bad, not slid across bottom container. 1.4 Load is directed straight down and point loading through bottom 4"x4" members. 1.5 Evaluate top angle iron members as simply supported beam, Evaluate at worst condition normal loading. 1.6 Evaluate column supports as unbraced short columns. 2.0 EVALUATION FINDINGS: 2.1 Top angle iron beam members are sufficient to carry the load outlined above. Working stress is 21,596 psi. This is slightly above industrial standards but well within working limits for this application, h is also conservative in light of the simply supported method of evaluation. 2.2 Columns are sufficient to carry the load as outlined above. 2.3 Interior upper comer bracing is sufficient under normal and nominal conditions. It is pointed out that the design should not be put undet significant lateral loads, such as sliding one container over on top of the other. This could result in Wi loading the' columns and cause the comer brackets tb'detiect or deform. Page 1 Sent By: BROWN,SALZMAN,WEISS80AR0ANESE; 407 425 9596; Feb -11-04 5:34PM; Page 4/4 3.0 UUNULU51ON' 3.1 Stacking containers under the conditions as stated above should not result in failure or deforming. Lateral loading should be kept to nominal conditions, or very little sliding while stacking Containers Cnnlainem Shnidd be loaded straighl down ss much at pocciblo. This analysis was a general overview of the construction system as stated above and not an in depth stress analysis of the system and materials. Our conclusions are based on the information presented. The calculations for this analysis are available upon request We thank you for the opportunity to be of service on this project. If we can be of further service please contact US. Sincerely, >;4 MICHAEL J. GAYLOR, P.E. MJG/hjh AStagm ivmjedsvloos • ooD mew" S 1S.W. WN City of Cape Canaveral CM OF CAPE CANAVERAL February 4, 2004 To: Bennett Boucher, City Manager Susan Stills, City Clerk From: Bea McNeely, Chairperson, Planning & Zoning Board Re: Recommendation to City Council Regarding Regulating Temporary Storage Containers -------------- ------------------------------------------------ The Planning & Zoning Board reviewed a draft ordinance regarding regulating temporary storage containers (PODS) at the meeting held on January 28, 2004 and unanimously recommended approval to City Council. The Board noted that enforcement of this ordinance should be handled through city code enforcement and property owner(s) shall be cited for violating this code not the supplier of the container. Please schedule this proposed ordinance on an upcoming meeting agenda. 105 Polk Avenue • Post Office Box 326 • Cape Canaveral, FL 32920-0326 Telephone: (321) 868-1220 • SUNCOM: 982-1220 • FAX: (321) 868-1248 www.myflorida.com/cape • e-mail: ccapecanaveral@cfl.rr.com Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Date 03-02-04 AGENDA Heading Ordinances -2"d Reading Item 3 No. I recommend approval. AGENDA REPORT CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL SUBJECT: ORDINANCE NO. 02-2004, AMENDING CHAPTER 110, RELATING TO THE SALE OF FIREWORKS WITHIN THE M-1 ZONING DISTRICT DEPT./DIVISION: GROWTH MANAGEMENT/PLANNING & ZONING BOARD Requested Action: City Council consider the adoption of Ordinance No. 02-2004, amending Chapter 110, relating to the sale of fireworks; providing for fireworks sales as a permitted use within the light industrial M-1 Zoning District, as recommended by the Planning & Zoning Board. Summary Explanation & Background: See attached ordinance. Brevard County is in the process of enacting similar zoning legislation. I recommend approval. Exhibits Attached: Ordinance No. 02-2004 City Mana is }Office Department GROWTH MGMT/PLANNING &ZONING BOARD ca �\mydo ents\ 1![ii council\meeting\2004\03-02-04\02-2004.doc ORDINANCE NO. 02-2004 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 110 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO THE SALE OF FIREWORKS; PROVIDING FOR A DEFINITION OF "FIREWORKS"; PROVIDING FOR FIREWORKS SALES AS A PERMITTED USE WITHIN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (M-1) ZONING DISTRICT; 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 City Council finds the sale, display, and storage of fireworks is inherently hazardous, as evidenced by the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission "2002 Fireworks Annual Report" and Chapter 791, Florida Statutes (2003); and WHEREAS, the County Commission is currently considering an ordinance which will limit fireworks sales, within the unincorporated sections of the County, to the heavy industrial zoning districts; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes this Ordinance is necessary as upon enactment of the County's ordinance businesses engaged or desiring to engage in the sale of fireworks will look to locate within municipal commercial districts, unless otherwise prohibited; and WHEREAS, the proliferation of the sale of fireworks in the City's limited commercial districts would be a danger and detriment to the community; 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 reference as legislative findings and the intent and purpose of the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral. City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 02-2004 Page 1 of 3 Section 2. Code Amendment. That Chapter 110, entitled Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances, City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, are hereby amended as follows: (underlined type indicates additions and strikeeut type indicates deletions, while asterisks (* * *) indicate a deletion from the Ordinance of text existing in Chapter 110. It is intended that the text in sections 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 ARITCLE 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: Fireworks means any combustible or explosive composition or substance or combinations of substances or any article prepared for the purpose of producing a visible or audible effect by combustion, explosion, deflagration or detonation, as defined by Section 791.01(4)(a), Florida Statutes, as may be amended. "Fireworks" does not mean sparklers or novelties, trick noisemakers, toy pistols or other devices in which parer caps containingtenty-five hundredths grains or less of explosive compound or mixture are used, as defined by Section 791.01(4)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes. Fireworks sales facilities means any place or premises used for the sale or other distribution, whether permanent or seasonal, of Fireworks. The sale of Fireworks shall only be permitted within the light industrial (M-1) zoning district. ARTICLE VII. DISTRICTS DIVISION 6. M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Sec. 110-352. Principal uses and structures. In the M-1 light industrial and research and development district, the following uses and structures are permitted, provided any use or group of uses that are developed, either separately or, if developed as a unit with certain site improvements, shared in common, meet requirements of article IX of this chapter: City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 02-2004 Page 2 of 3 Fireworks sales facilities. 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. Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word or provision of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, whether for substantive, procedural, or any other reason, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, this day of , 2004. ATTEST: ROCKY RANDELS, Mayor For Against Bob Hoog Steve Miller SUSAN STILLS, City Clerk Jim Morgan Rocky Randels Richard Treverton 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. 02-2004 Page 3 of 3 City of Cape Canaveral February 3, 2004 Bennett Boucher, City Manager Susan Stills, City Clerk Bea McNeely, Chairperson, Planning & Zoning Board Re: Proposed Ordinance Regulating Retail Sales of Fireworks ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Planning & Zoning Board reviewed the above referenced ordinance regarding restricting the sale of fireworks. Following discussion, by a 3 to 2 majority vote, the Planning & Zoning Board concluded to recommend approval. Please schedule this proposed ordinance on an upcoming meeting agenda. 105 Polk Avenue • Post Office Box 326 • Cape Canaveral, FL 32920-0326 Telephone: (321) 868-1220 • SUNCOM: 982-1220 • FAX: (321) 868-1248 www.myflorida.com/cape • e-mail: ccapecanaveral@cfl.rr.com 2B TUESDAY. FEBRUARY 10_ 7nn4 NOTICE OF ZONING CATEGORY CHANGE The City of Cape Canaveral, Florida proposes to adopt the following ordinance: ORDINANCE NO. 02-2004 I AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 110 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO THE SALE OF FIREWORKS; PROVIDING FOR A DEFINITION OF "FIREWORKS"; PROVIDING FOR FIREWORKS SALES AS PERMITTED USE WITHIN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (M-1) ZONING DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS, INCORPORATION INTO THE CODE, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Annex, 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. A copy of the proposed ordinance is on file in the Office of the City Clerk and may be viewed during regular working hours, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Pursuant to Section 286.1015, 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 Clerk's office (868-1221) 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Susan Stills, CMC, City Clerk D32382 oR Iwo? "LL. NOTICE OF ZONING CATEGORY CHANGE s' The City of Cape Canaveral, Florida proposes to adopt the following ordinance: Ing Cost Dry, No Extra $ VY WATER REMOVAL ORDINANCE NO. 02-2004 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CAPE ole House Span CANAVERAL, ,"- FLORIDA, .AMENDING ` - 1FtoR"Raw�iIENT�I+LLRUG- roercb.m�or S`PEIiIA�. 'CHAPTER 110 OF THE CITY. CODE RE- "'"°e0y�'°"' LATING TO THE SALE OF FIREWORKS; A/R DUCT CLEANMa" PROVIDING ;,FOR A DEFINITION OF t = -"FIREWORKS'; PROVIDING FOR FIRE- t Price auaranteedRMN WORKS SALES AS PERMITTED USE WITHIfV THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL -(M-1) ZONING DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS, INCORPORATION INTO THE CODE, SEVERABILITY AND AN 'EFFECTIVE DATE. A SECOND PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the City Council of the City of Cape, Canaveral, on Tuesday; March 2, 2004 of 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Annex, 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral; Florida. A copy of the proposed ordinance is on file in the Office of the City Clerk and may be viewed during. regular working hours, Monday- through Friday,:` x 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. "Pursuant to "Section. 286. 1015, Florida Statutes, ;= the "City hereby -advises the public that If a'person . decides to -appeal" any decision"'ma by the City ` ':"Council with respect to any.matter considered at " " this "meeting, that person will need'a record" of the - proceedings, an'd' for"such" purpose that:`person may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the ' proceedings is made, which record includes the F testimony and evidence' upon which the appeal is ' to be based. ` This notice does not constitute �} consent by the ;City ;for the introduction or S ' admission into evidence of otherwise inadmissible or ;irrelevant evidence, nor `does itauthorize . challenges or appeals not otherwise allowed by - law. Persons with disabilities needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact the City Clerks office (868-1221) 48 hours =. in advance of the meeting. IWY. • Cocoa liles West of U.S. 1 Susan Stills, GMC, City Clerk lNbdesgabbpleple, '� brtrtaNepryasaY�." -.. . , Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Date 03-02-04 AGENDA Heading Ordinances -I' Reading Item 4 No. City Council tabled this item due to concerns of the upcoming elections. AGENDA REPORT CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL SUBJECT: ORDINANCE NO. 03-2004, AMENDING CHAPTER 94, SIGNS DEPT./DIVISION: GROWTH MANAGEMENT/PLANNING & ZONING BOARD Requested Action: City Council consider at first reading amending Chapter 94, Signs, as recommended by the Planning & Zoning Board. Summary Explanation & Background: The amendments revise the limitations on temporary signage within the City. The amendments are underlined within the proposed (14) page ordinance. City Council tabled this item due to concerns of the upcoming elections. The ordinance is well written. May I suggest City Council consider an effective date to minimize the effects this will have on the upcoming election. I recommend approval. Exhibits Attached: Ordinance No. 03-2004 City Manage !s -Mee _ - ' Department GROWTH MGMT/PLANNING &ZONING BOARD �ay�-.�,y�csrac�myuecwn nL� s�aym council\meeLing\zuuv\u.s-ut-u9\us-[uu4.aoe ORDINANCE NO. 03-2004 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 94, SIGNS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES; REVISING THE PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE CHAPTER; MODIFYING DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION OF TEMPORARY SIGNS; AMENDING THE SIGN APPLICATION AND PERMIT PROCEDURES; AMENDING APPENDIX B SCHEDULE OF FEES RELATED TO SIGN PERMIT FEES; MAKING CONFORMING AMENDMENTS; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS, INCORPORATION INTO THE CODE, SEVERABILITY, AND 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, through the enactment of this Ordinance, the City Council desires to preserve and improve the quality of urban life and aesthetics within the City of Cape Canaveral. See Members of the City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (1984); Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (1981); and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the limitations on temporary signage within the City of Cape Canaveral, as provided herein, are unrelated to viewpoint and the content of any message, and will further the City's legitimate and substantial government interest in minimizing sight pollution and traffic and safety hazards to persons and property during high winds; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the goals of this Ordinance are unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and WHEREAS, aesthetic interests are a legitimate basis for regulating signs. See, e.g., Lake Wales v. Lamar Advertising Ass'n oLakeland, 414 So. 2d 1030 (Fla.); Messer v. City of Douglasville, Ga., 975 F. 2d 1505 (11` Cir. 1992); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral finds that this Ordinance is 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. City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance 03-2004 Page 1 of 14 Section 2. Code Amendment. Chapter 94 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, is hereby amended as follows (underlined type indicates additions and str-ikeeut type indicates deletions, while asterisks (* * *) indicate a deletion from this Ordinance of text existing in Chapter 94. It is intended that the text in Chapter 94 denoted by the asterisks and set forth in this Ordinance shall remain unchanged from the language existing prior to adoption of this Ordinance): CHAPTER 94. SIGNS ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL Sec. 94-1. 