HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacket 03-20-2012 RegularL 110
C=
,WERAL •.A ••f
Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida
Tuesday
March 20, 2012
6:00 PM
ROLL CALL:
M MAW
Appoint Applicants Angela M. Raymond and Bob Nienstadt to the Community
Appearance Board.
REPORTS:
6:20 p.m. — 6:25 p.m.
City Attorney
6:25 p.m, — 61-40 p.m.
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.
1. Approve Minutes for Regular City Council Meeting of February 21, 2012.
105 Polk Avenue * Post Office Box 326 Cape Canaveral, FL 32920-0326
Telephone (321) 868-1220 Fav (32 1) 868-1248
www.citycifeapecanaveral.org - email: itifo(cg)cityc)fcapecaiiavei-al.org
City of Cape Canaveral, Florida
City Council Meeting
March 20, 2012,
Page 2 of 3
2. Adopt Resolution No. 2012-04-, exempting electronic signs from sign
permit fees-, reserving the City Council's right to reimpose said fees;
providing for the repeal of prior inconsistent resolutions, severability, and
an effective date.
3. Adopt Resolution No. 2012-02,-, appointing Members to the Community
Appearance Board of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida; providing for an
effective date. (Bob Nienstadt and Angela M. Raymond).
4. Adopt Ordinance No. 02-2012; amending chapter 110, Zoning, of the
Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances related to Special Exceptions for
Alcoholic Beverages; providing for the repeal of prior inconsistent
ordinances and resolutions; incorporation into the code; severability; and
an effective date, second reading.
5. City of Cape Canaveral Sewer System Rate Study -February 2012:
a. Presentation by Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. - Mike Rocca,
Director of Operations,
b. Adopt Ordinance No. 04-2012; amending Article IV of Chapter 78
related to the City's Reclaimed Water Utility; providing that reclaimed
water rates shall be established by Resolution of the City Council, -
establishing a new equivalency basis for reclaimed water service
levels; providing for the repeal of prior inconsistent ordinances and
resolutions- incorporation into the Code; severability, and an effective
date, at first reading.
C. Approve Ordinance No. 05-2012; amending Article III of Chapter 78
related to service rates, deposits and billing procedures for the City's
Sanitary Sewer System; providing for the repeal of prior inconsistent
ordinances and resolutions; incorporation into the Code; severability;
and an effective date, at first reading,
6. Adopt Ordinance No, 06-2012; amending Chapter 110, Zoning, of the
Code of Ordinances to repeal zoning regulations regarding the permitted
location of "Resort Condominiums" and "Resort Dwellings" now
collectively known as "Vacation Rentals" pursuant to Florida statutes;
making conforming amendments to section 2-283; providing for the repeal
of prior inconsistent ordinances and resolutions; incorporation into the
Code; severability; and an effective date, first reading.
City of Cape Canaveral, Florida
City Council Meeting
March 20, 2012
Page 3 of 3
7. Xtreme Fun, LLC Appeal of Community Appearance Board Order.
0
8. Council.
Pursuant to Section 286.0105, FJonda Statutes, the City hereby advises the public that. It a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City
Council w4h 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 media, which record IndUdes 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.
City of Cape Canaveral
City Coiuncil Aged
na Form
City Council Meeting Date: 03/20/2013
INTERVIEWS
Subject: Appoint Applicants Angela M. Raymond and Bob Nienstadt to the Community
Appearance Board.
Department: Planning and Development Department
Summary: On February 28, 2012, the Community Appearance Board interviewed
applicants Angela M. Raymond, Mary Jo Tichich and Bob Nienstadt for vacancies on
the Board. Based on the applicants' civic interests and appreciation for building design,
architecture and compatibility, the Board recommended that these applicants be
appointed by the City Council.
Per Sec. 2-171(0), after interview and recommendation by the Community Appearance
Board, applicants are to be interviewed by the Council prior to appointment. Applicants
Angela M. Raymond and Bob Nienstadt are scheduled to be interviewed on March 20,
2012. Applicant Mary Jo Tichich will not meet residency requirements until April and is,
therefore, scheduled to be interviewed by the City Council at the Regular City Council
Meeting of April 17, 2012.
Submitting Department Director: Barry Brown Date: 03-06-2012
Attachments: Recommendation by Community Appearance Board and applications.
Financial Impact: None
Reviewed by Interim Finance Director: John McGinnis qdw� Date:
.......... . ............ . . . ........
The City Manager recommends that City Council takepe following action(s):
Appoint Applicants Angela M. Raymond and Bob Nienstadt to the Community
Appearance Board.
Approved byCity Manager: David L. Greene LO IJ"- Date:
City Council Action: Approved as Recommended Disapproved
Approved with Modifications
Tabled to Time Certain
9-14M
City of Cape Canaveral
Planning & Development Department
IvIalull Z), ZU 14
To: Barry Brown, Planning & Development Director
From: Susan L. Chapman, Secretary, Community Appearance eoard
Through: Randy' Wasserman, Chairperson, Community Appearance Board
Re: Recommendation to City Council to Appoint New Board Members to
the Community Appearance Board
On February 28, 2012,,the Community Appearance Board interviewed three
potential new Board members:
• Angela Mary Raymond
• Mary Jo Tichich
a, Bob Nienstadt
Based on the applicants' civic interests, as well as appreciation for building
design, architecture, and compatibility, the Board recommended that the City
Council appoint these citizens to serve on the Board,
7510 N Atlantic Avenue — P.O. Box 326 — Cape Canaveral, FL 32920-0326
Telephone (321) 868-1222 — Fax (32 1') 868-1247
wwwanyflorida.com/ca)e e-mail: eityofeapecanaveral.org
Co M-�f vN rry APP
I,Ia khpq
CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL
APPLICATION FOR APPOITNMENT TO CITY ADVISORY BOARD OR COMMITTEE
Pureuaet to tiidion 2.171, Cape Canaveral Code
City Code requires pmspecffw and exisft board members to fill out an aR
" r �--CitX.Cgd4 r
prohibits a person from serving on a City Board or Committee if that perso9
felony, unless their civil rights have been restored. f t
1
JAN -5M12
Please complete the folbwing in the space provided: i U �
A. GENERAL
1. Applicant Name: �f M; LELA 1 "l RY � /-M Q J5-
2. Horne Address: L-1 '' _ 4 P G
3. Home and Cellular Telephone: �-- 93- 60
4. Occupation: 3R ETI
5. Business Telephone:
6. Business Address:
7. E -Mail:
B.
ELIGIBIUTY
The Information provided In this section Is for purposes of determining whether you are eligible to
serve on a City advisory board or committee.
1. Are you duly registered to vote in Brevard County? (ln (N)
2. Have you been a resident of the City of Cape
Canaveral for 12 months or longer? (Y) (N)
3a. Are you a Business owner: (y) (N)
3b. If yes to 3a, please list the name:
4e. Have you ever been convicted or found guilty, regardless
of adjudication, or a felony in any jurisdiction? Any plea
of nolo contendere (no contest) shall be considered a
conviction for purposes of this question.
4b.
In
P yes to 4a, have your civil rights been restored?
Do you presently serve on any other City of Cape
Canaveral advisory board or committee?
5b. If yes to 5a, please list each:
(Y) (N)
(�..-..(N)
M -(N) -/IL
6. City ordinance requires that all persons applying for a
City advisory board or committee must vdluntadly consent v
to a standard criminal background check before being
appointed to a board or committee. Do you voluntarily initials
consent to having 9 standard background check
performed on you by the City of Cape Canaveral? (Y) _ (N�
7a.- • Aria you retatad to a City of Cape Canaveral Counoii
member by blood, adoption, or marriage? M (N)
7b. 9 yes to 7a, please provide name(s) of person(s) and relationship to you:
C. INTERE8TSAWPERIENCE
1. Briefly state your interest in serving on a Cly advisory board or committee:
2.
In numerical sequence ('I = most Interested), please rank which advisory board or committee
on which you wish to serve:
Board of Adjustment*
Business and Economic Development Board
Code Enforcement Board*
Community Appearance Board'
Construcdon Board of Adjustment and Appeals'`
Culture and Leisure Services Board
Library Board
Planning and Zoning Board"
Other _
*Member of these boards are required to complete and No with the supervisor of Elsolkns a Flnandal
Disdowe Fwn upon appointment to sold board and prior to July 1 of each year Wbwbhg the kM
a4lnbnent wlhiie so/ a member of said board.
3. Briefly state any prior experlences in serving on any governmental boa -W or committee:
4. Please list any specialized skills and training (e.g., architect, engineer, general contractor, eta)
that you feel help !oSuallfyyou for membership on the desired hoard or comm.
D. STATE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Section 780.80, Florida Statutes, requires that the City annually submit a report to the Secretary of
State disclosing race, gender, and physical disabilities of board and committee members. Please
check the appropriate boxes:
Page 2 of 3
....00""
"WL.
RACE
GEL
African-Amedc.an
Mate
Asian American
��
Femalo
Hippanic,American
Not Known
Native,Amedcan
Caucasian
DISMILITY
Not Known
Physically disabled
YOU HEREBY REPRESENT TO THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, UNDER PENALTY OF
PERJURY, THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED HEREIN IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE
BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, AND THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL HAS THE RIGHT TO
RELY ON THAT INFORMATION.