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: *** Off-site or off -premises sign means a sign identifying an activity which is not on the premises where the sign is located or products or services which are not available on the premises where the sign is located. On-site or on -premises sign means a sign (1) identifying an activity conducted or products or services available on the premises where the sign is located, or (2) displaying a noncommercial message or (3) any combination of the first two. related in its subjeet matter- to the pf-effliseS OR whieh it is leeated. *** Public interest sign means a charitable, educational or religious special event. *** Sign means any surface, fabric, device or display, whether illuminated or non -illuminated, designed to identify, announce, direct or inform, and that , ground sign, wall sign, ifluminated sign, pr-qjeeting sign, t _n, awning sign, eanepy stg{r, and—stFeet—eleek and ine-ludes any anneuneemeet, deelar-ation, demenstr-atieffl, display, a used te adv tote the interests ef aiiy pefsen, busifiess of even whenis placed out-of-doors in view of the general public. For pur oses of this Chapter, the term "sign" includes all structural members. City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance 03-2004 Page 2 of 14 pelifieal of: non pelifieal office, %es, levy or- any other- issue(s) tha , , Temporary signs means a sign displayed before, during or after an event or occurrence scheduled at a specific time and place, inclusive for example real estate signs, for sale and for rent signs banner signs, construction signs, and NASA launch signs. signs eenst-F eted E)f cloth, e lightfabrie,e-&&dbear-d, lbeaM, pljweed of-etheFlight nater -i with or- without ff mlCT intended to be displayed feF the extent of fifne as allewed in the speeifie seefiens f this ehapte.. Sec. 94-2. Purpose and scope. (a) The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the number, size, type, use, design, construction and location of signs within the City. These regulations are established in order to promote the overall economic well-being of the City, while at the same time providing for the health, ttel preteet the safety and welfare of the public by reducing the adverse effects of signs on safety, property values, traffic, and the enjoyment of the scenic beauty of the City. These regulations are intended to avoid excessive competition and clutter among sign displays in the demand for public attention, eliminate dangerous, dilapidated and unsightly signs and provide for adequate maintenance and inspection of signs within the corporate limits of the City, consistent with constitutional guarantees and while providing for adequate opportunities for effective means of communication. without impeding the inher-eat right of business to sa, ei4ise and reasonably (b) This ehaptef is intended to eevef all fe. 4ative to types, sizes, heights, verbal , and penalfies f-ef vieladen of this ehapter- VLVII Y�ILIIIll LIIV VIG, IIIIIILJ YY1IIv-I e e ereted . Ah: rho ity 1: its ,.h:eh ed to the ,r of de for- all signs plaeed, e of the ,hl: installed an , (e t) For purposes of Tthis chapter., within the eity, and any lawful sign may display a noncommercial message in addition to, or in lieu of, any other message. _ll noncommercial speech shall be deemed to be an on -premises. Nothing in this ehapte.- shall he .7ee.,,e.d to he an e Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to regulate the content of the message displayed on any sign. City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance 03-2004 Page 3 of 14 Sec. 94-6. Prohibited Signs and features. The following signs and features are strictly prohibited: (a) Signs on utility poles and trees. Signs, regardless of whether exempt from permit requirements, ineluding pefideal signs, are prohibited on public utility poles or trees. (g) Off premise Merchandise displays on rights of way. Permanent, tempora!L portable or movable signs or displays of merchandise located on any street, sidewalk, alley, or right-of-way are prohibited. It is the expressed ic"s'ati1e intent Of the eit- eOUfleil t1at t,e fe shall be a pFohibifiEffl, without any exeeptions, against the use of any pei4ien Of a , sidewalk, alley, right of way or- publie ther-oughfar-e fef the display of ffler-ehandise fef sale or- the leeation of peftable of movable i is to adveftise or- draw attention to the busifiess of any peon or- the pig E)f vvl-ieA-F effiertypes of centfivanees-=tele" are, in and E� pefseft's plaee of business E)r- the par -king of vehieles er- ethef types of eentfivanees te whieh there is aaaehed a sign advertising the business of pfeduee sold by the btl i y per -son of designed to attfaet attention thefete. However-, the prohibition against the use of the streets fe the Yusking ofr yehieres is of intended to prohibit the bon fide parking of . vehicle us erl primarily by the owner thereof feF the pur-pose of tfanspeftation, fletwithstanding that suGh vehiele may have painted upon the extefier- suffaee the ownef's name of addf:ess of business mannef eensistent with that eustefnafily found on commer-eial vehieles of vehicles used fef (h) Off -premise signs. Any sign not Felated ift its subjeet matter- to the pfemises on whieh it is leeated is prohibited, unless other -wise speeified in the Code. (r) Temporary signs, unless specifically authorized under this Chapter mentioned in this Bede. ARTICLE II. PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS Sec. 94-32. Application for permit; review time limits. Application for a permit required under this afficle chapter shall be made upon forms provided by the building department and shall contain or have attached the information required City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance 03-2004 Page 4 of 14 on the form. The building official shall grant or deny the sign permit application within forty- five (45) days from the date that a completed application and permit fee was filed with the City. Sec. 94-33. Issuance of permit. (a) Upon the receipt of a completed building permit application and upon payment of the appropriate building permit fee by the applicant, the building official shall promptly conduct an investigation of the application, the proposed sign and the premises. if prior -approval is feee".ea ffefn the eemmunity appear-anee beaf:d, the building offieial shall grant E)r- deny the building pefmit appheation within 20 days ffem the date the eempleted appheation with appheation fe-e was filed with the eityr. (d) Any person denied a building permit for signs may file as a matter or right a written notice of appeal to the construction board of adjustment within ten calendar days after rendition of the denial pursuant to the provisions of section 94-33. The construction board of adjustment shall hold a hearing and decide the appeal within 30 calendar days from the date the notice is received by the construction board of adjustment. The appellant shall be afforded minimum due process including, but not limited to, the right to notice of the hearing, a fair opportunity to be heard in person and through counsel, to present evidence, and to cross-examine witnesses. The decision of the construction board of adjustment shall be final. No further exhaustion of administrative remedies shall be necessary for judicial review of the administrative action. Any person aggrieved by a final decision of the construction board of adjustment may immediately appeal the decision as a matter of right by filing an appropriate pleading with a court of competent jurisdiction. A prompt review and decision shall be rendered by the court. An review said appheati The record of the hearing shall consist of the complete record of the proceedings before the construction board of adjustment. Sec. 94-34. Revocation of permit. The building official is authorized and empowered to revoke any permit issued under this article for failure of the permittee to comply with any of the sections of this chapter. Such revocation shall be in writing and shall show cause for the revocation notice. Within seven days after the mailing of notice, the permit holder may request, in writing; to the city manager, €er a hearing before him the construction board of adjustment to show cause why the permit should not be revoked. The construction board of adjustment shall hold a hearing and decide the appeal within 30 calendar days from the date the notice is received by the city manager. The permittee shall be afforded minimum due process including, but not limited to, the right to notice of the hearing, a fair opportunity to be heard in person and through counsel, to present evidence, and to cross- examine witnesses. The decision of the construction board of adjustment shall be final. No further exhaustion of administrative remedies shall be necessary for judicial review of the revocation decision. Any person aggrieved by a final decision of the construction board of adjustment may immediately appeal the decision as a matter of right by filing an appropriate City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance 03-2004 Page 5 of 14 pleading with a court of competent jurisdiction. A prompt review and decision shall be rendered by the court. The record of the hearing shall consist of the complete record of the proceedings before the construction board of adjustment. Within ten days ftem the hearing date, the city manager shall give 1,i ., , eeision ; writing. Sec. 94-35. Fees. Permit and inspection fees for the erection alteration or relocation of a sign, exclusive of any costs for an electrical permit, shall be set forth in appendix B schedule of fees to this Code and shall include fees for the following: (1) In addition, fees for signs are calculated by using contract amount consistent with the city's schedule of fees; (2) Re -inspection; and (3) If any person commences any work before obtaining the necessary permit, all fees shall be doubled. ARTICLE III. SIZE, LOCATION AND CONSTRUCTION DIVISION 2. TYPES OF SIGNS Sec. 94-76. Temporary on -premises signs. (a) Temporary on -premises signs shall be permitted under the following conditions: (1) Temporary signs shall be non -illuminated, free standing signs. (2) Temporary signs shall be removed within three (3) days after the date upon which the sign has fulfilled its purpose (e.g., the scheduled event or occurrence has concluded). (3) Temporary signs shall be permitted for a period of up to sixty (60) days and up to a maximum of two (2) times a year. The display period for temporarsigns may not run consecutive with another display period and must be separated by a period of no less than sixty (60) days. Temporary signs erected to serve a significant interest or public interest are exempt from the requirements of this subsection (3). City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance 03-2004 Page 6 of 14 (4) On residential property, no one temporary sign shall exceed six (6) square feet and the total area of temporary signage on any one residential property shall not exceed thirty (30) square feet. (5) On non-residential property, no one temporary sign shall exceed thirty-two (32) square feet and the total area of temporary signage on any non-residential property shall not exceed ninety-six (96) square feet. (6) Temporarsigns may be double faced (back-to-back) and only one side of a double faced sign shall be counted for sign area calculations. (7) The maximum height of any temporary sign shall be four (4) feet on residential property, or eight (8) feet on any non-residential property. (8) Minimum setbacks for any Dart of the temporary sign structure shall be a minimum of five (5) feet from any right-of-way and twenty-five (25) feet from any other adjoining property line, except the streets listed below shall have the following set backs: Street Astronaut Boulevard (SR AIA) Old State Road 401 Ridgewood Avenue Minimum Setback from Right -of -Way 50 feet 10 feet 10 feet (9) No temporary sign shall be placed within the right-of-way unless approved by the city manager. No temporary sign shall be placed within the visibility triangle or posted on a tree or utility pole. (10) The temporary sign shall be constructed of sturdy material such as wood, hard plastic, vinyl, masonite or particle board of sufficient thickness so as to withstand the weather elements commonly experienced within the City. Cardboard and paper faced temporary signs are strictly prohibited unless it is safely fastened, in its entirety, to a backing made of material set forth in this section. (b) In addition to the general requirements in subsection (a), the following requirements shall apply to the specific types of signs listed below: (1) Areas under development, such as shopping centers, apartments, condominiums and subdivisions, shall be permitted one (1) non -illuminated construction sign not to exceed a sign area of sixteen (16) square feet on residential properties and thirty-two (32) square feet on nonresidential property after a building permit is issued. Signs allowed hereunder shall be permitted for one (1) year. If the project is not completed within one (1) year, the city managerygrant an appropriate extension(s) not to exceed the removal date set forth under this subsection (1). All signs must be removed from the City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance 03-2004 Page 7 of 14 property within seven (7) days of the date on which the project is completed, suspended, or abandoned for at least three months. Construction signs are exempt from subsections (a) (2) and (a) (3) above. Construction signs shall contain the primary contractor's licensing information. (2) A maximum of one (1) real estate sign is permitted on a property at such time the property owner desires to sell or lease the property. Real estate signs shall be removed immediately upon the sale or lease of the property. Real estate signs are exempt from subsections (a) (2) and (a) (3) above. (3) A maximum of one (1) on -premises banner sign, not to exceed 96 square feet, may be erected on a property to promote a significant interest or public interest as those terms are defined in Section 94-1 of this Chapter. A banner sign may be erected for a maximum of thirty (30) days. A banner sign is exempt from the freestanding requirement set forth in subsection (a) (1) above and the size restriction set forth in subsection (a) (4) and (5) above, provided it is securely fastened to a structure in a manner to withstand weather elements commonly experienced in the City. the building offieial for- a period not to exeeed 30 days. On pFemise ban to pr-ofnete . Sec. 94-77. Signs in violation. Reserved. Ne eff , . — 'S Of: SigfiS OR vaeant land shall be ef:eeted, pested, painted, taeked, nailed e Athp.r-A.Aeise plaeed ef leeated anywhefe in the eity. This seefien shall net apply to real estate e politieal signs. signs.See. 94 78. Polifleal Reserved. City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance 03-2004 Page 8 of 14 . Kt Pon%a1111 wIESfa rp WEMUMOPIUM signs.See. 94 81. Temporary off premises Reserved. City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance 03-2004 Page 9 of 14 City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance 03-2004 Page 10 of 14 DIVISION 3. DISTRICT REGULATIONS Sec. 94-100. Shopping center or multi -tenant center in any district. (a) Signs are permitted for shopping centers or multi -tenant centers in any district as listed in table 94-96-1. Table 94-96-1 District Restrictions TABLE INSET: City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance 03-2004 Page 11 of 14 District Type of Sign R-1 R-2 R-3 C-1, C-2 & M-1 Shopping Automotive center/Multi-Tenant Service Center in any district Station in C-1 Temporary Per Per Per Per Section 94-76 Per Section 94-76 Per Section On -premises Section Section Section 94-76 Sin 94-76 94-76 94-76 Real estate 4- 4- fmntage (per-distFie Ffleat) (per-distriet reqs) Max. area 6-s:€ &fh: 32 s.