YOU HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THE E)a3TENCE OF THE CODE OF ETHICS FOR PUBLIC
OFFICERS [SECTIONS 112.311-326, FLORIDA STATUTES) AND THE FLORIDA "SUNSHINE
LAW" [SECTION 286.0411, FLORIDA STATUTES), WHICH MAY PERTAIN TO YOU IF YOU ARE
APPOINTED TO A CITY ADVISORY BOARD OR COMMITTEE, AND IF APPOINTED, IT IS YOUR
SOLE OBLIGATION AND DUTY TO COMPLY WITH SUCH LAWS.
PLEASE NOTE:
• Appointment to any City board is subject to City Council approval following a brief interview
before the City Council at a regularly scheduled meeting.
Your application will remain effective for one year from date of completion.
• N you should have any questions regarding the completion of this application, please contact
the City Cterles Office at (321) 868-4220 ext. 221.
Signature: � �U `te r Date: ,2.,
Please return to: City of Cape Canaveral
Office of the City Cleric
105 Polls Avenue
Cape Canaveral Florida 32920
For Offte Use Only:
Dane applk;adon r+ewived: z
Dabs Appolnbed:
new ay:
Appolnbed to.
(Term Expires:
Page 3 of 3
CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY ADV16ORY BOARD OR COMMITTEE
Pursuant to Seaton 2-771, Cape CanavwW Cock
City Code requires prospective and existing board members to fig out an gVIlostion. City Code abo
prohibits a person from serving on a City Board or Comm#tee If that perscr iaeteeri ft*Aded bf a .
felony, unless their civil rights have been restored. t !
Please oomplete ft following In the space provided: ;-'' JAI 1 3 2012 LU!
A. GENERAL 4Z7
vL ��
1. Applicant Name: D
2. HomeAdd 3 S S /4 a L
3. Home and Cellular Telepbm: 3,0 0.7304r 7/0 dIM Q YJ -T "
4. Occupation: L Qje - P
5. Business Telephone: V
6. Business Address:_77ZIT
j
7. E -Mail: A V. I4 r, P C r -i, k X, c-
11.
8. EMMILITY
The informeft provided in this section is for purposes of determining whether you are eligible to
serve on a City advisory board or committee.
Page 1 of 3
1.
Aro you duly registered to vote in Brevard County?
(Y) :
(N)
2.
Have you been a resident of the City of Cape
Canaveral for 12 months or longer?
(Y).: t
(N)
3a.
Are you a Business owner:
(1)
(N)
3b.
if yes to 3a, please list the name:
48.
Have you ever been convicted or found gutsy, regardless
of adjudication, or a felony in any jwfsdfcdon? Any plea
of nob contendere (no contest) shall be considered a
corwMn for purposes of this question.
(Y)
(nt)
4b.
If yes to 4a, have your civil rIghts been restored?
(1)
(N)
5a.
Do you presently serve on any other City of Cape
Canavand advisory board or comn0ee?
m
5b.
If yes to So, please list each:
Page 1 of 3
e. City ordinance requires that all persons appMft for a
City advisory board or committee must vdurftrify consent Ej
to a standard criminal background check beforo being
appointed tQ a board or committee. Do you voluntarily Indials
consent to having a standard background check
perforined on you by the City of Cape Canaveral? (Y) , (N)
7a. Are you related to a City of Cape Canaveral Council
member by blood, adoption, or man cage? (Y) (N)
7b. U yes to 7a, please provide name(s) of person(s) and relationship to you:
C. iNTERESTOMWERiENCE
1. Briefly state fittest in seving on a City acitrisoryto d or con :
/N Jia/ r a IJfJ 1011 0 /At -110(l 6) Vpis. - Asp D A+j 40
lg.01
e(�aj2. in nni seInWresrank which advisory board or committee
on which you wish to serve:
r
a. -
BOard Of Adjustment•
b.
Business and Economic Development Board
C.
Code Enforcement Board`
d.
Community Appeararoe Board*
e.
Constmetion Board of Adjustment and Appeals•
f.
Culture and Leisure Services Board
g.
Library Board
h.
Planning and Zoning Board"
1. Other:
*Member of these boards are requhed to complete and fife wish the supervisor of Eleo&we a Fftrc /
DWaaure Form upon appointment to said board and prior to July f of each year f+aflowft the indial
appofnbnent white sW a member of said board.
8. Briefly state any prior experiences in serving on any governmental board or ocmminw.
1J r) Jq-
4. Please list any specWlzed skills and training (e.g., archiiect, engineer, general contractor, etc.)
that you feel help to quaiity you for membership on the desired board or committee.
D. STATE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Section 780.80, Florida Statutes, requires that the City annually subndt a report to the Secretary of
State diatosirtg race, gendec and physical disabilities of board and committee nrs. Please
check the appropriate boxes:
Page 2 of 3
RACE G
African-American Male
Aslan -American Female
Hispenb Arnerican Not Known
Nativo American
Caucasian QiSAB_, IL TY
Not Known Phyalcallydisabled
YOU HEREBY REPRESENT TO THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, UNDER PENALTY OF
PERJURY, THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED HEREIN 18 TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE
BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, AND THE CRY OF CAPE CANAVERAL HAS THE RIGHT TO
RELY ON THAT INFORMATION.
YOU HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THE EXISTENCE OF THE CODE OF ETHICS FOR PUBLIC
OFFICERS (SECTIONS 112.317-+326, FLORIDA STATUTES] AND THE FLORIDA "SUNSHINE
LAW" (SECTION 286.011, FLORIDA STATUTES], WHICH MAY PERTAIN TO YOU IF YOU ARE
APPOINTED TO A CITY ADVISORY BOARD OR COMMITTEE, AND IF APPOINTED, IT IS YOUR
SOLE OBLIGATION AND DUTY TO COMPLY WITH SUCH LAWS.
PLEASE NOTE:
• Appointment to any City board is subject to City Council approval following a brief interview
before the Crty Council at a regularly scheduled meeting.
• Your appiicatlon will remain effective for one year from date of oompietion.
• If you should have any questions regarding the completion of this application, please contact
the City Clerics Offiwi at (321) 866-1220 QM1.221.
Signature: Data: x -
Please retum to: City of Cape Canaveral
Office of the City Cleric
105 Polls Avenue
Cape Cerweral Florida 32M
For Ofte Use Only:
Date application received: 02—
Dabs Appointed:
Appointed by:
Board Appointed to.-
Term Expires:
Page 3 of 3
#2
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
CAPE CANAVERAL LIBRARY MEETING ROOM
201 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida
TUESDAY
FEBRUARY 21, 2012
7:00 PM
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER: The Chair called the Meeting to Order at 7:00 P.M. and led the pledge
of allegiance.
ROLL CALL:
Council Members Present:
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
Mayor
Mayor Pro Tem
Others Present:
John Bond
Bob Hoog
Buzz Petsos
Rocky Randels
Betty Walsh
City Manager
City Attorney
Assistant City Manager/City Clerk
Interim Finance Director
Building Official
Planning and Development Director
Leisure Services Director
Public Works Services Director
Public Works Services Deputy Director
Brevard County Sheriff Lieutenant
Cape Canaveral Volunteer Fire Dept. Assistant Chief
David L. Greene
Anthony Garganese
Angela Apperson
John McGinnis
Todd Morley
Barry Brown
Robert Lefever
Jeff Ratliff
Lonnie Dunn
John Boyd
John Cunningham
OATH OF OFFICE: City Attorney Garganese administered the Oath of Office to John
Bond.
PRESENTATION:
Proclamation designating March 2012 as "Irish American Heritage Month": Mayor
Randels read the Proclamation and presented it to Ancient Order of Hibernian (AOH)
Members Seamus Rukosky, AOH Brevard County Div#2 VP & AOH State Board of
Florida VP; Rick Hewitt, AOH Brevard County Div#2 Treasurer and AOH State
Chairman and George Fleming, AOH Brevard County Div#2 Member. Recipients
City of Cape Canaveral, Florida
City Council Regular Meeting
February 21, 2012
Page 2 of 5
expressed their appreciation for the Proclamation and encouraged participation in the
St. Patrick's Day Parade in Melbourne.
Proclamation designating May 2012 as "Motorcycle Safety and Awareness Month":
Mayor Randels read the Proclamation and presented it to American Bikers Aiming
Toward Education (ABATE) Members, Mike Bowden, Suz Skinkle and Jonell Pope.
Members expressed their appreciation for the Proclamation.
Presentation of Proposed Economic Development Projects: Plans for an Al Economic
Opportunity Overlay District, a Community Redevelopment Agency, and a Brownfields
Redevelopment Program. (estimated 45 minutes): Planning and Development Director
Barry Brown explained the events of the Open House and noted a positive response
from more than 100 attendees. He reviewed the goals of the 2009 Envision Cape
Canaveral and explained the purpose of a Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA),
Brownfield Designation and the Overlay District. Mr. Kelley Klepper thanked Staff for
the hospitality and professionalism and the City Council and Citizens for their
Comments received related to the presentations earlier in the day. Mr. Klepper
reviewed the proposed plans for the Community Redevelopment Area and responded to
questions. Mr. David Goldman spoke about the creation of a Brownfields
Redevelopment Program and answered questions. Mr. Andre Anderson reviewed the
plans for an A1A Overlay District and responded to questions.
REPORTS:
City Attorney Garganese spoke about the Attorney Client session held today. He
requested authorization from the Council to prepare an Ordinance for repeal of the
Resort Dwelling Ordinance. He noted he would also open a dialog with Plaintiffs to see
if law suits can be dismissed. A motion was made by Mayor Randels, seconded by
Council Member Hoog, that we support the dissolution of the Resort Rental
Ordinance. Discussion ensued and included impacts to residential neighborhoods; that
enforcement will focus upon those rentals causing problems; and property owners
pursuing'' Vacation Rentals will still have to meet State Standards for lodging and the
City Building and Fire Codes. The motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows:
Council Member Bond, For; Council Member Hoog, For; Council Member Petsos,
For; Mayor Randels, For; and Mayor Pro Tem Walsh, For.