€ 32 64. 4! 4 8' 8' PeliEieal Maw ne 2 2 2 1 per eandidate per let :c> 250c. ,.cc. ,.c frontage then 2 (pe; -'.uric requifement) (per distrie� Fequirement) M area 3-41. 3-6:€ 3s. -f: 32sC ceHsituetien/ €utureR-10 imprevements Max. no. 4 1 1 2 (per distriet (per- district FequifemenH 1:'i83ErafeB 1Lz6 s.f, 16 -sof: 16-s.E 32 s.f, 3• X 3! Home Max. no. 1 1 1 I n/a n/a occupation Max area 2 s.f. 2 s.f. 2 s.f. 2 s.f. n/a n/a Exceptions/notes for ground Not Apply to multi -family 2 of the following 3 options are permitted per parcel and wall signs permitted only Ground Max. no. 1 1 1 per street frontage 1 per street frontage 1 on primary street frontage Max area 75 s.f. 75 s.f. 150 s.f. l5% of wall space (per district height times business requirement) frontage, max. 128 s.f. perpendicular & 160 s.f. parallel to street Max height 25' 25' 30' n/a 30' Max. width 25' 25' 25' n/a n/a Wall Max. no. 1 (on 1 (on Perpendicular to 1 per tenant space 1 main main street: 1 on each end of structure) structure) the building, parallel to street: 1 sign Max. area 50 s.f. 128 s.f. Perpendicular: 1 s.f. per 15% of wall space (per district lineal foot of building height times business requirement) width, max. 128 s.f. frontage, max. 128 City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance 03-2004 Page 11 of 14 * * * Sec. 94-105. Enforcement. (a) Removal of signs. Private signs on public property or public rights-of-way may be removed by the City or its agents without notice to the sign owner. (b) Should any sign be in danger of falling, or otherwise unsafe in the opinion of the Code Enforcement Officer or the Building Official, the owner thereof, or person maintainingthe he sign shall, upon receipt of written notification from the Building Official or Code Enforcement Officer, immediately secure the sign, cause it to be placed ino�pair or remove the sign. (c) Removal of illegally erected signs. The owner, owner's agent, or person in control of any property where an illegally erected sign is located shall have the sign immediately removed. (d) Termination of unlawful illumination. Upon receipt of written notification by the Code Enforcement Officer or Building Official that a sign is illuminated in violation of this Chapter, the owner, owner's agent, or person in control of the premises, shall immediately terminate the prohibited illumination of such sign. Sec. 94-110. Implied Consent. Any person applying for, and the property owner upon which the sign will be erected, and receiving_a permit for any sign hereby consents to the following (1) consents to complying with all provisions of this code, and 2) consents for Citv officials to come on private propertv to inspect all sienaee and to remove illecally erected signs upon reasonable advanced notice by the citv. Section 3. Amendment to Appendix B Schedule of Sign Fees. Appendix B of the Code of Ordinances, City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, is hereby amended as follows (underlined type indicates additions and s+r'�oi type indicates deletions, while asterisks (* * *) indicate a deletion from this Ordinance of text existing in Appendix B. It is intended that the text in Appendix B denoted by the asterisks and set forth in this Ordinance shall remain unchanged from the language existing prior to adoption of this Ordinance): City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance 03-2004 Page 12 of 14 each sign, Parallel: 1 s.f. s.f. perpendicular & per lineal foot of 160 s.f. parallel to building frontage, max. street 160 s.f. * * * Sec. 94-105. Enforcement. (a) Removal of signs. Private signs on public property or public rights-of-way may be removed by the City or its agents without notice to the sign owner. (b) Should any sign be in danger of falling, or otherwise unsafe in the opinion of the Code Enforcement Officer or the Building Official, the owner thereof, or person maintainingthe he sign shall, upon receipt of written notification from the Building Official or Code Enforcement Officer, immediately secure the sign, cause it to be placed ino�pair or remove the sign. (c) Removal of illegally erected signs. The owner, owner's agent, or person in control of any property where an illegally erected sign is located shall have the sign immediately removed. (d) Termination of unlawful illumination. Upon receipt of written notification by the Code Enforcement Officer or Building Official that a sign is illuminated in violation of this Chapter, the owner, owner's agent, or person in control of the premises, shall immediately terminate the prohibited illumination of such sign. Sec. 94-110. Implied Consent. Any person applying for, and the property owner upon which the sign will be erected, and receiving_a permit for any sign hereby consents to the following (1) consents to complying with all provisions of this code, and 2) consents for Citv officials to come on private propertv to inspect all sienaee and to remove illecally erected signs upon reasonable advanced notice by the citv. Section 3. Amendment to Appendix B Schedule of Sign Fees. Appendix B of the Code of Ordinances, City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, is hereby amended as follows (underlined type indicates additions and s+r'�oi type indicates deletions, while asterisks (* * *) indicate a deletion from this Ordinance of text existing in Appendix B. It is intended that the text in Appendix B denoted by the asterisks and set forth in this Ordinance shall remain unchanged from the language existing prior to adoption of this Ordinance): City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance 03-2004 Page 12 of 14 APPENDIX B SCHEDULE OF FEES Chapter 94. Signs (a) Permit fee shall be calculated on actual 30.00 contract cost using subsection (a) of Chapter 82 of Appendix B with a minimum fee of:.......... (b) Reinspection fee.......... 25.00 94-35 (d cj For commencing work without a permit, all fees shall be double (e) PelitiGal sign depe&� 40-.09 94-M Temporary signs and banners.......... 25.00 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. 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 , 2004. ROCKY RANDELS, Mayor ATTEST: For Against Bob Hoog Jim Morgan Steve Miller SUSAN STILLS, City Clerk Rocky Randels Richard Treverton City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance 03-2004 Page 13 of 14 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 03-2004 Page 14 of 14 Sent By: BROWN,5ALZMAN,WEISS&GARGANESE; 407 425 95913; Aug -20-03 2:49PM; Page 2 BRt�WN, SAI-'ZMAN, WEISS & GARGANESE, P.A. "I florneAf at I1111) Usher L. Brown' 0ifiicc-, ill OrLindu, Ttiis;;immec, Debra S. BabirNutcher Suzanne U-Agresta' f 'nrna cG Viesa Jeffrey P. Buak' Anthony A. Garganese' John U. Biedenharn, Jr Gary S. Salzman' John H. Ward Joseph E. F1litch Jeffrey S. Weiss Douglas Lambert Jennifer A. Michael MicivIle A. Reddin 'Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer _ "Board Certified Business Litigation Lawyer 'Board Certified City, County & Local Government Law Erin J, O'Leary Of Counsel August 20, 2003 Planning & Zoning Board Members City of Cape Canaveral 105 Polk Avenue Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920 Re: Cape Canaveral P& Z Report Proposed Sign Code Amendments ! Ordinance 21-2003 Dear Board Members: The following is a summary of the proposed amendments to the Sign Code set forth in the draft Ordinance 21-2003. This summary is supplemental to my letter to the City Manager, dated July 31, 2003. In general. All references to political or election signs have been removed from the sign code. The intent and purpose of this amendment is to begin regulating political signs in the same manner as any other temporary sign. Unlike the current regulatory scheme, this approach to regulating political signs is unrelated to the message on the sign and, therefore, it is a content -neutral approach and has a better chance of surviving a constitution challenge. 2. Section 4-1, Definitions. Seven (7) definitions have been amended or removed for several reasons to: (1) correct grammar: (2) remove references to political or election signs; (3) provide simplification; and (4) conform to the new regulatory scheme for temporary signs. 3. Section 94-2, Purpose and Scope The proposed amendments: (1) broaden and enhance the purpose of the sign code by including additional substantial and legitimate government interests that have been upheld by the courts as valid reasons to regulate signs; (2) correct a scrivener's error to clarify that for 225 East Robinson Street, 5ulte 660 - P.O. Box 2873 •Orlando, Florida 32802,2873 Orlando (407) 425.9566 Fax (407) 425-9596 - hisslrnmee (321) 402-0144 - Cocoa & Viera (88B) 425.9566 Weballe: www.orlandolaw.net - email: firmQorlandoiaw.nei sent by: BHUWN,SAL.LMAN,WEISS&GARGANESE; 407 425 9598; Aug -20-03 2:49PM; Page 3 Planr!ing & Zoning Board Members City of Cape Canaveral August 20, 2903 Page 2 constitutional reasons noncommercial speech on signs will always be deemed on - premises under the sign code. 4. Section_94.6._Prohibited Signs and features The proposed amendments: (1) add text to clearly state in the body of the section that the types of signs listed are "prohibited" in the City; (2) remove the duplicate reference to `off -premises signs" and rename the type of sign described in subparagraph (g) according to the description; (3) eliminate the text after `off -premises signs" in subparagraph (h) because that term is already defined in the definition section of the sign code and the text is inconsistent with the definition section; and (4) clarify that temporary signs are prohibited in the City unless "specifically authorized" in the sign code. 5. Section 94-32. Application for peft1l review time limits. Case law interpreting the First Amendment generally require that: (1) sign permit applications be granted or denied within a definite time period; (2) administrative discretion be subject to clear standards set forth in the sign code, (3) due process be afforded applicants; and (4) an applicant be afforded an opportunity to appeal an adverse decision to a court of competent jurisdiction ("prompt judicial review"). Otherwise, the sign permit procedures will be declared unconstitutional. In light of these constitutional requirements, the proposed amendments: (a) Establish a definite forty-five (45) day time limit during which the City must grant or deny a sign application, including any decision that must be made by the Community Appearance Board; (b) Set forth minimum due process rights (notice, opportunity to be heard, cross examination of adverse witnesses) before the Construction Board of Adjustment to any person appealing the denial of a building permit fora sign; and (c) Provide a right to appeal any final decision of the Construction Board of Adjustment to a court of competent Jurisdiction. The court shall promptly review and decide the appeal. 6. Section 94-34. Rgyg atlon f panrnit. license revocation procedure with the Paragraph 5 above. The proposed amendments conform the constitutional requirements mentioned in 7. Section 94-35. Fees. The proposed amendment deletes the reference to political signs. sena by: bHUNJN,SALZMAN,WEISSBGARGANESE; 407 425 9595; Aug -20-03 2:50PM; Paye 4 Planning & Zoning Board Members City of Cape Canaveral August 20, 2003 Page 3 8. Section 94.76. Temaorary on -premises signs. The proposed amendment deletes in its entirety the current temporary sign regulations and adopts new requirements applicable to sill temporary signs. Generally, this section provides general requirements for: (1) maximum size; (2) duration; (3) setbacks; (4) total square footage, which in essence regulates the maximum number of temporary signs permitted an any one piece of property; (5) maximum height; and (6) construction standards. In addition, special requirements are provided for certain activities and types of temporary signs such as: (1) areas under development; (2) real estate signs; and (3) banner signs promoting a "significant Interest" or "public interest," as those terms are defined in Section 94-1. Please refer to Section 2 of draft Ordinance 21-2003 for the specific requirements. 9. $.action 94-77, Signs in violation. The proposed amendment deletes the entire section because it is redundant, Off -premises signs are already prohibited under section 94-6 and real estate signs and political signs will be regulated as temporary signs under section 94-76. 10. Section 94-78, Politica! Signs. The proposed amendment deletes the entire section relating to political signs for the reasons set forth above. 