AUDIENCE TO BE HEARD:
Mr. Ray Osborne announced Dr. Michael Francis, History Professor from University of
North Florida, will be present on March 10, 2012 in the Library Meeting Room beginning at
10:30 a.m. to present information related to Florida native cultures and the early European
explorers. He indicated the presentation will also include information about the Ais Indians
and a research trip to Seville Spain.
City of Cape Canaveral, Florida
City Council Regular Meeting
February 21, 2012
Page 3 of 5
CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Randels inquired if any items are to be removed from the
Consent Agenda for discussion. Council Member Hoog requested items two and three be
removed for discussion.
1. Approve Minutes for Regular City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012:
2. Approve Extension of Resolution No. 2011-04, Temporary Suspension of Permit
Fees for Electronic Signs:
3. Approve (1) recommended Construction Design Proie'ct and (2) funds for Stottler
Stagg & Associates (SSA) in the amount of $14,200 for tleconpletion of Investigative
Tasks. Prer aration of Desian Drawinas and Bid Specification!` d the Performance of
of the Central Ditch:
4. Approve Staff's recoi
Board appointment process:
.B.usiness�_and Economic,J
A motion was made by Council ;Member Petsos;-":seconded by Mayor Pro Tem
Walsh, for approval of Items 1 and -4 . The motion carried 5-0 with voting as
follows: Council Member Bond,For, Cnincil Member Hoog�For; Council Member
Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For; a4, ayTom Walsh, For.
#2. City Manager
ensued and includs
recommends it be:'h
Member Hoog, sec
electronic s
reinstated
Discussion cc
just the -electr
for any,, ion,
Council Men
For; Mayor -f
clarified there
in
Ga
Dnic portioi
refurbishes
ber Bond,
andels, F
will be a tir
ie explained the lreviously"adopted Resolution. Discussion
.thee the fee should be repealed until such time as Staff
ed Discussion ensued. A motion was made by Council
I by,�Council Mem6er�Petsos, to hold the permit fees for
yahC6 until such time as Staff requests the fee be
rgonese suggested repealing the fee for electronic signs.
included whether this included new signs, the entire sign or
City `Manager Greene responded there would be no charge
r new. The motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows:
or; Council Member Hoog, For; Council Member Petsos,
and Mayor Pro Tem Walsh, For. City Manager Greene
when Staff will ask for the fee to be reinstated.
#3. Council Member'Hoog raised objection to the price variance between the three
options and felt the/fees should be determined by the amount of time spent and the
engineering work. Discussion ensued and included cost of mobilization; the modeling
work previously done; an open ditch would require more permitting due to Sand Hill
Cranes and other wildlife; the three options; the need for access through the adjoining
property and the property owner requesting the ditch be closed; the prior flooding during
Tropical Storm Faye; the possibility for the pipes to become clogged by debris; if
culverting is chosen for this 400 feet, then the City will need to continue the culverting
for the remaining 1600 feet of the ditch, which will increase the costs; that future
City of Cape Canaveral, Florida
City Council Regular Meeting
February 21, 2012
Page 4 of 5
development will have to retain their stormwater on site; when the culverting is
completed, the area should be turned into a bike path; the stormwater fees and other
fee/charges limitations imposed by the Council; the need to pursue grants for
improvements and grant funding is limited unless it improves the water quality. A
motion was made by Council Member Petsos, seconded by Council Member
Hoog, for stormwater improvements to the North portion of the Central Ditch and
select option number one. The motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Council
Member Bond, For; Council Member Hoog, For; Council Member Petsos, For;
Mayor Randels, For; and Mayor Pro Tem Walsh, For.
ORDINANCES: Second Reading and Public Hearing:
5. Adopt Ordinance No. 01-2012; amending sectioli�Z2-31 of„the Cape Canaveral
Code of Ordinances related to adoption of the Florida-`Buildina Code. br:.ovidina that the
in the C
of prior inconsistent ordinances and resolutions; f ``incorporation into the code;
severability; and an effective date: Attorney Garganes8 read the Ordinance title into the
record and provided a brief explanation of same. Mayo r°Randels noted the first reading
was held on January 17, 2012 and Notice1of Public Hearings*10 published on January
23, 2012. The Public Hearing was opened' .bio comments were received and the
Public Hearing was closed. Amotion was' made Iby Council Member Hoog,
seconded by Councih,Member Petsos,' to'approven Ordinance No. 01-2012 . The
wit
motion carried 5-0 h ' voting as follows: Council Member Bond, For; Council
4
Member Hoog, For; .Council'Member Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For; and Mayor
Pro Tem Walsh, iFor.
n0n11UAAld-= ii'Ci'r''c4 Rn�rlinn•
6. '..,,,'Adopt Ordinance No.
Canaveral,,:Code of Ordinarnc
into the code:' ---.severability and an effective date: Attorney Garganese read the
Ordinance titl(`-I to the record. Planning and Development Director Brown explained
the citizens have 'expressed a desire for more restaurants within Cape Canaveral and
alcohol service is afidhtegral part of most restaurants. He reviewed the impediments for
approval under the existing code; the proposed changes and the work of the Planning &
Zoning Board to develop the proposed Ordinance. Discussion ensued and included:
the proposed changes to the Ordinance; the difference between on site and off site
consumption facilities; the State requirements for serving liquor as well as the cost of a
liquor license from the open market; the current location of certain establishments;
Consensus was reached to allow restaurants along the waterway, but restrict
beer and wine establishments on the waterway and if appropriate to amend page
6 to add an item number five to reflect any violation of any City Ordinance would
City of Cape Canaveral, Florida
City Council Regular Meeting
February 21, 2012
Page 5 of 5
subject the property to revocation of the Special Exception. Discussion continued
and included concerns over allowing beer/wine establishments on the waterfront, which
abut residential properties; the possible damage to Mangroves which adjoin the
waterfront; that enforcement would be subject to an audit by the State; and for the next
packet to include the table shown tonight. A motion was made by Council Member
Bond, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Walsh, for approval of Ordinance 02-2012, as
amended. The motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Council Member Bond,
For; Council Member Hoog, For; Council Member Petsos,,. For; Mayor Randels,
For; and Mayor Pro Tem Walsh, For.
DISCUSSION:
7. Discuss and provide direction to Staff with-resaect to the Startina times for
Council Meetings: Discussion ensued. Consensus was reached to start the meetings at
6:00 p.m. and adjourn by 9:00 p.m. for the next.th"ree months as a trial `period. .
REPORTS:
8. Council
Mayor Pro Tem Walsh asked about the ,City's plans for`the :50th
noted the 500th Anniversary of the State coincides with the City's
Manager Greene explained the Celebration will` be _throughout the
event in September 2012 in conjunctionwith the Space Coast
Manatee Park. He/encouraged everyone to follow the weekly
information.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, the Meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M
Angela M. Apperson, MMC, City Clerk
Anniversary. She
Anniversary. City
year with a kickoff
Music Festival at
reports for further
Rocky Randels, MAYOR
City of Cape Canaveral
City Council Agenda Form,
City Council Meeting Date: 3/20/201
Item No. D_ I
Subject: Adopt Resolution No. 2012-04; exempting electronic signs from sign permit
fees; reserving! the City Council's right to reimpose said fees; providing for the repeal of
prior inconsistent resolutions, severability, and an effective date.
Department: Building and Code Enforcement
Summary: Given the state of the economy, on March, 15, 2011, City Council approved
Resolution No. 2011-04, temporarily suspending permit fees for the construction of or
conversion to an electronic sign for a period of one (1) year from the effective date.
Section 3 of the Resolution provided for a one (1) year extension of the suspension by
majority vote of the City Council; and the City Council reserved the right to terminate, at
any time, the one (1) year suspension period by majority vote,
At the March 21, 2012 City Council meeting, while considering extending the temporary
suspension for one more year, the Council expressed the desire to waive permit fees for
electronic signs indefinitely, until economic conditions improve. Accordingly, the City
Attorney was directed to prepare this Resolution.
The issuance of a permit shall still be required prior to the construction of or conversion
to an electronic sign and all other provisions of Chapter 94 not affected by this
Resolution shall remain in full force and effect.
Since the approval of Resolution No. 2011-04, one "no -fee" electronic sign permit was
issued to Christ Lutheran Church at 7511 N. Atlantic Avenue
Submifting Department Director: Todd .Morley/%�% Date: March 5, 2012
Attachment: Resolution No. 2012-04
Financial Impact: Potential loss of permit revenue.
Reviewed by Interim Finance Director: John McGinnis *9yq-"4-- Date: 3/80/91)
The City Manager recommends that City Council take We fol wing action(s)':
Approve Resolution No. 2012-04,
approved by City Manager. David L. Greene 0
City Council Action: Approved as, Recommended Disapproved
Approved with Modifications
1 Tabled to Time Certain
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CAPE CANAVERAL, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA,
EXEMPTING ELECTRONIC SIGNS FROM SIGN PERMIT
FEES; RESERVING THE CITY COUNCIL'S RIGHT TO
REIMPOSE SAID FEES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF
PRIOR INCONSISTENT RESOLUTIONS, 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 bylaw;
and
WHEREAS, in 2009, the City Council substantially revised the City's sign regulations and
permitted electronic signs in the City of Cape Canaveral subject to certain limitations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 2011-04 on March 15, 2011, temporarily
suspending sign permit fees for electronic signs; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to continue to exempt electronic signs from the City's
sign permit fees indefinitely until economic conditions improve; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral deems that this Resolution is
in the best interests of the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Cape Canaveral.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED 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
and are deemed a material part of this Resolution.
Section 2. Permit Fee Exemption for Electronic Signs. The Cape Canaveral City Council
hereby exempts electronic signs from the City's sign permit fees imposed pursuant to section 94-35
of the City Code and set forth in Appendix B, Schedule of Fees. The issuance of a sign permit shall
still be required prior to the construction of or conversion to an electronic sign. Any person failing
to obtain said permit shall not be entitled to the fee exemption set forth herein and shall be liable for
double permit fees. All other provisions of Chapter 94, Signs, not affected by this Resolution shall
remain in full force and effect.
Section 3. Reimposition of Electronic Sign Permit Fee. Nothing herein shall be construed as
a limitation on the City Council's right, at its sole discretion, to reimpose sign permit fees for
City of Cape Canaveral
Resolution No. 2012-04
Page 1 of 2
electronic signs. Any such fees shall be adopted by resolution approved by a majority vote of the
City Council at a duly held City Council meeting.
Section 4. Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Resolutions. All prior resolutions or parts of
resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict.
Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion
of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent
jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such
holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion hereto.
Section 6. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption
by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida.
RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, in a regular
meeting assembled on this 20th day of March, 2012.
ATTEST:
Rocky Randels, Mayor
For Against
John Bond
ANGELA APPERSON, City Clerk Bob Hoog
Buzz Petsos
Rocky Randels
Betty Walsh
Approved as to legal form and sufficiency
for the City of Cape Canaveral only by:
Anthony A. Garganese, City Attorney
City of Cape Canaveral
Resolution No. 2012-04
Page 2 of 2
City of Cape Canaveral
City Council Agenda Form
C�i'ty Council Meeting D. 03/2012012
Item No. -�3
Subject: Approve Resolution No. 2012-02; Appointing Members to the Community
Appearance Board of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida; providing for an effective
date. (Bob Nienstadt and Angela M. Raymond).
Department: Legislative
Summary: On February 28, 2012, the Community Appearance Board interviewed
three potential new Board Members: Bob Nienstadt, Angela M. Raymond and Mary Jo
Tichich. Based on the applicants' civic interests, as well as appreciation for building
design, architecture and compatibility, the Board recommended that the City Council
appoint these citizens to serve on the Board.
After having conducted interviews of applicants Bob Nienstadt and Angela M. Raymond
at tonight's meeting, it is now incumbent upon the City Council to appoint new Members
to the Community Appearance Board. In order to maintain staggered terms, for Board
Members, these individuals initial terms will be for two years.
Per the City's Code of Ordinances (Sec. 2-171. Uniform procedures and requirements
(b)(2)) applicant Tichich will meet Resident status of the City of Cape Canaveral in April
2012. Therefore she will be interviewed by the City Council at the Regular City Council
Meeting of April 17, 2012 and a Resolution for adoption will be prepared for her
appointment.
ti
Submitting Department Director: Angela Apperson Date: 03-06-2012
Attachment(s): Resolution. No. 2012-012
Financial Impact: None
0
Reviewed by Interim Finance Director: John McGinnis Date: 3
1
The City Manager recommends that City Council take the following action(s):
Adopt Resolution No. 2012-02.
Approved by City Manager: David L. Greene (D-LPJ- Date: 2 Z //a
City Council Action: Approved as Recommended Disapproved
Approved with Modifications
. .. ..... . . .... ... - Tabled to Time Certain
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, BREVARD
COUNTY, FLORIDA; APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE COMMUNITY
APPEARANCE BOARD OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL,
FLORIDA; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, has by City
Code Section 22-37 created a Board known as the Community Appearance Board; and
WHEREAS, it is now incumbent upon the City Council of the City of Cape
Canaveral to appoint Members to said Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cape
Canaveral, Florida, as follows:
SECTION 1. Bob Nienstadt and Angela M. Raymond are hereby appointed as
Members of the Community Appearance Board of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida,
with terms to expire on May 1, 2014.
SECTION 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, this 20th day
of March, 2012.
ATTEST:
Rocky Randels, MAYOR
Name
Angela M. Apperson, City Clerk John Bond
Robert Hoog
Buzz Petsos
Rocky Randels
Betty Walsh
Approved as to Form:
Anthony A. Garganese, City Attorney
For Against
City of Cape Canaveral
City Council Agenda Form
City Council Meeting Date- 03/20i/201
Item No. IV I
Subject: Adopt Ordinance No. 02-2012; amending Chapter 110, Zoning, of the Cape
Canaveral Code of Ordinances related to Special Exceptions for Alcoholic Beverages;
providing for the repeal of prior inconsistent ordinances and resolutions; incorporation
into the code; severability; and an effective date.
Department: Administrative
Summary: As drafted and amended over time, the alcoholic beverage section of the
Code has become difficult to interpret and apply. It is contradictory in regards to retail
sales of beer and wine for off-site consumption and an impediment to attracting
restaurants as desired by the residents in a 2006 Community Survey and the 2009
Visioning.
Staff presented the following proposed revisions to the Planning and Zoning Board
(P&Z) and over the course of four meetings, the Board and Staff discussed their merits
and how best to reflect the changes in the Code.
1. Revise reguirements for restaurants that serve alcohol — 1) Remove requirement for
a Special Exception for restaurants that serve alcohol, 2) Remove requirements for a
minimum separation distance, 3) Eliminate the minimum seating requirement and 4)
Eliminate the requirement for a minimum building area of 2,000 square feet.
2. Revise definition for restaurant. — 1) Revise definition for restaurant to include
language requiring that 51 % of sales are from food and non-alcoholic beverages, and
3. Revise requirements for Special Exception Application — Staff proposes that the
requirement for a vicinity map per Sec. 110-171(a)( )a be deleted. This requirement is
onerous for the applicant and is information that is more easily prepared in house and
provided to the P&Z Board by Staff.
In addition to the above changes, the PZ Board discussed elimination of the 300 ft.
separation from a church, school or playground as it applies to establishments that sell
alcohol for off -premise consumption such as grocery stores, pharmacies, etc. and some
establishments that serve alcohol for on -premise consumption such as restaurants and
hotels.
This Ordinance separates establishments that sell alcoholic beverages for off -premise
consumption from those that allow for on -premise consumption. Establishments that
sell alcoholic beverages for off -premise consumption will be exempt from requirements
for a Special Exception, Establishments that allow for on -premise consumption will still
require a Special Exception with the exception of restaurants and hotels.
In addition, establishments that sell alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption, with
the exception of package stores, will be exempt from the 300 ft. separation from
churches, schools and playgrounds. The 300 ft. separation will still apply to
establishments that allow for on -premise consumption with the exception of restaurants,
City Council Meeting Date: 03120/2012
Item No.
Page 2 of 2
hotels, and chapters of incorporated clubs or veteran's fraternal organizations
conforming to Section 565.02(4).
The Ordinance also eliminates the requirement for establishments that sell or serve
alcoholic beverages to be setback 3010 ft. from the mean high-water line of the Atlantic
Ocean and Banana River. This will allow realization of the Visioning Objective that
envisions "open shorelines and rivers accessible to the public including amenities that
take advantage of the water, such as limited and quaint water -view establishments".
Current zoning will not allow an establishment that serves alcohol to locate along the
Atlantic Ocean and in only a few locations along the Banana River. However, when
mixed-use zoning is developed and the market supports redevelopment of waterfront
properties, the City wants to be able to accommodate waterfront or water -view
restaurants that serve alcoholic beverages.
On Wednesday, February 8, 2012, the Planning & Zoning Board unanimously
recommended approval of Ordinance No. 02-2012.
The Council considered the Ordinance at its first reading on February 21, 2.012 and
approved it with two amendments: 1), Sec. 110-171(a)(1)(13) was revised to exempt
restaurants only from the 300ft. setback from the Atlantic Ocean or Banana River, and
2) the addition of a new subsection to bolster the revocation provisions, (b)(5) The
management knowingly allowed the establishment to become a nuisance because of
chronic, habitual or ongoing violations of law, including the city code.
The Ordinance was passed at first reading, as amended, on February 21, 2012; the
Notice of Public Hearing was published February 24, 2012.
Submitting DeRaprtment Director: Barry Brown 4Date: 3-05-12
Attachments: (1) Ordinance 02-2012, (2) P&Z Board Recommendation to Council, (3)
Matrix, Current & Proposed Code revisions.
_Financial Impact:
Cost to prepare and advertise the Ordinance.
Reviewed by Interim Finance Director: John McGinnis Date:,3//
The City Manager recommends that City Council take t1lie following action(s):
Adopt Ordinance No. 02-2012.
Approved by_qity Manager: David L. Greene Date:3 //;I /1a
City Council Action: Approved as Recommended Disapproved
Approved with Modifications
Tabled to Time Certain
ORDINANCE NO. 02-2012
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CAPE CANAVERAL, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING CHAPTER 110, ZONING, OF THE CAPE
CANAVERAL CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATED TO
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES;
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 110-171 of the City Code sets forth the operating terms and conditions
under which establishments may dispense, sell, serve, or store alcoholic beverages, or permit
consumption of alcoholic beverages on the premises within the City of Cape Canaveral; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend certain provisions of the City Code to
exempt restaurants and hotels from the provisions of section 110-171; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages
on the premises of an establishment that constitutes a nuisance due to chronic violations of law is
adverse to the public health, safety and welfare; and
WHEREAS, the City's Planning & Zoning Board has analyzed and discussed the City's
ordinances regarding special exceptions for establishments serving alcoholic beverages and
recommends approval of this Ordinance to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, hereby finds this
Ordinance to be in the best interests of the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Cape
Canaveral.
BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Brevard
County, Florida, as follows:
Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are hereby fully incorporated herein by this
reference as legislative findings and the intent and purpose of the City Council of the City of Cape
Canaveral.
Section 2. Code Amendment. Chapter 110, Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances, City
of Cape Canaveral, Florida, is hereby amended as follows (underlined type indicates additions and
City of Cape Canaveral
Ordinance No. 02-2012
Page 1 of 8
strikeout type indicates deletions, while asterisks (* * *) indicate a deletion from this Ordinance of
text existing in Chapter 110. It is intended that the text in Chapter 110 denoted by the asterisks and
set forth in this Ordinance shall remain unchanged from the language existing prior to adoption of
this Ordinance):
CHAPTER 110. ZONING
ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL
Sec. 110-1. Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
Restaurant means any building or structure or portion thereof in which food is prepared and
served for pay to any person not residing on the premises and which, at all times, derives not less
than 51 percent of its gross income from the sale of nonalcoholic beverages and food prepared, sold
and consumed on the premises (such percentage shall be determined by calculating the average
monthly gross revenue from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages for the immediately
previous 12 -month period).
ARTICLE IV. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
DIVISION 2. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
Sec. 110-171. Establishments serving alcoholic beverages.
(a) Establishments which shall require a special exception under this chapter by the
board of adjustment are those, whether or not licensed by the state Department of Business
and Professional Regulation, Division ofAlcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, which dispense,
sell, serve, store or permit consumption on the premises of alcoholic beverages, with the
exception of restaurants and hotels. In consideration of a special exception application, the
board of adjustment shall not approve the application unless it is totally consistent with all
the conditions as set forth in this section and also the following:
(1) The establishment shall not be permitted to locate -
(A) Within 300 feet of any existing church, school grounds or
City of Cape Canaveral
Ordinance No. 02-2012
Page 2 of 8
playgrounds nor shall a church, school or playground be permitted to locate
within 300 feet of any existing establishment which dispenses, seils, set Yes,
stores or permits the on -premises consumption of alcoholic beverages, with
the exception of restaurants, hotels, and chapters or incorporated clubs or
veteran's fraternal organizations conforming section 565.02(4), Florida
Statutes. The distance shall be measured as the shortest linear distance
between the property line of the establishment which provides or proposes to
provide for the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages and the property
line of the church, school grounds or playground.
(B) Within 300 feet inland of the mean high-water line of the Atlantic
Ocean or of the Banana River. The distance shall be measured as the shortest
linear distance between the property line of the establishment which provides
or proposes to provide for the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages
and the mean high-water line of the Atlantic Ocean or of the Banana River.
Restaurants shall not be subiect to the limitations set forth in this subsection
(2) The establishment, if licensed by the state division of alcoholic beverages and
tobacco to permit on -premises consumption of beverages, shall not be located within
2,000 feet of another licensed establishment. The distance shall be measured as the
shortest linear distance between the property line of the establishment which
proposes to provide for the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages and the
property line of any establishment which currently provides for the sale and
consumption of alcoholic beverages. Further, the establishment shall be in
compliance with the Florida beverage laws (F.S. chs. 561 through 568). Restaurants;
hotels and motels approved in accordance with the City Code; and chapters or
incorporated clubs or veterans's fraternal organizations conforming to section
565.02(4), Florida Statutes, shall not be subject to the distance requirements of this
subsection (2). Provided, hotvevey, exceptions to this subsection are.
M= Pq=LVVJ'1LVXA'AIVfw•
City of Cape Canaveral
Ordinance No. 02-2012
Page 3 of 8
City of Cape Canaveral
Ordinance No. 02-2012
Page 4 of 8
• 1 INN 114
kwiliLlim
twiviwr-
•
...
IN
■
MIN 04-1*n
••
■
.•..
•
ONO III
I I gill L"M',ANON
NO Ill I•
• •
• .
• . ■
•
• .J
■ .
.
..
• •
.
• ,
n r • .�arup
• . 11111• •
. •
■ �-
• ■
•
n
• •
• •
•
•
.
■ ■ .
•
.w •
• .1 \
• •
•
■ • • ■
• •
w • .
. •
• ■
WFA
• • :w
i.�
•
.�
•
. ■ . •
. :�
• . •
•1. S•J.17
�•irl•�i
�•
•. • • :
City of Cape Canaveral
Ordinance No. 02-2012
Page 4 of 8
(3) Package retail sales of alcoholic beverages for carryout, except for beer and
wine sales, shall comply with subsections (a)(1) -,Md (a)(4), mid
of this section only.
(4) One parking space shall be provided for each three seats or seating places. All
seats or seating places, whether located within a restaurant area or a bar/lounge area,
will be included in the calculation of the required number of parking spaces. Package
retail sales establishments shall provide parking as determined by the building
official, who shall use the ratios established in article IX of this chapter.
(5) Each application for a special exception shall be accompanied by a vieini
n alr, a site plan map and a building floor plan.
:: ... ...
•
V
a. lr. The site plan map shall be drawn at a scale not less than one inch
equals 100 feet and shall indicate the following information:
City of Cape Canaveral
Ordinance No. 02-2012
Page 5 of 8
1. Location and dimension of the proposed establishment's
property lines, all existing and proposed structures, driveways,
parking spaces and ingress/egress points.
2. The following information shall be presented in tabulated
form:
I. Number of parking spaces.
ii. Number of restaurant seats.
iii. Number of bar/lounge seats.
iv. Building area.
V. Lot area.
b. o: The building floor plan shall be of a scale appropriate for the
establishment, but in no case shall the scale be less than one-eighth inch
equals one foot and shall detail room layouts and exits to include a depiction
of all seats inside or outside of the building for restaurant and bar/lounge.
(b) Any special exception granted under this section may be temporarily suspended or
absolutely revoked by majority vote of the board of adjustment at a public hearing, when the
board of adjustment has determined by competent substantial evidence that either:
(1) The establishment has obtained the special exception upon false statements,
fraud, deceit, misleading statements, or suppression of material facts;
(2) The establishment has committed substantial violations of the terms and
conditions on which the special exception was granted;
(3) The establishment no longer meets the requirements of this section or the
Florida Beverage Code; or
(4) The management of the establishment knowingly allowed illegal activities to
be conducted on the premises including, but not limited to, possession or sale of
illegal substances, racketeering, prostitution, lewd and lascivious behavior, and
unlawful gambling; or
The management knowingly allowed the establishment to become a nuisance
because of chronic, habitual or ongoing violations of law, including the city code.
Prior to any special exception being revoked, the establishment shall be provided
City of Cape Canaveral
Ordinance No. 02-2012
Page 6 of 8
with minimum due process including notice of the grounds for revocation and
hearing date, an opportunity to be heard, the right to present evidence, and the right
to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
Section 3. Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Ordinances and Resolutions. All prior
inconsistent ordinances and resolutions adopted by the City Council, or parts of prior ordinances and
resolutions in conflict herewith, are hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict.
Section 4. Incorporation Into Code. This Ordinance shall be incorporated into the
Cape Canaveral City Code and any section or paragraph, number or letter, and any heading may be
changed or modified as necessary to effectuate the foregoing. Grammatical, typographical, and like
errors may be corrected and additions, alterations, and omissions, not affecting the construction or
meaning of this ordinance and the City Code may be freely made.
Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word or
provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of
competent 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 20th day of
March, 2012.
ATTEST:
Rocky Randels, Mayor
For Against
John Bond
ANGELA APPERSON, City Clerk Bob Hoog
Buzz Petsos
Rocky Randels
Betty Walsh
City of Cape Canaveral
Ordinance No. 02-2012
Page 7 of 8
First Reading: February 21, 2012
Legal Ad published: February 24, 2012
Second Reading: March 20, 2012
Approved as to legal form and sufficiency
for the City of Cape Canaveral only by:
ANTHONY A. GARGANESE, City Attorney
City of Cape Canaveral
Ordinance No. 02-2012
Page 8 of 8
City of Cape Canaveral
Communit�r Development Department
iry 9, 2012
To: Barry Brown, Planning & Development Director
From: Susan L. Chapman, Secretary, Planning & Zoning Board�/;
Through: Lamar Russell, Chairperson, Planning & Zoning Board XR
R. Recommendation to City Council - Ordinance No. 02-2012
Relating to Special Exceptions for Establishment that sell or
serve Alcoholic Beverages
--------------------- — --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
••• UP 01 IfellIgg. a
L , •M
7510 N. Atlantic Avenue Post Office Box 326 - Cape Canaveral, FL 32920-0326
Building & Code Enforcement: (321) 868-1222 Planning & Development (321) 868-1206 - Fax & Inspection: (321) 868-1247
NVWW.Cityofcapcc,in;ivcral.c)rg - enlad:
ZI
N
f�JJ
O
O
�L
N
N
O
O
w
.(0)
d
d
N
to
C
O
O
C
pN
p
N
N
U
U)
(D
U)
U7
M}
}}}
M}
Z
Z
Z
Z
z}
U N
fQ .0 C
N N
Z
°d
Z
06
M
� � CDMCD
0
C)
Cl)
C
N
N
p
O
N
aNi
E
O
O
p
O
0
ZZZ
0
0
0
ZZ}
0
NZ}}-}
O ONZZ>-
NZ
Z
Z
0606
W
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
W
O
0
0
0
O
Cl)
N
W
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
N
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
}
}
—
N—
O
c
O
c
O
cc
L
-N
rr0^
VJ
N
ca
rr�^^
VJ
0
c
°
�06
O
U?O
a�
°
006
O
co
U)
Cl)
c
U
c
c
:3
U)
N
c
U
c
(LO
)
c
O
E
N
Co
N
N'
a
N
cu
N
ca
—i
W
ow
U
c
(0
to
d
U
c�
N
+03 0+
i
V
a_
V
a-
w
_
>Ico
0-
V
a-
w
_
>
m
0
H
W
ui
0
U)
a
v
Ix
E
E
O
EOa
v
`
Oa
a
Oa
Oa
C�ity of Cape Canaveral
City Council Agen, da Form
City Council Meeting Date: O�90/2012
Presentation & Item No.