11. Section 94-81. Temp, orary off-premisessigns. The proposed amendment deletes the entire section. All Temporary signs will be regulated under the proposed Section 94-76. Many of the temporary sign requirements In this section have been carried over to Section 94-76 and enhanced, 12. Table 94-96-1. The proposed amendment deletes all references to real estate, political, and construction signs because they are regulated as temporary signs per Section 94-76. Accordingly, reference to "temporary on -premises sign" has been added to the Table. 13. Section 94-105, Enforcement. A new section is being added to assist code enforcement. The section expressly authorizes code enforcement to take appropriate legal action to correct sign code violations. Generally: (a) The City shall have the right to remove signs in a right-of-way without notice. (b) Dangerous signs shall be immediately secured upon notice by the City. Oer,L by. bhUYJ:vjt;ALZiViAri,VVLI6680AHGANLSL; 407 425 9598; Aug -20-03 2:50FM; Page 5!15 Planning & Zoning Board Members City of Cape Canaveral August 20, 2003 Page 4 (c) Illegal signs shall be immediately removed. (d) Improper illumination of signs shall be terminated upon notice by the City. 14. Section 94.110. Implied Consent. A new section is added to assist code enforcement. The section provides that a person applying for a sign permit consents to; (1) complying with the sign code; and (2) allowing a city official to enter their private property to remove illegal signs upon advanced notice. 15. Appendix B. Schedule of Fees. The proposed amendment deletes the reference to political signs including the deposit requirement, I look forward to discussing this with you at the next Board meeting. ;._ rs, � � - — Anthony . arganese City Attorney AAG: jf cc: Bennett Boucher, City Manager k`.UucsiCity of CApe G3+k9v0!dl\Ctrrespondpnt.p Pl,ann Tonin _8oerd'Siga__G'otlC Lir_P&Z.wpa Sent By: BROWN,SALZMAN,WEISS80ARGANESE; 407 425 9598; Dec -8-03 2:50PM; Page 2 DROWN, SALZMAN, WEISS & GARGANESE, P.A. Aaarneys at Law Usher L. Brown' Ufficcr• in (Niando, Kw6i nmee, Debra S. Babb-Nutcher Suzanne D'Agresta" Cocoa & Viers Jeffrey P. sunk" Anthony A. Garganese" John U. Biodonham, Jr. Gary S. Salzman' Joseph E. Btitch John H. Ward' Douglas Lambert Jeffrey S. Weiss Katherine Lalorre Mcholle A. Reddin Kimberly F. Whiftid 'Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer 'Board Certifled Business Litigation Lawyer 40oard Certified City, County & Local Government Law December 8, 2003 Via Facsimile and U.S. Mall Bennett Boucher, City Manager City of Cape Canaveral 105 Polk Avenue Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 Re: Ordinance 21.2003 - Amendments to Sign Code City of Cape Canaveral - General File No. 513-001 Dear Bennett: Erin .i. O'Leary Of Counsel Enclosed Is the latest draft of Ordinance 21-2003 which was amended based on the P iii Z Board's recommendations. Please schedule the ordinance for the P & Z Board's review and recommendation to the Council. The following is a summary of the P & Z Board's comments and changes: The Board wanted to expand the definition of public Interest to include a local, regional or national event. This change was not made because the existing code defines and uses the term "significant interest" to refer to a local, regional, or national event. In my view, making the change recommended by the P & Z Board would create an ambiguity in the Sign Code unless the definition "significant interest" is deleted from the Code. 2. Section 94-6(g) regarding prohibited merchandise displays and parking of vehicles on rights-of-way was rewritten to simplify the existing Code. 3. The P & Z Board does not like the fact that the proposed ordinance included banners, for sale, and construction signs into the temporary sign category. I recommend that the ordinance remain as drafted. The fundamental legal 225 East Robinson Street, Suite 660 • P.O. Bot 2873.Orlando, Florida 32802-2873 Orlando (407) 425.9566 Fox (407) 425.9596 • Kissimmee (321) 402-0144 • Cocoa & Vlore (see) 425-9566 Website: www.orlendolaw.net • Entail: firmCoriandolaw.net Sent By: BROWN,SALZMAAN,WEISS&GARGANESE; 407 425 9596; Dec -8-03 2:50PM; Page 3 Bennett Boucher, City Manager City of Cape Canaveral December 8, 2003 Page 2 principle behind Ordinance 21-2003 is that it treats all temporary signs in a similar fashion. The more distinctions the City makes between signs, the more prone the Sign Code is to being successfully challenged. Please see the attached recent article that was published in The Atlanta Journal - Constitution on July 28, 2003, which clearly makes my point. 4, Section 94-76(b)(3) was revised to allow on -premises banner signs that promote a significant interest or public interest that do not exceed eighty (80) square feet. Apparently, this is the size of the Space Shuttle launch banners that have been used for years in Cape Canaveral. 5. Section 94-76(a)(10) was amended to add "vinyl" as an appropriate material to be used for signs. Apparently, the Space Shuttle banner signs are made of vinyl and the P & Z Board would like those signs to continue. 6. Section 94-76(a)(9) was rewritten into two sentences to clarify the language. 7. Sections 94-78 and 94-81 have been amended to add the wort! "Reserved." I look forward to finalizing this ordinance in the very near future. Ve ly y rs, Anthony A. arganese City Attorney AAG:jf Enclosures City of Cape Canaveral cm or CAF! CANAVERAL February 4, 2004 To: Bennett Boucher, City Manager Susan Stills, City Clerk From: Bea McNeely, Chairperson, Planning & Zoning Board Re: Recommendation to City Council Regarding Amendments to the Sign Code ------------------ The Planning & Zoning Board reviewed a draft ordinance regarding amending the City sign code at the meeting held on January 28, 2004 and unanimously recommended approval to City Council. Please schedule this proposed ordinance on an upcoming meeting agenda. 105 Polk Avenue • Post Office Box 326 • Cape Canaveral, FL 32920-0326 Telephone: (321) 868-1220 • SUNCOM: 982-1220 • FAX: (321) 868-1248 www.myflorida.com/cape • e-mail: ccapecanaveral@cfl.rr.com Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Date 03-02-04 AGENDA Heading Ordinances -151 Reading Item 5 No. This proposed ordinance defines slot machine or device and casino -type slot machines. It prohibits slot machines or AGENDA REPORT CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL SUBJECT: ORDINANCE NO. 04-2004, AMENDING CHAPTER 10, PROVIDING FOR A DEFINITION OF AND PROHIBITING THE COMMERCIAL USE OF SLOT MACHINES OR DEVICES DEPT./DIVISION: ADMINISTRATION Requested Action: City Council consider at first reading, Ordinance No. 04-2004, amending Chapter 10, Amusements and Entertainments, establishing a new Article V, entitled "Slot Machines or Devices", providing for a definition of and prohibiting the commercial use of slot machines or devices in the City of Cape Canaveral, as recommended by the Planning & Zoning Board. Summary Explanation & Background: This proposed ordinance defines slot machine or device and casino -type slot machines. It prohibits slot machines or devices and exempts certain vending and coin operated devices. I recommend approval at first reading. Exhibits Attached: P&Z Board memo of 02-12-04; Ordinance No. 04-2004; City Attorney's memo City Man �rN Office , Department ADMINISTRATION J cap m\mydo ume n\council\meeting\2004\03-02-04\04-2004.doc City of Cape Canaveral MY or GtrE CANAVERAL February 12, 2004 To:RI 4 Susan Stills, City Clerk From: Bea McNeely, Chairperson, Planning & Zoning Board Re: Recommendation to City Council Regarding Regulating Adult Arcade Amusement Centers ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- The Planning & Zoning Board reviewed a draft ordinance regarding regulating adult arcade amusement centers at the meeting held on February 11, 2004. City Attorney Garganese gave an overview of the proposed ordinance. Following discussion, the Board unanimously recommended approval to City Council. Please schedule this proposed ordinance on an upcoming meeting agenda. 105 Polk Avenue • Post Office Box 326 • Cape Canaveral, FL 32920-0326 Telephone: (321) 868-1220 • SUNCOM: 982-1220 • FAX: (321) 868-1248 www.myflorida.com/cape • e-mail: ccapecanaveral@cfl.rr.com ORDINANCE NO. 04-2004 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 10 OF THE CITY CODE, ENTITLED "AMUSEMENTS AND ENTERTAINMENTS"; ESTABLISHING A NEW ARTICLE V, ENTITLED "SLOT MACHINES OR DEVICES"; PROVIDING FOR A DEFINITION OF AND PROHIBITING THE COMMERCIAL USE OF SLOT MACHINES OR DEVICES IN THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL; 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 Section 849.15, Florida Statutes, prohibits businesses from permitting the operation of or using or keeping slot machines or devices; and WHEREAS, Section 849.16(1), Florida Statutes, defines slot machines as any machine or device used in such a way that as a result of the insertion of money or other objects, the machine is caused to be operated, and if the user by reason of any element of chance or other outcome unpredictable by the player may be entitled to a prize or replay; and WHEREAS, Section 849.161, Florida Statutes, provides a limited exemption for amusement games or devices, which are operated within a bona -fide arcade or amusement center, with fifty (50) or more machines or devices and which strictly through the application of skill a player may become entitled to receive points or coupons which may be exchanged for merchandise, excluding cash and alcoholic beverages; and WHEREAS, businesses known as "Adult Arcades" or "Adult Arcade Amusement Centers" have begun to operate within cities and counties across Florida providing casino -type gaming, which significantly and adversely affects the public health, safety, morals and welfare of the citizens, residents and tourists of those areas; and WHEREAS, despite the fact that these businesses use slot machines, these businesses are attempting to use the state law exemption, commonly referred to as the "Chuck E' Cheese" exemption, found in Section 849.161, Florida Statutes, in order to operate their businesses; and WHEREAS, it has been determined by the Florida courts that machines or devices that are determined to have an inherent element of chance are not exempt under Chapter 849, Florida Statutes. Deeb v. Stoutamire, 531 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1951); In Re Forfeiture ofForty-Seven Video Games v. Hunter, 799 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 2nd DCA, 200 1) (Based upon the testimony of the owner/operator of an adult arcade City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 04-2004 1 of 4 amusement center the court found that there was an inherent element of chance in the forfeited slot machines, as the player could win, without any application of skill, purely in proportion of the natural odds, i.e., there was a 1 in 26 chance that the spinning reels would stop on the proper icon, should the player randomly press the stop button.); and WHEREAS, the State of Florida has prohibited all forms of gambling, including the operation of any kind of slot machines, and gambling is punishable as a misdemeanor under the State statutes; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that slot machines or devices can lead to gambling addictions, along with the secondary consequences that such additions impose upon the community, including increases in crime, debt, suicide and other negative effects on the health, safety and welfare of the residents and visitors of the areas where these devices exist; and WHEREAS, the City of Cape Canaveral has the duty and authority, through its police powers, to ensure appropriate regulation, licensing and permitting of businesses, as such are vital to the public's health, safety and welfare as deficient or inadequate regulations can lead to public harm; and WHEREAS, the State of Florida has prohibited all forms of gambling, including the operation of any kind of slot machines, and gambling is a misdemeanor under the statutes; and WHEREAS, stricter local regulation of these gaming or slot machines is permissible provided such regulations are not in conflict with the State laws; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance is intended to provide stricter regulations of gaming or slot machines than those provided by Chapter 849, Florida Statutes, and to prohibit all commercial casino -type slot machines as defined herein; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, hereby finds this Ordinance to be necessary and 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 reference as legislative findings and the intent and purpose of the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral. Section 2. Code Amendment. Chapter 10, entitled "Amusements and Entertainments," of the Code of Ordinances, City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, is hereby amended as follows (underlined type indicates additions and str-ikeeu type indicates deletions, while asterisks (* * *) indicate a deletion from this Ordinance of text existing in Chapter 10. It is intended that the text in Chapter 10 denoted by the asterisks and set forth in this Ordinance shall remain unchanged from the language existing prior to adoption of this Ordinance): City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 04-2004 2 of 4 CHAPTER 10 — AMUSEMENTS AND ENTERTAINMENTS ARTICLE V. SLOT MACHINES OR DEVICES Sec. 10-200. Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of this article is to regulate and prohibit, within the City of Qpe Canaveral, Florida, slot machines or devices and casino -type slot machines as defined in Section 10-201 of this article or as prohibited by Chapter 849, Florida Statutes. Sec. 10-201. Definitions. The following words, terms, and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Slot machine or device shall mean an amusement machine, device, game or instrument operated by means of the insertion of a coin, bill, currency, credit card, debit card, ticket, token or slug, for use as a game, contest of skill or amusement of an description, escription, which device, machine, game or instrument is similar to, or in the nature of a casino -type slot machine Casino -type slot machine shall mean a machine, device, game or instrument which is prohibited by Section 849.16, Florida Statutes, and which, by means of skill or chance, or both, has as its object the lining up of two or more colors, lights, or spinning objects, or any combination thereof. Sec. 10-202. Slot machine or device prohibited. Lal It shall be unlawful to have, own, operate, use or allow another to have, own operate or use a slot machine or device in the City of Cape Canaveral, and slot machines or devices are hereby prohibited in the Cit,, of Canaveral. (b,) No occupational licenses shall be issued by the city for any business, enterprise, or organization that proposes to operate a slot machine or device in the City and no occupational license shall be issued by the City for a slot machine or device. Sec. 10-203. Exemption. This article is not intended to and specifically does not regulate: (a) merchandise vending machines; fb,) coin-operated mechanical or electrical musical instruments or devices; (c) coin-operated amusement devices that are not in the nature of, or similar to, casino -type slot machines; or coin-operated amusement devices that may be in the nature of or similar to casino -type slot machines or devices, which are not used for commercial or betting purposes but kept only puMoses of display. City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 04-2004 3 of 4 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. Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word or provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, whether for substantive, procedural, or any other reason, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, this day of , 2004. ATTEST: SUSAN STILLS, City Clerk First Reading: Legal Ad published: Second Reading: ROCKY RANDELS, Mayor For Against Approved as to legal form and sufficiency for the City of Cape Canaveral only: ANTHONY A. GARGANESE, City Attorney Bob Hoog Steve Miller Jim Morgan Rocky Randels Richard Treverton City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 04-2004 4 of 4 Casino Watch -Florida Casinos Report CA WATCH WM Economic and Social Costs of Gambling CONTACT CA511V� Rack to pre,, ious page Home Casinos in Florida An analysis of the Economic and Social Impacts Prepared by: The Executive Office of the Governor Office of Planning and Budgeting The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3. Recurring sales tax revenues would experience a net decrease of at least $84.7 million as Floridians diverted some of their existing taxable spending to casinos. 4. Crime and social costs attributable to casinos would total at least $2.16 billion annually. PROBLEM GAMBLING AND RELATED CRIMES According to psychiatrist Richard J. Rosenthal, most gambling addicts "are seeking 'action', an aroused, euphoric state comparable to a'high' derived from cocaine and other drugs" (Worsnop, page 250). Counselors Arnie and Sheila Wexler of New Jersey state "most dual -addicted cocaine addict/compulsive gamblers will tell you gamblling gives them a bigger high. Some drug addicts, who are also gambling addicts, will sell their drugs for gambling money." (Worsnop, page 250). Several studies have been conducted in an attempt to quantify the costs of problem gambling behaviors. In 1994, Rachel Volberg reported that the average individual pathological gambler cost the public $13,600 each year (in 1981 dollars). This includes income that would have been earned for those who lost their jobs, costs of prosecuting and incarcerating individuals for crimes caused by their gambliing behavior, and bailout costs, such as family gifts. Other problems include lost job productivity, impaired judgment at work, lost productivity of spouses, divorces, unemployment compensation, depression, physical illness related to stress, and suicide. A Marylalnd Department of Health and Mental Hygiene task force determined that its 52,000 adult gambling addicts cost citizens $1.5 billion in lost work productivity, monies stolen and embezzled, bad checks and unpaid taxes (Worsnop, 1990, page 644). The cost per individual compulsive gambler exceeds $28,846 and significantly increases when related costs for social services, health care, bankruptcies, legal and correctional fees are considered. The American Insurance Institute estimates that 40 percent of all white collar crime has its roots in both legal and illegal gambling. Problem gamblers are responsible for an estimated $1.3 billion worth of insurance -related fraud per year. Insurance companies paid fraud victims an average of $65,000 (Lesieur, page 45). The mean gambling debt of people in compulsive gambling therapy ranged from $53,000 to Page 1 of 3 Casino Watch -Florida Casinos Report $92,000, not including debts paid. As many as 10 to 17 people may be innocent victims of each compulsvie gambler (Lesieur, 1984), including spouses, children, parents, other relatives, employers, co-workers and friends. Two out of three compulsive gamblers will commit illegal activities in order to pay gambling related debts and to continue gambling. One out of every four problem gamblers have been involved in an auto accident during the worst of their gambling. Almost half of those surveyed were speeding on their way to gamble or on the drive back (Florida Council on Compulsive Gambling). New Jersey residents also report that 28 percent know of someone who gambles too much (Gallup, page 4). Poor and working people spend a disproportionate share of their incomes on gambling (Goodman, page 8). As a result, state gambling revenues come disproportionately from lower income residents, causing a regressive form of taxation. Problem gambling behaviors are highest among the poor and minorities (Goodman, page 17). YOUTH A 1985 random sample of 332 students at an Atlantic City high school found that 64 percent of the students had gambled illegally at local casinos. Over 40 percent had gambled in casinos before the age of 14. COST OF PROBLEM GAMBLING BEHAVIORS IN FLORIDA 1. As noted by Lesieur, two out of three problem gamblers will commit a crime in order to support illegal gambling activities. This means that 266,667 individuals in Florida will commit crimes such as burglary, larceny, theft, forgery or fraud. While not all of the individuals will be convicted, they will likely continue to commit crimes. Some will be convicted more than once. 2. The average sentence length of a person convicted of burglary in Florida is 5.7 years; theft, forgery and fraud 4.2 years; and robbery 8.8 years. First time offenders and non-violent offenders will likely serve probation or community control rather than prison time. 3. Of these categories, 41.3% will likely be convicted of burglary; 36.8% for theft, forgery or fraud; and 21.9% for robbery based on current incarceration rates. Not counting costs of prosecution, restitution or other related costs, incarceration and supervision costs alone for problem gambler criminal incidents could cost Florida residents $6.08 billion. Florida's problem gamblers related to casinos would require $1.66 billion in prison construction costs. Deducting these positive social effects from the estimated social costs results in a high, medium and low estimate of $3.25 billion, $2.65 billion, and $2.16 billion in net social costs, respectively. OTHER CRIME While many believe that legalizing gambling activities will decrease illegal gambling, an examination of dollars gambled does not support this belief. Dr. Vicki Abt, a sociologist at Pennsylvania State University, says legalization "has not decreased the dollar amount of illegal gambling; what is has done is decrease (illegal gambling) relative to legal gambling. Whereas 75 percent or so was wagered illegally before the 1960s, now about 75 percent is wagered legally. But the total amount went up in the meantime." (Worsnop, page 643). ATLANTIC CITY Page 2 of 3 Casino Watch -Florida Casinos Report Page 3 of 3 In just three years following the opening of its first casino, Atlantic City went from 50th in the nation in per capita crime to first (Goodman, page 58). Crime spilled over into neighboring communities that received no measurable economic benefits from casinos. Atlantic City's crime rate rose 230 percent during the first three years of casino operations, over 25 times the growth rate of 9 percent for the rest of the state (FDLE, 1994, page 3). It should be noted that Atlantic City's population decreased by 20 percent during the same time period. Florida's crime rate rose by 30 percent during these same years. NEW ORLEANS New Orleans estimates that crime -related costs will be just under $5 million for a single casino. Widespread gambling could add an additional 10,000 new crimes at a cost to the city of an additional $14.1 million. COLORADO Central City, Colorado has increased its police force from two full-time and one part-time officer to 16 full-time officers in 1994 (Worsnop, page 256) to keep pace with its "skyrocketing incidents" of disorderly conduct, assaults and DUls. CONCLUSION Since state tax revenues (adjusted for pari-mutuel and Lottery revenue losses) are estimated to range between $155 million and $276 million while annual crime and social costs are estimated at a minimum of $2.16 million annually (and up to $3.8 billion), it appears that casino costs significantly outweigh the benefits of legalization. According to University of Nevada professor of Public Administration William Thompson, casinos generate significant new tax revenues "only if they can export their product. The local economy doesnbt benefit if only local people are gambling." Back to prey ious page F omc frontline: easy money: Business -Economic Impacts of Licensed Casino Gambling in Wes a Pagel of 8 AMBLING FAC'S 8� STATS An excerpt from: The Business -Economic Impacts of Licensed Casino Gambling in West Virginia: Short -Term Gain but Long -Term Pain By John Warren Kindt John Warren Kindt is a professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana -Champaign. A faculty member since 1978, he teaches courses in commerce and legal policy. The text and footnotes have been updated from the original publication in The National Impact of Casino Gambling Proliferation: Hearing Before the House Committee on Small Business, 103rd. Congress, 2nd. Session 77 (1994). Due to the format of this publication, substantial footnotes have been deleted. The Economic Development Argument Exposed From a business -economic perspective, the main issue involved in legalizing various forms of gambling is whether gambling activities constitute a valid strategy for economic development. While the dollars invested in various legalized gambling projects and the jobs initially created are evident, the industry has been criticized for inflating the positive economic impacts and trivializing or ignoring the negative impacts (Goodman 1994). The industry's tendency to focus on specialized factors provides a distorted view of the localized economic positives, while ignoring the strategic business -economic costs to the state as a whole (such as West Virginia) and to different regions of the United States (California Governor's Office 1992, Kindt 1995). In 1994, all of the various experts who testified before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Small Business criticized the impacts that casino -style gambling activities inflict upon the criminal justice system, the social welfare, system, small businesses, and the economy (Congressional Hearing 1994). Utilizing legalized gambling activities as a strategy for economic development was thoroughly discredited during the hearing. Florida is the only state which has conducted a comprehensive statewide analysis of the impacts of legalized gambling activities. Its report concurred with the congressional hearing s conclusions (Florida Budgeting Office 1994). Since some issue areas have not received widespread public attention in West Virginia, this analysis highlights some. of the neglected issue areas as they relate to tax revenues, social -welfare costs, education, and job creation. frontline: easy money: Business -Economic Impacts of Licensed Casino Gambling in Wes... Page 2 of 8 Economic Cycles and Gambling s Impact on Tax Revenues From the perspective of U.S. economic history, the United States has had previous economic cycles with widespread legalized gambling activities. The most relevant cycle occurred after the American Civil War and paralleled the post-bellum migration to the "Wild West." Although gambling proliferated during this time -frame, within a few years the trend toward prohibiting gambling activities had begun, and by 1910 there was virtually no legal gambling in the United States. Gambling activities were not just prohibited via state statutes and local ordinances, but more importantly, these prohibitions were incorporated into most state constitutions. The fact that state constitutional provisions were utilized to make it as difficult as possible for future generations to legalize gambling activities (and thereby experiment once again with a classic "boom and bust" economic cycle) lends substantial credence to arguments that both historically and currently, the legalization of gambling activities eventually causes: (1) increased taxes, (2) a loss of jobs from the overall region, (3) economic disruption of other businesses, (4) increased crime and (5) large social -welfare costs for society in general and government agencies in particular. For example, two studies of the riverboat casinos in Illinois concluded that for every one job created by the riverboats, most of the surrounding communities probably lost one or more jobs from pre-existing businesses (Grinols 1994; Grinols and Omorov 1995). In recent economic history, legalized gambling activities have been directly and indirectly subsidized by the taxpayers. The field research throughout the nation indicates that for every dollar the legalized gambling interests indicate is being contributed in taxes, it usually costs the taxpayers at least 3 dollars-- and higher numbers have been calculated (Politzer, Morrow and Leavey 1981; Better Government Association 1992; Florida Budget Office 1994). These costs to taxpayers are reflected in: (1) infrastructure costs, (2) relatively high regulatory costs, (3) expenses to the criminal justice system, and (4) large social - welfare costs (Illinois Governor's Office 1992). Accordingly, several state legislators (e.g., in South Dakota) have called for at least partially internalizing these external costs by taxing all legalized gambling activities at a straight 50 percent tax rate. Furthermore, as a matter of good public policy, state officials and legislators in Illinois have proposed legislation to prohibit contributions by legalized gambling interests to politicians and political campaigns. In the case of casinos, New Jersey already has such prohibitions, but other states have neglected to enact similar prohibitions. Political scientists have raised concerns that the newly developing