Subject: City of Cape Canaveral Sewer System Rate Study - February 2012:
a. Presentation by Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. — Mike Rocca, Director of
Operations.
b. Adopt Ordinance No. 04-2012; amending Article lV of Chapter 78 related to the City's
Reclaimed Water Utility; providing that reclaimed water rates shall be established by
Resolution of the City Council; establishing a new equivalency basis for reclaimed
water service levels; providing for the repeal of prior inconsistent ordinances and
resolutions; incorporation into the Code-, severability; and an effective date, at first
reading.
c. Approve Ordinance No. 05-2012; amending Article III of Chapter 78 related to service
rates, deposits and billing procedures for the City's Sanitary Sewer System; providing
for the repeal of prior inconsistent ordinances and resolutions; incorporation into the
Code, severability; and an effective date, at first reading.
Department: Public Works Services
...... ..... .............................
Summary: A recent City of Cape Canaveral Sewer System Rate Study (Study) was
prepared by Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (see Attachment #11). Results of the
Study will be presented and discussed.
Associated with the Study presentation are the following two proposed City Ordinances:
• No. 04-2012 establishing reclaimed irrigation usage fee rates and equivalencies
(see Attachment #2); and
• No. 05-2012 amending the Sewer Utility fee rates, rate factors and customer
classifications (see Attachment #3).
The Study contains findings, conclusions, recommendations and supporting analyses
associated with the design and determination of recommended sewer customer
reclassifications, rate structure modifications, reclaimed water rates and sewer rate
component adjustments, for the next four fiscal years ending in 2015/16 for the cost
recovery system of the Sewer Utility.
Ordinance No. 04-2012 revises the applicable sections of the Code of Ordinances to
reflect the reclaimed water irrigation usage fees and customer classifications including
the basis of determining equivalencies and applicable multi-year rate structures (see
Table 12 below from the Study). Reclaimed water Irrigation proposals reflected in the
Study include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Reclaimed irrigation water service is a valuable service and costs for such
services should be recovered from those who benefit through a rate structure
that does not require an added expense of metering usage.
o An equivalency basis referred to as Equivalent Reclaimed Irrigation
Connection (ERIC) is proposed setting the service levels as follows:
0 1 - inch diameter connection = 1 ERIC
0 2 - inch diameter connection = 4 ERICs
City Council Meeting Date: 03/20/2012
Item No. 5 -
Page 2 of 3
a 4 - inch diameter connection = 12 ERICs
o The rate structure for reclaimed water irrigation connections is limited to a
flat monthly charge per ERIC due to the unmetered condition of all
connections.
Table 12. Schedule of Proposed Multi -Year User Rates
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
20,14/15
2015/16
Customer Charge per Bill
All Classes $1.55
$1.64
$1.74
$1.83
$1.93
$2,03
Readiness to Serve Charge per
ERU
Single Family $13,38
$14.18
$14.96
$15,71
$16.50
$17.33
Commercial $40.14
$42.54
$18.71
$19.65
$20.64
$21.68
Rental Property N/A
N/A
$14.96
$15.71
$16.50
$17.33
Public Buildings $13,38
$14,18
$14,96
$15,71
$16.50
$17.33,
Usage Rate per 1,000 gal.
Single Family $4.34
$4.60
$4.86
$5.11
$5.37
$5.64
Commercial $13.02
$535
$6.07
$638
$6.70
$7.04
Rental Property N/A
N/A
$4,86
$5.11
$5.37
$5.64
Public Buildings, $4.34
$4.60
$4.86
$5.11
$5,37
$5.64
Sewer Flat Rate
Multi -Family $22.92
$24.30
$25.64
$26.93
$28.28
$29.70
Reclaimed Water Flat Rate per
ERIC
All Classes $0.00
$0.00
$6.33
$6.65
$6.99
$7,34
Ordinance No. 04-2012 revises the applicable sections of the Code of Ordinances to
reflect that any reclaimed water rates adopted by the City Council shall become
effective on October 1, 2012 concurrent with the City's fiscal year. Ordinance No. 05-
2012 revises the applicable sections of the Code of Ordinances to reflect that any new
Sewer Utility fee rate adopted by the City Council shall become effective on October 1,
2012 concurrent with the City's fiscal year. Resolutions establishing the rates and fees
associated with reclaimed water service and Sewer Utility fees will be presented for City
Council consideration concurrent with the second reading of the Ordinances at the April
17, 2012 City Council meeting.
Submittina Deoartment Director: Jeff Ratliff wQ- Date: 03106/2012
Attachments:
Attachment #1: City of Cape Canaveral Sewer S*em Rate Study - February 2012.
Attachment #2: Ordinance No. 04-2012,
Attachment #3: Ordinance No, 05-2012.
Financial Impact:
There will be no fiscal impact for the current fiscal year. Rate structure modifications
will generate sufficient revenue to offset future financial, obligations for the next four
fiscal years,
City Council Meeting Date: 03/20/2012
Item No.
Page 3 of 3
Reviewed by Interim Finance Director: John McGinnisDate: /,
nRo/a
The City Manager recommends that City Council take e fall actio'n(sf
4
(1) Accept City of Cape Canaveral Sewer System Rate Study — February 2012
recommendations as presented by Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc.
(3) Adopt Ordinance No. 05-2012, at first reading.
Approved by City_Manaq!��Da�vid L. Greene Date: 3 ba
City Council Action: [ ] Approved as Recommended ] Disapproved
W-w9w
Tabled to Time Certain
Attachment #1
City of Cape Canaveral Sewer System Rate Study
February 2012
Cape Canaveral
Sewer System
.0
Rate Study
Prepared by:
'Ic
February 28, 2012
w 976 Lake Baldwin Lane, Phone 407-271-4775 www,raftelis.com
Suite 204 Fax 407-730-5941,
Orlando - Floridi - 32814
Mr..11ohn 'NI. McGinnis
Financial Services Department
City of C -ape Canaveral
105 Polk Avenue
P.OBox 326
Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920-0326
Subject: Se'%ver System Rate Study (the "Study")
Dear Mr. McGinnis:
Raftelis F'Mqncial Consultants, Inc. (RFC) is Pleased to present herein our report concerning multi-
N7ear Sewer SN'stem lkate Study authorized by the City of Cape Canaveral (the "Ciry"). Study
objectives in addition to revenue sufficiency included the de%7elopment of approp6atc provisions
allo,,.vin 9 for e(ILlitable recovery of costs from all class of customers including those being provided
reclaimed water. This report contains Findings, conclusions, recomn-lerIdations and support ng
analysis associated with the design and deterrainati(..)n of recommended sewer customer
reclassifications, rate structure i-nodifications, reclaimed water rates and sewer rate component
adjustments for the next five fiscal years ending 201-5/M
We wish to acknowledge the assistance p,r(.-)N-ided by ),our excellent staff and thank the City for tile
opportunity to be: of scivice.
Ven' trUll' yours,
Raftelis Financial Consultaws, Inc.
:Marco 11. [Wcca, C.M,C.
Director of I'lorida OperatlOns
City of Cape Canaveral Sewer System
Table of Contents
ExecutiveSummary ....................................................................................................................................
ES -1
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations.......................................................................................
ES -6
Findings and Conclusions ...........................
Recommendations......................................................
General................................................................................................................................................................1
Existing Sewer Revenue Generating System.................................................................................................1
ExistingSewer Customers................................................................................................................................ 2
Proposed Reclassification and Implementation of Reclaimed Water Rates ................................ 3
Commercial Customer Classification................................................................................................ 3
Rental PropeM Equivalency Basis and Usage RateAttribute .......................................................4
Reclaimed Water Class and Cost Recovery Basis............................................................................4
Overview of Customer Classification, Equivalency Basis and Rate Structure Changes ............ 5
Projected Sewer Customers.............................................................................................................................. 5
FiscalRequirements...........................................................................................................................................5
Net Rate Requirements for Fiscal Year 2012/13 ..............................................
Allocation of Net Rate Requirements.....................................................................................
Rate Determinants by Customer Class............................................................................................. 7
ProposedUser Rates............................................................................................................................8
Results of Reclassification. Modification and Adjustments...........................................................8
Multi -Year Revenue Sufficiency.........................................................................................................9
Proposed Multi -Year User Rates....................................................................................................... 9
RateImpact on Typical Bills..........................................................................................................................10
Comparisons to Other Communities...........................................................................................................10
Proforma Operating Results.......................................................................................................................... 11
ReserveFund Balances...................................................................................................................................12
Capital Improvement Program Sources and Uses......................................................................................13
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations............................................................................................14
Findings and Conclusions .................................................
Recommendations .................................
City of Cape Canaveral Sewer System
List of Tables
Table ES -1. Projected Revenue Sufficiency............................................................................................
ES -2
Table ES -2. Current and Proposed Multi -Year Rates and Charges ....................................................
ES -2
Table ES -3. Typical Bill Impact of Proposed Rate Adjustments by Customer Class ......................
ES -3
Table ES -4. Other Utility Comparison....................................................................................................
ES -4
Table ES -5. Proforma Operating Statement and Fund Balances........................................................
ES -5
Table1. Existing Rates......................................................................................................................................2
Table2. Existing ERU Basis............................................................................................................................
2
Table 3. Customer ERUs, Usage and Revenue Relationships....................................................................3
Table 4. Summary of Cost Recovery Changes..............................................................................................
5
Table 5. Projected Fiscal Requirements..........................................................................................................6
Table6. Net Rate Requirement.......................................................................................................................
7
Table7. Cost tUocadons..................................................................................................................................7
Table 8. Rate Determinants by Customer Class............................................................................................ 8
Table 9. Determination of Proposed User Rates for Fiscal Year 2012/13 ...............................................
8
Table 10. FY 2012/13 Proposed Customer ERUs, Usage and Revenue Relationships ......................... 8
Table 11. Projected Net Rate Requirements..................................................................................................9
Table 12. Current and Proposed Multi -Year Rates and Charges................................................................ 9
Table 13. Other Utility Comparison.............................................................................................................11
Table 14. Proforma Operating Statement....................................................................................................12
Table15. Fund Balances.................................................................................................................................13
Table16. CIP Sources and Uses....................................................................................................................13
List of Graphs
Graph ES -1. Customer ERUs, Usage and Revenue Relationships..................................................... ES -1
Graph ES -2. FY 2012/13 Proposed Typical Bill Impacts.................................................................... ES -3
Graph ES -3. FY 2012/13 Proposed Customer ERUs, Usage and Revenue Relationships ............ ES -4
Graph 1. FY 2012/13 Proposed Typical Bill Impacts...............................................................................10
List of Schedules
Schedule 1. Sewer Customer Accounts, ERUs and Billable Flow Projections ..................................... S-1
Schedule 2. Net Rate Fiscal Requirements................................................................................................. S-2
Schedule 3. Capital Improvement Program............................................................................................... S-4
Schedule4. Cost Allocations.................................................................................................................. S-5
Schedule 5. Results of Proposed Rate Adjustments................................................................................. S-7
01
Clity of Cape Canaveral Sewer System
tmm
The City of Cape Canaveral, Florida (the "City") retained Raftclis Financial Consultants, Inc. (RR"')
to conduct a Sewer Systern Rate, Study (the "Study") providing 11IL116-ycar recomnicridations for
revenue sufficiency through just and equitable cost recovers,, Tbe Study utilized a comprehensive
approach that incorporated reviews and analyses of cust(.-mi-iers, operations, and financial
requirements, which are discussed in the fokwling portion,, of this report. The StUdY process
concluded that certain cust(mier reclassifications, rate structure rriodifications and the addition of
charges for reclaimed water services WOUld be necessary to in uniform rite adjustments on a
just and equitable basis.
The Citv's Sewer Utiliti, (the "LJtility") customer and financial data were collected and analyzed to
identify the relationships between the demands (I",'RUs), service (Usage) and cost recovcq7
(Revenues) by customer class. The findings of this irriportant raternaking exercise, as illustrated in
Graph ES -1, is that certain imbalances c%istcd, which could be corrected to, better normalize, these
relationships. (In reading this graph, the closer the relationship between ERUs, Usage and Revenues
witl-tin each custori-icr class, the more normalized are the results; as can be observed, the RcvCnLIC
green bar associated with Commercial exceeds both the ERL� blue liar and the Usage red bar,)
'I"he next iters of ratemaking; concern involves the sufficle.nCV of teVel)Ues to n-ieet the proiccted
fiscal rcquirernents through 2015/16, based on existing rates. This analysis l)rOCCSS irICILIded the
assumption that future expenses Would be subject to inflation and that a long-term loan would be
E -1
City of Cape Canaveral Sewer Systetn
required to fund $2,000,000 of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The results of this analysis
are reflected on Table ES -1, which shows the need for additional revenues in future periods.
Table ES -1. Projected Revenue Sufficiency'
I assumes fiscal requirements are increased to account for inflation and proposed debt service on CIP debt, and
revenues remain at current rates.
The Study addressed the previously discussed customer imbalances and revenue shortfall in future
fiscal years through: (i) the reclassification of certain connections within the Commercial class to a
new customer classification of Rental Property, which is comprised of non-residential properties
that are developed for the purpose of short to medium term rentals of dwelling units; (ii) adjustment
of the Commercail rate factor from 3.0 to 1.25; and (iii) implementaion of a flat rate for recovery of
Reclaimed Water service. Revenue shortfalls in the following fiscal years were addressed through
rate adjustments of 5.5 percent for fiscal year 2012/13 followed by 5.0 percent for each successive
fiscal year. The individual rates and changes for the multi-year period through fiscal year 2015/16
based on the criteria discussed above are reflected in Table ES -2.
Table ES -2. Current and Proposed Multi -Year Rates and Charges
2010/11 2011/12[ 2012/132 2013/14' 2014/152 2015/162
Customer Charge per Bill
All Classes $1.55 $1.64 $1.74 $1.83 $1.93 $2.03
Readiness to Serve Charge per ERU
Single Family
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
O&M Expenses
$2,352,100
$2,440,300
$2,532,300
$2,627,500
$2,726,300
Debt Service
727,200
805,100
805,100
805,100
553,400
Transfers
243,400
250,000
270,400
288,900
307,100
Capital from Rates
34,000
34,000
34,000
34,000
34,000
Subtotal
$3,356,700
$3,529,400
$3,641,800
$3,755,500
$3,620,800
Other Revenues
79,600
79,600
79,600
79,600
79,600
Total Fiscal Requirement
$3,277,100
$3,449,800
$3,562,200
$3,675,900
$3,541,200
User Revenues
3,491,900
3,491,900
3,491,900
3,491,900
3,491,900
Difference Amount
$ 214,800
$ 42,100
$ (70,300)
$ (184,000)
$ (49,300)
Difference Percent
6.15%
1.21%
-2.01%
-5.27%
-1.41%
I assumes fiscal requirements are increased to account for inflation and proposed debt service on CIP debt, and
revenues remain at current rates.
The Study addressed the previously discussed customer imbalances and revenue shortfall in future
fiscal years through: (i) the reclassification of certain connections within the Commercial class to a
new customer classification of Rental Property, which is comprised of non-residential properties
that are developed for the purpose of short to medium term rentals of dwelling units; (ii) adjustment
of the Commercail rate factor from 3.0 to 1.25; and (iii) implementaion of a flat rate for recovery of
Reclaimed Water service. Revenue shortfalls in the following fiscal years were addressed through
rate adjustments of 5.5 percent for fiscal year 2012/13 followed by 5.0 percent for each successive
fiscal year. The individual rates and changes for the multi-year period through fiscal year 2015/16
based on the criteria discussed above are reflected in Table ES -2.
Table ES -2. Current and Proposed Multi -Year Rates and Charges
2010/11 2011/12[ 2012/132 2013/14' 2014/152 2015/162
Customer Charge per Bill
All Classes $1.55 $1.64 $1.74 $1.83 $1.93 $2.03
Readiness to Serve Charge per ERU
Single Family
$13.38
$14.18
Commercial
$40.14
$42.54
Rental Property
N/A
N/A
Public Buildings
$13.38
$14.18
Usage Rate per 1,000 gal.
$15.71
Single Family
$4.34
$4.60
Commercial
$13.02
$13.80
Rental Property
N/A
N/A
Public Buildings
$4.34
$4.60
Sewer Flat Rate
$5.64
$4.86
Multi -Family
$22.92
$24.30
Reclaimed Water Flat Rate per
ERIC
All Classes
$0.00
$0.00
1 Rates were adjusted January 1, 2012.
$6.99
2 adjustments effective October 1 of each
year.
$14.96
$15.71
$16.50
$17.33
$18.71
$19.65
$20.64
$21.68
$14.96
$15.71
$16.50
$17.33
$14.96
$15.71
$16.50
$17.33
$4.86
$5.11
$5.37
$5.64
$6.07
$6.38
$6.70
$7.04
$4.86
$5.11
$5.37
$5.64
$4.86
$5.11
$5.37
$5.64
$25.64
$26.93
$28.28
$29.70
$6.33
$6.65
$6.99
$7.34
ES -2
City of (. ape (-'anaveral Sewer Sysicin
H'xarnples of the result of these I)t-ol-)(!:)scd rate changes on typical billings fear customer class arc
S I I in Table ES -3, as summarized frorn Schedulcs 5ABC'
, , and D, and illustrated in Graph ES-
1()%Nql
2. It should be noted that: 1) the Bill zkrnt and '�'/o Diff for fiscal ),car 2012/13 are, the result.-,• of ,III
the changes discussed in (i), (ii) and (iii) above; and 2) the slight difficricrice bet-wwri the ,-,tated
adJustnient percentages and the "/',) Diff in the table arc due to rounding of the individual rates to the
nearest penny as 1)ril,)vidcd in "fable Fl,S-2.