constituencies in the licensed gambling industry are becoming so widespread that the industry can dictate economic, social, and tax policies. For example, the industry drafted a state constitutional referendum in Florida which would have mandated the introduction of casinos into communities even if a particular community voted unanimously against a casino (Dyckman 1994). The industry spent approximately $3 million to get the Florida referendum on the ballot and $6.5 million to campaign for the casinos-- more than the combined gubernatorial campaigns of Governor Lawton Chiles and his challenger Jeb Bush (Lavelle 1994). In these contexts, an article in the Columbia Journalism Review cautions the news media "flat out ask frontline: easy money: Business -Economic Impacts of Licensed Casino Gambling in Wes... Page 3 of 8 [experts, academics, and even other reporters] if they make money off the industry" (Simurda 1994). Social Welfare Costs Legalized gambling activities act as a regressive tax on the poor (Clotfelter and Cook 1989). Specifically, the legalization of various forms of gambling activities makes "poor people poorer" and can dramatically intensify many pre-existing social -welfare problems. Demographic analyses reveal that certain disadvantaged socioeconomic groups tend to gamble proportionately greater amounts of their overall income and marketing efforts, particularly by state lotteries, have allegedly been directed at these target groups. In a specific example involving casinos, a 1995 Wisconsin report concluded that "[w]ithout considering the social costs of compulsive gambling, the 'rest -of -the -state' areas lose- or, transfer in- $223.94 million to the local gaming areas. Considering the lowest estimated social costs of problem gambling, the rest of... [Wisconsin] loses $318.61 million to gambling" (Thompson, Gazel, and Rickman 1995). This report also concluded that without casino gambling, many local citizens would have increased participation in other "outside" activities. "More than 10% of the locals would spend more on groceries if it were not for the casino, while nearly one-fourth would spend more on clothes. Thirty-seven percent said that their savings had been reduced since the casino had opened..." (Thompson, Gazel, and Rickman 1995). From the business perspective, businesses are not naive. For example, "in a rare public stand on a controversial political issue, the Greater Washington Board of Trade's 85 -member board voted unanimously against" Mayor Sharon Pratt KelIy's initiative to bring casino -style gambling to Washington, D.C. (emphasis added, Spayd and Woodlee 1993). With the exception of the cluster services associated with gambling, new businesses tend not to locate in areas allowing legalized gambling because of one or more of the aforementioned costs. In areas saturated with legalized gambling activities, pre-existing businesses face added pressures that push them toward illiquidity and even bankruptcy. Although South Dakota does not constitute a saturated gambling state, this trend has already been reported there. South Dakota basically had no gambling in 1988 and then instituted casino gambling and video lottery terminals by the end of 1989. Within two years legalized gambling activities constituted one of the leading causes of business and personal bankruptcies among South Dakota residents (whereas this cause was virtually nonexistent in 1989) (Nelson 1993). More subtly, traditional businesses in communities which initiate legalized gambling activities can anticipate increased personnel costs due to increased job absenteeism and declining productivity (Kindt 1994a). The best blue-collar and white-collar workers, the Type - A personalities, are the most likely to become pathological gamblers (Kindt 1994b). A business with 1,000 workers can anticipate increased personnel costs of $500,000 or more per year -simply by having various forms of legalized gambling activities accessible to its workers. frontline: easy money: Business -Economic Impacts of Licensed Casino Gambling in Wes... Page 4 of 8 To some extent businesses must already internalize the societal costs associated with assisting personnel with drug or alcohol- related problems. Legalizing various gambling activities increases the number of problems related to pathological gambling in the context of the workforce, and these costs are reflected in increased personnel costs-- such as "rehabilitation costs..." which can easily range from $3,000 to $20,000 (or more) per pathological gambler (Kindt 1994b). In the context of the healthcare debate, the spectre of these unanticipated costs can raise further concerns to businesses already being asked to bear certain health care costs. Education Costs Gambling activities and the gambling philosophy are directly opposed to sound business principles and economic development. Legalized gambling activities also negatively affect education -- both philosophically and fiscally (Better Government Association 1992; Clotfelter and Cook 1989). Adherence to a philosophy of making a living via gambling activities not only abrogates the perceived need for an education, but also reinforces economically unproductive activities (and is statistically impossible since the "house" always wins eventually). In states with legalized gambling activities which were initiated allegedly to bolster tax revenues to "education," the funding in "real dollars" has almost uniformly decreased. The Pathological Gambler Problem States which embrace legalized gambling activities can expect enormous socioeconomic costs and a decline in the quality of life. Unlike traditional business activities, legalized gambling activities cater to a market consisting of addicted and potentially addicted consumers, and most pre-existing traditional businesses will find it quite difficult to compete for "consumer dollars" which are being transformed into "gambling dollars." For example, the field research strongly suggests that the introduction of widespread legalized gambling in South Dakota, including casinos and video lottery terminals (VLTs), over a two-year time span caused a one percent increase in the number of problem and probable pathological gamblers-- a recognized addictive behavior pursuant to the American Psychiatric Association (Clotfelter and Cook 1989; Better Government Association 1992). Each newly - created pathological gambler has been calculated to cost society from $13,200 to $52,000 per year (Maryland Department of Health 1994; Better Government Association 1994). These costs are not just reflected in society as a whole, but impact on all businesses. In particular, small businesses could easily experience disproportionate negative impacts, and unlike large corporations, small businesses would be less likely to have the asset base necessary to cushion against those negative impacts. Sociologists almost uniformly report that increased gambling activities which are promoted as sociologically "acceptable" (the acceptability factor) and which are made "accessible" (the accessibility factor) to larger numbers of people will increase the number of pathological gamblers (Goodman 1994: Politzer, Morrow and Leavey 1981; Better Government Association 1992; Maryland Department of Health 1994). The baseline of frontline: easy money: Business -Economic Impacts of Licensed Casino Gambling in Wes... Page 5 of 8 pathological gamblers as part of the population begins at .77 percent as reported by the 1976 U.S. Commission on Gambling (U.S. Commission 1976). Since gambling has been legalized and made accessible in several states, the range has increased to 1.5 to 5 percent in those states (Alberta Lotteries and Gambling 1994). This phenomenon was specifically confirmed by a 1995 study which concluded that the lifetime probable pathological and problem gamblers in Iowa increased from 1.7 percent of the public in 1989 to 5.4 percent in 1995 (Iowa Department of Human Services 1995, Petroski 1995). Similarly, a limited study of Native Americans revealed a rate for lifetime probable pathological and problem gamblers of 14.5 percent in casino areas (Alberta Lotteries and Gambling 1994). These developments translate into increases in socioeconomic costs which must be addressed and absorbed primarily by taxpayers, but also by businesses, charities, social -welfare organizations and governmental units. Negative Impact on Job Creation On a regional level, the combined ranges of these various socioeconomic costs are so large that they tend to dwarf the localized economic positives (California Governor's Office 1992). These drains on society could easily translate into a net loss of jobs on a statewide or regional level. Furthermore, it can be argued that the combined economic positives and negatives result in a net negative economic multiplier (Goodman 1994; Teske and Sur 1991). From the perspective of business - economics and strategic development, major businesses are and should be concerned with the trend toward expanding various forms of legalized gambling activities. Among other reasons, nongambling related businesses will not be competing for consumer dollars or recreational dollars on a "level playing field," because legalized gambling activities can cater to an addicted and potentially addicted market segment. Since the U.S economy and most state economies are extensive in scope, the socioeconomic negatives associated with legalized gambling activities can remain hidden for long periods of time. However, just because a particular activity is "legalized" by a state government does not mean that the negative business or societal impacts have been eliminate-- or even reduced. Conclusion Increasingly, taxpayers and businesses are beginning to realize that, as Professor Jack Van Der Slik has summarized for much of the academic community, state-sponsored gambling "produces no product, no new wealth, and so it makes no genuine contribution to economic development" (Van Der Slik 1990). Business - economic history supports this proposition. The recriminalization of gambling activities occurred 100 years ago after a brief gambling boom following the Civil War. Most state legislatures utilized constitutional provisions to recriminalize gambling, because lawmakers wanted to make it as difficult as possible for future generations to experiment with the classic "boom and bust" cycles and the concomitant socioeconomic negatives occasioned by legalized gambling activities. To paraphrase Georg Hegel's common quote, "those who forget the lessons of economic history are condemned to relive them" (Bartlett 1968). frontline: easy money: Business -Economic Impacts of Licensed Casino Gambling in Wes... Page 6 of 8 References Alberta Lotteries and Gaming. 1994. Gambling and Problem Gambling in Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta. January. American Psychiatric Association. 1994. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. ("pathological gambling") Vol. 312.31, pp. 615-618. Bartlett, John. 1968. Familiar Quotations. 14th. Edition. Boston; Little Brown. Better Government Association. 1992. Staff White Paper. Casino Gambling in Chicago. Chicago, IL. California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, 1992. California and Nevada: Subsidy, Monopoly, and Competitive Effects of Legalized Gambling. ES -1. Sacramento, CA: California's Governor's Office. December. Clotfelter, Charles and Phillip Cook. 1989. Selling Hope, Cambridge, MA: National Bureau for Economic Research, Harvard University Press. Congressional Hearing, 1994. The National Impact of Casino Gambling Proliferation: Hearing Before the House Committee on Small Business. 103rd Congress, 2nd. Session. Washington, D.C. Dyckman, Martin. 1994. "Misleading the Public." St. Petersburg Times. November 1, p. AI3. Florida Governor's Office of Planning and Budgeting. 1994. Casinos in Florida: An Analysis of the Economic and Social Impacts. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Governor's Office. Goodman, Robert. 1994. Legalized Gambling as a Strategy for Economic Development. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts -Amherst, Center for Economic Development. Grinols, Earl. 1994. "Bluff or Winning Hand? Riverboat Gambling and Regional Employment and Unemployment." Illinois Business Review (Spring ): 6-11. Grinols, Earl and J. Omorov. 1995. "Development or Dreamfield Delusions?: Assessing Casino Gambling's Costs and Benefits." University of Illinois, September. Illinois Governor's Office. 1992. Governor James Edgar, Press Release. "Governor Warns Land -Based Casinos Could Bring Crime Surge as well as Overall Loss of Jobs and State Revenues." September 29 (summarizing several Illinois State reports). Iowa Department of Human Services. 1995. Gambling and Problem Gambling in Iowa: A Replication Survey. July 28. Kindt, John. 1995. "U.S. National Security And The Strategic frontline: easy money: Business -Economic Impacts of Licensed Casino Gambling in Wes... Page 7 of 8 Economic Base: The Business/Economic Impacts Of The Legalization Of Gambling Activities." Saint Louis Law School Journal 39, p. 567. Kindt, John. 1994a. "The Negative Impacts Of Legalized Gambling On Businesses." University of Miami Business Law Journal 4, p. 93. Kindt, John. 1994b. "The Economic Impacts Of Legalized Gambling Activities." Drake Law Review 43, pp. 51, 66 n. 119. Lavelle, Louis. 1994. "Voters Deal Loss to Casinos; Gambling Backers Lose Despite $16-5 Million Campaign." Tampa Tribune. November 9, pp. 1, 5. Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Administration. 1994. Task Force on Gambling Addiction in Maryland. Annapolis, Maryland. Nelson, Todd. 1993. "S.D. bankruptcies down 5 percent: Judge: Gambling caused most cases." Argus Leader (Sioux Falls, S.D.) January 15, p. 1. News Leader (Springfield, Missouri). 1995. "Jeff City rejects riverboat gambling approved in'92." November 8, p. 1. Petroski, William. 1995. "Study: More gamblers in jeopardy." Des Moines Register. August 25, pp. Al, A2. Politzer, Robert, James Morrow and Sandra Leavey. 1981. Report on the Societal Cost of Pathological Gambling and the Cost -Benefit Effectiveness of Treatment. 5th National Conference on Gambling and Risk Taking. Teske, Paul and Bela Sur. 1991. "Winners and Losers: Politics, Casino Gambling, and Development in Atlantic City." Policy Studies Review 10 (Spring/ Summer): 130-137. Simurda, Stephen F. 1994. "When Gambling Comes To Town." Columbia Journalism Review (January -February): 36-38. Spayd, Liz and Yolanda Woodlee. 1993. "Trade Board Rejects D.C. Casino Plan." Washington Post. September 25, pp. Al, A8. Thompson, William, Ricardo Gazel, and Dan Rickman 1995. The Economic Impact of Native American Gambling in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Policy Research Institute Report. U.S. Commission on the Review of the National Policy Toward Gambling. 1976. Gambling in America. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office. Van Der Slik, Jack. 1990. "Legalized gambling: predatory policy." Illinois Issues (March): 10. Wartzman, Rick. 1995. "Bayou Backlash: Gambling Is Proving To Be a Poor Wager For State of Louisiana: Business Is frontline: easy money: Business -Economic Impacts of Licensed Casino Gambling in Wes... Page 8 of 8 Disappointing And an FBI Graft Probe Roils a Jaded Electorate." Wall Street Journal. September 11, p. 1. Worthington, Rogers. 1995. "Poor get poorer at tribal casinos, says study of Wisconsin 'gamers'. " Chicigo Tribune. April 11, p. 1. join the discussion /what are the odds? / gamblim pro and con/ interviews / ' neline / facts & stats / tapes & transcripts / pLess exo1ore FRONTLINE New Content Copvrieht ® 1999 PBS and WGBH/FRONTLINE ontine BROWN, SALZMAN, WEISS & GARGANESE, P.A. Usher L. Brown ' Suzanne D'Agresta° Anthony A. Garganese° Gary S. Salzman* John H. Ward 4 Jeffrey S. Weiss 'Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer 'Board Certified Business Litigation Lawyer °Board Certified City, County & Local Government Law Attorneys at Late Offices in Orlando, Kissimmee, Debra S. Babb-Nutcher Cocoa & Viera Jeffrey P. Buak° John U. Biedenharn, Jr. Joseph E. Blitch Douglas Lambert Katherine Latorre Michelle A. Reddin Kimberly F. Whitfield Erin J. O'Leary Of Counsel December 16, 2003 The Honorable Mayor Rocky Randels and Members of the City Council City of Cape Canaveral 105 Polk Avenue Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920 Re: Adult Arcade Amusement Centers - Slot Machines City of Cape Canaveral / General File No. 513-001 Dear Mayor Randels and Members of the City Council: This correspondence follows a recent flurry of news reports regarding casino style gaming rooms which are opening around the state. It is the intent of this letter to bring the City up to date on the issues surrounding these establishments and to provide several possible alternatives for dealing with such an application. Typical Scenario These gaming rooms or arcades often look like traditional casinos inside, except they are in neighborhood strip centers. The owner/operators typically lower the lights, the staff is dressed in traditional casino attire, the owners/operators often serve complimentary wine and food, and usually require all patrons to be over the age of twenty-one (21) years. The arcades typically have slot machine style games. Some are the traditional reel styled machines, while others are video images that appear to spin. The insertion of money into the machine provides credits for play. Typically each game costs One Dollar ($1.00), but players can place.as much as One -Hundred Dollars ($100.00) into the machine and receive one-hundred(100) credits. The machine is then activated by placing a bet or using a credit. Each of the three reels is then stopped individually by pushing a stop button, sometimes labeled by the word "skill". Should a player end up with the necessary images or icons in the proper location, the player wins and is awarded a coupon. The coupons may then be added together and traded for gift cards, restaurant coupons, discounts for services, as well as other merchandise. 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 & Viera (866) 425-9566 Website: www.oriandolaw.net • Email: firm@oriandolaw.net The Honorable Rocky Randels and Members of the City Council December 16, 2003 Page 2 Issue The question posed for state and local officials is whether these establishments violate Chapter 849,Florida Statutes, by the use or operation of a slot machine or if these establishments are exempt from the regulation as the slot machines are games of skill, as opposed to ones of chance. Short Answer We believe the exemption provided in Section 849.161, Florida Statutes, for amusement games or machines located within an arcade amusement center is limited. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it appears possible that a casino styled arcade amusement center may exist lawfully under this exemption. Legal Analysis Pursuant to Section 849.15(1), Florida Statutes, it is unlawful to possess or permit the operation of any slot machine or device. Section 849.16, Florida Statutes defines those machines which qualify as a slot machine or device as: [O]ne that is adapted for use in such a way that, as a result of the insertion of any piece of money, coin, or other object, such machine or device is caused to operate or may be operated and if the user, by reason of any element of chance or of any other outcome of such operation unpredictable by him or her, may: (a) Receive or become entitled to receive any piece of money, credit, allowance, or thing of value, or any check, slug, token, or memorandum, whether of value or otherwise, which may be exchanged for any money, credit, allowance, or thing of value or which may be given in trade; or (b) Secure additional chances or rights to use such machine, apparatus, or device, even though it may, in addition to any element of chance or unpredictable outcome of such operation, also sell, deliver, or present some merchandise, indication of weight, entertainment, or other thing of value. Thus, if the receipt of a prize is dependent on any element of chance, the machine would fall within the above definition of a slot machine proscribed by Section 849.15, Florida Statutes. The Honorable Rocky Randels and Members of the City Council December 16, 2003 Page 3 There is an exemption, however, for amusement games or machines, operated within a bonafide arcade or amusement center, which in accordance with Section 849.161, Florida Statutes are: [C]oin operated and which by application of skill may entitle the person playing or operating the game or machine to receive points or coupons which may be exchanged for merchandise only, excluding cash and alcoholic beverages, provided the_ cost value of the merchandise or prize awarded in exchange for such points or coupons does not exceed 75 cents on any game played. "Arcade amusement center" is defined in Section 849.161, Florida Statutes as "...a place of business having at least 50 coin-operated amusement games or machines on premises which are operated for the entertainment of the general public and tourists as a bona fide amusement facility." Therefore, Section 849.161, Florida Statutes, creates an exemption for a machine or device that would otherwise be prohibited by Chapter 849, Florida Statutes, if the machine is located in an arcade amusement center and if, by application of skill, the player may receive a prize worth no more than seventy-five cents ($0.75). This exemption has been referred to as the "Chuck E Cheese Exemption". The owner's and operators of the casino style arcades claim this exemption applies to their establishments. They claim the fact that a player must push a button, sometimes labeled with the word "skill", to stop the spinning reels or images is a function of skill and not chance. It is claimed that if a player plays enough, concentrates enough, and has fast enough reflexes, the player will be able to stop the reels, through the application of skill, and win a coupon redeemable for prizes. The Florida Attorney General was asked in 1995 whether the pushing of a button marked "skill" equals the application of skill required by Section 849.161, Florida Statutes. The Attorney General found that while the outcome of the game does not have to be wholly dependent upon skill, skill must be a factor in the outcome. But, the mere pushing of a button marked "skill" would not, in and of itself, appear to constitute the application of skill for purposes of qualifying for the exemption under Section 849.161, Florida Statutes. The Attorney General went onto note that the information provided indicated that the objects painted on the reels were impossible to identify due to the speed at which the reels turned, and that when the button was depressed the reels did not immediately stop spinning, therefore under those facts, it appeared that the knowledge, attention, or practice of the player would not affect the element of chance that dominates the result of the play, and therefore the machine would not qualify forthe exemption in Section 849.161, Florida Statutes. The Honorable Rocky Randels and Members of the City Council December 16, 2003 Page 4 The Florida courts have also looked at this issue. In Deeb v. Stoutamire, 53 So.2d 873, (Fla. 195 1) the Florida Supreme Court considered the meaning of the phrase "any element of chance or of other outcome of such operation unpredictable by him", and determined the element of chance or unpredictability is not supplied by the player, but must be inherent in the machine. In other words, when considering whether a machine or device is exempt from the requirements of Sections 849.15 and 849.16, Florida Statutes, it must be determined that there is no chance or unpredictability in the machine. Later, in State et al. v. Broward Vending, Inc., 696 So.2d 851 (Fla. 4`h DCA 1997) the Fourth District Court of appeal applied this standard when considering whether slot machines were properly seized under the Florida Contraband Act. The Court found that if a player does not manipulate the levers to improve the score, the machine was preset for the player to win fifty-five (55) percent of the time, therefore while skill will improve the winning percentage, the game has an inherent element of chance. As such, it is not exempt from Chapter 849, Florida Statutes. Most recently, In re forfeiture of Forty -Seven Video Redemption Games v. Don Hunter, 799 So.2d 221 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2001), the Second District Court of Appeals found machines seized to be slot machines as defined by Section 849.16, Florida Statutes, and not subject to the exemption of Section 849.161, Florida Statutes. At trial the owner of the machines testified that there was a chance a player could win, without skill, just in proportion to the natural odds. He testified that each reel contained twenty-six (26) icons and that without any use of skill, there was a 1 in 26 chance that the reel would stop on the proper icon. It is important to note that Chapter 849, Florida Statutes, contains no express preemption from further regulation by local governments. Conclusion While the exemption provided in Section 849.161, Florida Statutes, has been found to be limited in scope, there remain fact based determinations regarding whether a machine or device is exempt as an amusement game of skill. 1) If the machine or device has an element of chance inherent to it, the machine or device is not exempt from the prohibitions of Section 849.15, Florida Statutes, and cannot be operated or possessed. 2) If the machine or device does not have an inherent element of chance, but is instead a skill based machine, the same is exempt and may be permitted, provided the arcade amusement center has at least fifty (50) machines, is open to the general public and tourists, and any award has a value of less than $0.75 per game. The Honorable Rocky Randels and Members of the City Council December 16, 2003 Page 5 Recommendations 1. The City could do nothing and handle any application on a case by case basis. Any applicant which demonstrates to the satisfaction of staff that the machines are skill oriented, that there will be more than fifty (50) machines within the amusement center, that the arcade amusement center will be open to the general pubic (which could or should include children), and that will only provide coupons with a value of less than $0.75, may be approved. 2. The City could amend the City Code to provide that any such use would be permitted by special exception only in an appropriate zoning district. This would provide a quasi-judicial forum whereby the applicant would have to demonstrate compliance with the Florida Statutes and City Code. This would allow the presentation of witnesses regarding fact determination of skill versus chance. Where compliance with the Florida Statutes is demonstrated, the City could impose additional reasonable conditions to protect the surrounding property owners and ensure the lawful existence of the business. 3. The City could amend the City Code to provide additional regulations relating to gaming and arcades to effectively close the "loophole" claimed to exist in Chapter 849, Florida Statutes. I look forward to discussing this issue at the December 16, 2003 City Council meeting. Ve ly yours, Anthony A. Garganese City Attorney AAG:jf cc: Bennett Boucher, City Manager Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Date 03-02-04 AGENDA Heading Discussion Item I asked FPL for a cost estimate to relocate the utility pole and/or guide wire so the property owner could widen their No. See attached correspondence. AGENDA REPORT CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL SUBJECT: DISCUSSION: REQUEST TO RELOCATE A FPL UTILITY POLE DEPT./DIVISION: LEGISLATIVE Requested Action: Councilmember Morgan would like to discuss the FPL utility pole request made by Mrs. Constance McKone of 340 Chandler Street. Summary Explanation & Background: I asked FPL for a cost estimate to relocate the utility pole and/or guide wire so the property owner could widen their driveway. See attached correspondence. Exhibits Attached: City Manager's memo of 02-13-04; Request to relocate utility pole City Ma Office _ Department LEGISLATIVE \my current admin\council\meeting\2009\03-02-09\fpl.doc TRACT 12 WHISPERING OAKS i0 [EUR HE TPIRptliflo CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 24 SOUTH, RANGE 37 EAST LEGAL DESCRIPTION TRACT II, REPLAT OF CHANDLER PARK, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 21, PAGE 80. PUBLIC RECORDS OF BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, TOGETHER WITH CONTIGUOUS VACATED RIGHTS -OF -WAYS AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2450, PAGE 2919, OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2450, PAGE 2922, AND THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL RESOLUTION N.. 83-53, AUGUST 2. 1983. CONTAINING 1.49 ACRES MORE OR LESS. SHORES OF ARTESIA, PHASE TWO 7'INGRESS-EGRESS B PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT S. NORTH 1•• 30' BOOTH COURT (VACATED)) ,(0' O.R.B. 2480, PG. 2922 f0 WEST 100.27' yAl�`y IIY INGRESS -EGRESS,• N} ^ g8y1{_uTBttY EeM t _ �V N� a/ LOT 21 / s .10 LOT 20 ,pv Alf / 2 413.14' 63.58 n, LOT 19 A.00.42'w" v OT i LOT I LOT I LOT LOT I LOT LOT LOT LOT I LOT LAT LOT LOT I LOT LOT I 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 LOT IS L. 22.10'7" Be! LOT 17 L. 21.83' L • se.sl' a4: S SI LOT 16 z 241.34' [-2..0' 20.0' 20.0' 20.0' 20.0' 241.34' 241.34' 20.0• 20.0' 20.0' 20.0' 20.0' 20.0' 28.34' .4.111'0.68.31'43' N. 89'48'05"W. 397.54' R • 26.00' CHANDLER STREET (48'R/W) ISEt i r L� 0 - INDICATES PERMANENT REFERENCE MONUMENT 0 -INDICATES IRON ROD 0 30 60 90 GRAPHIC SCALE: I".30' FR /Lisrpaarrons SEd D.d•�• �L72PNG•d/,�33 Memo To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY OUNCIL From: BENNETT C. BOUCHER, CITY MANAGER ` CC: ED GARDULSKI, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTO Data 2/13/2004 Re: REQUEST FOR CITY TO RELOCATE UTILITY POLE Attached is a request from Mrs. Constance McKone to have the City relocate the utility pole next to their driveway. I had addressed this issue, verbally, with Mr. Bob Camey some months ago. My position was, and still is, that the City is under no obligation to relocate this utility pole. The pole is the main feeder line to their townhouse complex, which was installed when the townhouse subdivision was established. They are welcome, at their expense, to have FPL relocate the pole. If one of the City Council Members would like to sponsor this request for an agenda item, please let me know; otherwise, it will not be on the next agenda. BCB:kmm Attachments 2-12-04 TO: Mayor Randals City of Cape Canaveral Cape Canaveral, Fl. 32920 FROM: Constance B. McKone 340 Chandler St. Cape Canaveral, F1. 32920 SUBJECT: Moving existing utility pole #48644029104 14 feet to the west of my residence at 340 Chandler St., so that I can widen my existing driveway as per request/complaint form #2-2004 of January 7, 2004. Dear Sir: It is respectfully requested that the City of Cape Canaveral bear the cost of moving the above mentioned utility pole 14 feet to the west as it is located in the city right of way, but it is on my property. I request to be heard on this subject at the next city council meeting. Should I not be able to attend, I authorize Robert D. Carney to speak in my behalf. Thank your for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Constance B. McKone CC: ity Manager AZA- Cain Members _CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL G CvjU ` CILMENTBER/CITY NlANAGER REQtiEST,ICONIPLAINT FORINI t(, REQLJESTi , ��J DATE RECEIVED:_ -% 1 RECEIVED FROM: REQUEST/ F vo `-kms IL u c REFERRED TO: DATE: m. City Mgr ■ M a a a t a t a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a t a a a a a a a a a a a a a a t a a a a t a a a a a a a t t a t a t t a t a a a a t a a a a t a a a a a at i DEPARTMENTAL ACTION TAKEN: ■■ a] a f a a a a a f a a a t a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a t a a a a a a a a a a l a a I a a a a l a f a a a t a■■ A a a ti■ O �! a a a l a a a f a a l CiT`_' NL-%NAGER'S CONIlVIENTS: 277, -P- 'ED TO R7-- OUcSTOR/CONiPL.A-1'4ANT ON: Bcanctt C. Boucher_ Ci v Vlara_er .,. �'�� r, � � r �� �' \. -, �' e � ; '�' —���t �% , ��( � L `� 1 .� ,j 1 � .1 Y ; s'4:'::":". .r G. '- f ;.. � .: 1 F �t1 LI. '' Y �i �m � -- ', �.__ �' This survey meets or exceeds the minimum technical standards set forth by' the Florida Board of land Surveyors, pursuant to Section 2/ HH- 6 ; Florida Statutes. CHANDL _R STREET (48' R/WI LOT•- / OC`4A.-/ /�! t5T 7'ps✓�/ t/OC/S at - AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK ",PAGE -3s OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. CERT/F/CA TE: DATE OF ALAT OF SURVEY FOR: SURVEY: I hereby certify that this is a true OF-. 6, /993 KU�vc= and correct representation of a survey mode under my direction. SCALE _ F/RST AM/3/2/CP/••� Ti�Gt' �/-is. cc.,. w,►,. V. POWEll, P.L.S. SUMV04 ..o humw, WIA V POWELL P. L.S• 1"A N°oa�ro r�nau� Florida Surve or's Certificate No. 2787 CO`OA'"`" h711 y ."ArX; 7Cf'J'�9 Ofhf�esl7f,}f��7 RfStf1a7J7ei.Of6� ShJORES OF ARTESIA Ir P.R.M.S 89'48'05" E x 31.15' sET trs. ss — -- 7' 1.a F- a I Pu. E. �I ° 2' M �. Q C) N 0 0 J : Q hLU I y N x li J Z J a of m Lj � 3 3 3 8., 2ao' jq O N h a QO M coma ; Ck: � Z DRIVE .. SET RB 2&34'. SET R8 N 89°48'05" W CHANDL _R STREET (48' R/WI LOT•- / OC`4A.-/ /�! t5T 7'ps✓�/ t/OC/S at - AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK ",PAGE -3s OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. CERT/F/CA TE: DATE OF ALAT OF SURVEY FOR: SURVEY: I hereby certify that this is a true OF-. 6, /993 KU�vc= and correct representation of a survey mode under my direction. SCALE _ F/RST AM/3/2/CP/••� Ti�Gt' �/-is. cc.,. w,►,. V. POWEll, P.L.S. SUMV04 ..o humw, WIA V POWELL P. L.S• 1"A N°oa�ro r�nau� Florida Surve or's Certificate No. 2787 CO`OA'"`" h711 y ."ArX; 7Cf'J'�9 Ofhf�esl7f,}f��7 RfStf1a7J7ei.Of6� Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Date 03-02-04 AGENDA Heading Discussion Item 7 No. Discussion only; please advise. AGENDA REPORT CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL SUBJECT: DISCUSSION: MIXED USE, COMNIERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL CONCEPT, MARTIN GREENE DEPT./DIVISION: LEGISLATIVE Requested Action: Mr. Martin Greene of Greene International Development Corporation is seeking feedback on his proposal for a mixed use, residential/commercial concept. Summary Explanation & Background: Mr. Greene has offered to pay all costs associated with amending the land development code and related zoning and future land use maps if City Council is interested in having the Planning & Zoning Board work on this issue. Discussion only; please advise. Exhibits Attached: Mr. Greene's letter of 02-05-04 City Ma F ffice ' Department LEGISLATIVE cape �myaoc eats\a TLouncil\meeting\2IIft§- 3-02-04\greene.doc Greene International Development Corporation 5604, North Atlantic Avenue Cocoa Beach, Florida 32931 U.S.A. Tel: 321-799-0799 Fax 321-799-0791 Email: greenqftreeneliftemational.com For the attention of: Mr. Bennett Boucher, City Manager Cape Canaveral 105 Polk Avenue Cape Canaveral, FI 32920 February 5, 2004 Dear Mr. Boucher, Re: Mixed use zoning= My project manager Mr. Bill Gibson called in to see you to arrange an appointment for us to come and discuss with you and your colleagues the best way we could approach the possibility of creating a mixed use zoning in the city. He has advised me that you would like me to briefly lay down what our intentions are. I am presently in contract for two adjoining parcels of land on the river within the city. I will refer to them as the North Parcel and South Parcel. The south parcel is 2.72 acres and is zoned R-3 (multi -family residential) this parcel we wish to remain as is. The north parcel is 7.58 acres the majority of which is also zones R-3 (multi family residential) but has a very small portion of it zoned commercial. It is on this piece of land that we would like the mixed use. In its present zoning it allows 113 units it would be our intention to ask for 10% to 15% of these units to be commercial shop units. We are aware that as the size of the parcel is below 10 acres it does not require state changes just local amendments. With this in mind we are prepared to offer our assistance both physically and financially to the city in order to develop this new zoning ordinance. We have already acquired the wording of a similar ordinance which was implemented in the City of Palm Beach, Florida, which could easily be amended, and save us a lot of time and money. I believe when we meet that you, like everyone else with whom I have divulged my intended plan will be equally impressed and that this proposed mixed use development will be a tremendous asset to the city of Cape Canaveral and it's residents. I would appreciate a meeting with you and your colleagues as soon as possible as time is of the essence on this project. Kind r ards, MARTIN GREENE M N A E A (Overseas) M C E I President PROPOSED DESIGN GUIDELINE FOR THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL C-1 LOW DENSITY COMMERCIAL $ MIXED USE - RESIDENTIAL ZONING R-3 INDEX INTRODUCTION 2. DESIGN GUIDELINES - R3 + BREEZWAY - SET -BACK AND HEIGHT 3. ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE DESIGN CHARACTER 4. TYPICAL THEMES Page 2. 1A. C-1 mixed use residential will extend and become a vibrant part of the newly revitalized City of Cape Canaveral, adding a new dimension to the City's zoning. The components of the plan include retail restaurants, cafes, specialty Shops, boutiques, etc. following the existing principals in C-1. 1 B. The C-1 mixed use zoning is planned as part of the City — not as a satellite or discreet development. The physical connections to the areas residential neighborhoods is a vital concern. The new proposed zoning should blend in harmony with the Council/ Planning and the City's Master Plan. This style and type of project will project an exciting environment woven into the existing City. The guidelines will suggest street landscaping, building scale, orientation to the surrounding area, and pedestrian concerns and be sensitive to variations in scale and density. Atmosphere will express a grand urban space with entrances and Interiors that reflect a more residential feel. 2A. Guidelines for retail/commercial space should be "Limited to the first floor", with the maximum R2/R3 height of 45. R3 would comply with existing rules/regulations that are in place now. C-1 would also comply and be inline with the present rulings. 2B. The buildings should have distinctive architectural elements with a 5 acre minimum lot size. Driveways and motor courts to be allowed within this zone. Pedestrian paths should weave to create an intimate park -like setting with public areas/fountains. The grounds should be an appealing environment with special paving markings (pavers, cobble stones, etc.) and rich landscaped areas. 2C. All buildings and public areas to have a variation in fagade, where the courtyard or other large openings occur. Screening devices such as walls, gates, trellises, should be used. Shading devises such as awning, to be encouraged to provide sun and rain protection and ambiance. The intent is to focus a central meeting place with cafes and other retail uses and specialty stores, spilling out onto a plaza -like atmosphere designed as a focal point with emphasis given to high quality accentuating the typical lifestyle of the residents during the day, evening and night. Page 3. 2D. Storefronts, boutiques, must blend with the overall architectural design. The intent of this zoning is to blend residential living and limited Commercial to the benefit of both uses and provide ambiance and Atmosphere conducive to all within the development, appealing to Residents and visitors alike. 2E. The primary residential component may be a mixture incorporating town - homes, 1 and 2 story, flats, apartments and condominiums of 1-2-3 bedrooms, and/or a hotel. ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE DESIGN CHARACTER THEMES AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS: The design character will be based on interpretations of the historical Mediterranean style. Aspects of this historic style which relate to providing Human scale in buildings will be given particular importance in defining the design character. Design criteria are summarized as follows: 3A. Building massing will be varied by set -backs, towers and changes in the roof lines. Landscaped courtyards and terraces may be incorporated into the ground floor and upper floors but the street walls must be substantially maintained. 3B. Building facades should be detailed and articulated to create human scale and visual interest. Shade and shadow should be used as in Mediterranean architecture both for practical reasons and to provide visual contrasts in the facades. Building facades shall be windowed; particularly at their public Faces. Windows shall be "punched" or recessed to create Solidity and shadow in the wall. Larger glass areas should be Recessed or otherwise shaded. 2. Facades shall be further broken down in scale by architectural Devices such as string courses, cornices, blind windows and other wall recesses. 3. Architectural elements such as balconies, decorative trellises, Gates, grilles, awnings and shutters are encouraged. 3C. The materials will be derived from the Mediterranean vocabulary. Primary building materials will be light-colored stucco, stone or precast with Spanish tile roofs. Wood, tile, and stone will also be used in window and other fagade details. Page 4. 3D. Covered arcades will be an important element in the design vocabulary. Other shading devices such as trellises or fabric covered walkways are also encouraged. 3E. Landscape and planting will be incorporated into the architecture. Inviting landscaped areas shall be designed in concert with the buildings. Landscaping shall be utilized to provide definition of spaces and axis As well as shade. TYPICAL ARCHITECTURAL THEMES 1. Mediterranean 2. Tuscan 3. French Revival 4. Key West 5. Spanish 6. Mexican -Mission 7. Japanese -Chinese 8. Tudor 9. Greek 10. Polynesian 11. Thai 12. New Orleans/Creole 13. English Village TYPICAL BUSINESSES All commercial space must be used for retail sales only, No service industries will be allowed such as Banks, Real Estate Agents, insurance brokers etc. Beauty Salon - Barber Jewelry Boutique Dry Cleaners — Alterations Tailor — Specialty Ladies wear — and similar uses Cafe's — Patisserie — Deli Cigar — Champagne - Wine bar & Retail Stores Art / Sculpture Gallery Flower Shop Apartment Hotel — Private Club Gifts - Books ZONING DETAILS C-1, R-2, R-3 Mixed Commercial/ Residential 5 Acre Minimum 15 Units per Acre Up to 20% Maximum Commercial units Lot Coverage - 50% (C-1) Minimum lot area for a Hotel: 12,000 sq. ft. 300 sq. ft. per rental unit Maximum Height 45' SETBACKS Front 25', Rear 10', Corner TBA Interior lot lines to be zero to allow flexibility in design. City staff have input when the draft overall concept has been presented. ENTRANCE 24' ACCESS PARKING Residential 2 per unit HOTEL — CLUB 1 space for each sleeping unit, plus 1 space for 12 units, for employees C-1 Parking Parking requirements for two or more uses of the same or different types Of business may be satisfied by the allocation of the required number of Spaces for each use in a common parking area. Cafe -Patisserie -Deli With seating 1 space for each 3 seats, or 1 for every 100 sq. ft. of floor area. All other uses to be determined by the building officer. Unit Sizes R2 -R3 1 Bedroom 650 sq. ft. Min 2 Bedroom 750 sq. ft. Min 3 Bedroom 950 sq. ft. Min Efficiency 450 sq. ft. Min