Table ES -3. Typical Bill linpact of Proposed Rate Adjustments By Customer Class
Noir: Singc Family, Multi-Fainih, and CommercW bawd on 5,WO g:11 Rclull Propvrf� bnacd oil (d;iclunl wq.lgv fw 01C 61ur Rental Propcily
EM=
'Fhe Proposed typical bill u'-nl),tct for fiscal wear 2012/13 differs arnong the custorrier classes due tea
the determination of rates and charges based on apportioncd FISCal MCILlirernents and CUStorrier class
detcrrrinants for each custom er class. Once these relationships between ERUs, Usage and
apportioned fiSCal MILtirernents have been established, rate adjustinents for future years can be
conducted through uniform aniounts. Illustrated in Graph ES -2 arc the differences in typical billing
impacts that each custoiner in each custorner class will experience pursuant to the proposed rate
changes. The changes for residential custorners, Single and Multi-Fatnily, fall within the Five percent
range. Commercial class connections are projected to experience as onetime sigilificant decrease
based on reducing the previous rate factor on the Readiness to Sen,e Charge and U?sagc Rate frorn
three hundred percent to one hundred and twenty-five percent. 1'he varied decreases for those
CUStorriers that are ilICILided within the new Rental Property are also due to the previously stated
reduction in the rate factor,
ES. 3
2.010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
MISS
Bill Am
Bill Amt
"/6 Diff
Bill Anit
% Diff
BillAnu
"/,) Diff
Ball _-haat
0/',, Diff
Bill Ami
% Diff
Single Faimily
$36.63
$38.82
5,981,111,
$41.00
5.62*,'i,
$4109
5 I Ot'iAO
$45,28
5.08*10
$4736
5.04%
Nfulfi-FanlilY
$2192
S2430
6.02'i ,
$25.64
S, 5 1 1,,i,
$26.93
5.03%
$2828
5.01",;;b
$)MM
5.02"'4
corillnerci,al
$106.79
5113.113
$50.80
-55.12'/,,
$5338
5A%
5.5 6, 0 77
5.0111ir
$58.91
5.07/'4
Roiwl h-opertv
$9,067.16
S9,610.25
5.9911/'o
$5,127.05
-46,6514/a
$5,389,38
5. 12"/'4
$5,661,69
5,05",rcw
$5,945-82
5.02",'a
Noir: Singc Family, Multi-Fainih, and CommercW bawd on 5,WO g:11 Rclull Propvrf� bnacd oil (d;iclunl wq.lgv fw 01C 61ur Rental Propcily
EM=
'Fhe Proposed typical bill u'-nl),tct for fiscal wear 2012/13 differs arnong the custorrier classes due tea
the determination of rates and charges based on apportioncd FISCal MCILlirernents and CUStorrier class
detcrrrinants for each custom er class. Once these relationships between ERUs, Usage and
apportioned fiSCal MILtirernents have been established, rate adjustinents for future years can be
conducted through uniform aniounts. Illustrated in Graph ES -2 arc the differences in typical billing
impacts that each custoiner in each custorner class will experience pursuant to the proposed rate
changes. The changes for residential custorners, Single and Multi-Fatnily, fall within the Five percent
range. Commercial class connections are projected to experience as onetime sigilificant decrease
based on reducing the previous rate factor on the Readiness to Sen,e Charge and U?sagc Rate frorn
three hundred percent to one hundred and twenty-five percent. 1'he varied decreases for those
CUStorriers that are ilICILided within the new Rental Property are also due to the previously stated
reduction in the rate factor,
ES. 3
City of Cape Canaveral Sewer Systeni
Grapli ES -3 is provided to illustratc the effectiveness of the proposed reclassification and rate
structure modifications on providing ,i closer relationship between l"RUs, L'sage and Revenue for
each custorricr class. As illustrated in the graph, the green bar inore cloich, approximates the levels
of the 1:)]Lic sand red bars.
A c(-.)rnparison Of typical Single l"an-tily monthly wastowaier service and reclainicd water service bill
exclusive of taxes and Other charges, is provided in Table ES 4. It is irnportant to note
that utilities throughout I'lorida and the nation differ significantly in the way they are capitalized,
operate, service areas, custonier cha rac cc ris tics, geographical location, quality of scivice, conli-nunity
standards and many other factors. These differences are all reflected in the amounts charged and
impact 01.1 CLIStOn-ler classes. AdditiOjjaD)7 , a significant nurnber of utilities Use water revenues to
Subsidize sewer revenue shortfalls. ']'his combined revenue approach to rates, is not uncornnion;
however, since the City provides (.wAy seNver services the scvrer rates herein snore accurately reflect
the Costs Of such services.
Table ES -4. Other Utility Comparison
Single Family 5,000 gal Sewer and Reclaimed 10,000 gal Service
(current rates as of February 2012)
City o C ("ape Ganav-e-ral
Neighl)oring Lltilities
13rek,ard Coulltv
Barefoot BaY
North Brevard
City of Cocoa
City of C*ocoa Beach
Sewer Reclaimed
S38.82 50.00
$5161
S6M
S32.66
S6.00
$39.18
S7M
S24.09
59.11
I S-4
City of Cape Canaveral Sewer System
Table ES -4. Other Utility Comparison (continued)
Single Family 5,000 gal Sewer and Reclaimed 10,000 gal Service
(current rates as of February 2012)
City of Holly Hill
City of Melbourne
City of Satellite Beach
Town of Indialantic
City of New Smyrna Beach
City of Edgewater
City of Titusville
City of Palm Bay
City of Rockledge
City of Vero Beach
City of West Melbourne
Average of Other Utilities
Sewer
Reclaimed
$33.41
N/A
$41.67
$8.00
$52.07
N/A
$52.07
N/A
$34.77
$10.00
$35.01
$9.50
$45.47
$8.00
$38.93
$18.42
$26.65
$10.00
$37.84
$19.20
$35.03
$8.00
$38.76
$9.94
The effectiveness of the proposed changes to provide revenues that are sufficient to provide for the
projected fiscal requirements including debt service for a proposed loan and reestablish necessary
reserve levels is demonstrated in Table ES -5 as summarized from Tables 14 and 15 in the body of
this report. The additional surpluses in the Proforma Operating Statement are accumulated in the
Unrestricted Operation Reserve Fund to assist in reestablishing necessary levels of reserves to
address creditworthiness of the Utility and be available for emergencies.
Table ES -5. Proforma Operating Statement and Fund Balances
User Revenues
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
Operating Proforma
$214,500
$6,100
$78,800
$141,800
$462,500
Fiscal Requirements
$3,356,700
$3,529,400
$3,637,800
$3,758,800
$3,633,600
Other Revenues
79,600
86,200
89,600
87,600
87,800
Net Rate Requirements
$3,277,100
$3,443,200
$3,548,200
$3,671,200
$3,545,800
User Revenues
3,491,600
3,449,300
3,627,000
3,813,000
4,008,300
Surplus (Deficit)
$214,500
$6,100
$78,800
$141,800
$462,500
Fund Balances
$ 49,800
$ 50,200
$ 72,900
$ 15,900
$ 39,700
Unrestricted Operating Reserve
Fund
22,300
23,000
23,700
24,400
Beginning Balance
$ 1,647,900
$ 1,451,400
$ 1,457,500
$ 1,536,300
$ 1,238,900
Annual Operating Surplus
214,500
6,100
78,800
141,800
462,500
Transfer in from DSRF
-
-
-
-
435,500
Transfer to Project Fund
411,000
-
-
439,200
367,400
Ending Balance
$ 1,451,400
$ 1,457,500
$ 1,536,300
$ 1,238,900
$ 1,769,500
Expansion Fund
Beginning Balance
$ 49,800
$ 50,200
$ 72,900
$ 15,900
$ 39,700
Assessment Fees
-
22,300
23,000
23,700
24,400
Transfer to Project Fund
-
-
80,000
-
-
Interest Earnings
400
400
-
100
300
Ending Balance
$ 50,200
$ 72,900
$ 15,900
$ 39,700
$ 64,400
ES -5
City of Cape Canaveral Sewer System
Findings and Conclusions
The findings and recommendations presented herein were formulated based on reviews, analyses,
community standards and ratemaking principles all predicated on existing and anticipated
conditions.
2.
3.
R. The existing rates are not sufficient to fully fund the current budgeted and projected
operating, debt service, transfers and other requirements of the Utility.
b. The Study made provisions to increase the revenues generated by the system and
provide for debt funding of CIP to minimize the annual cash requirements.
a. Uses of reserves accumulated from the prior year's earnings to address the rate
deficiencies are not adequate and depletion of the reserves will reflect negatively on
the Utility's creditworthiness.
b. Debt funding is to be initiated to reduce the burden on operating reserves and rate
funded pay-as-you-go capital funding needs.
a. The current rate structure does not fully address the customer characteristics and
community standards, and places an undue burden on certain customer classes.
b. Reclaimed water service is a valuable service and costs for such services should be
recovered from those who benefit through a rate structure that does not require an
added expense of metering usage.
c. Connections with multi -dwelling rental activities exhibit unique characteristics and
should be classified independent of other Commercial and Multi -Family connections
with an equivalency basis relating to dwelling units in lieu of meter size.
d. The rate factor currently utilized for Commercial connections no longer reflects the
additional demand and loading characteristics of non-residential connections.
Recommendations
Pursuant to the objectives, findings and conclusions previously discussed and the reviews, analyses,
and assumptions summarized herein, along with the needs of the community, the application of
ratemaking principles, and the consultant's experience with similar utilities, it is recommended that:
1. The City proceed to revise the applicable sections of the Code of Ordinance to reflect the
Rental Property and Reclaimed Water customer classifications including the basis of
determining equivalencies and applicable rate structures.
2. The City proceed to adopt the multi-year rates identified herein as summarized in Table 12
with an effective date of the first full billing period after October 1 of each fiscal year.
3. The City address the need to obtain $2,000,000 in construction proceeds from the issuance
of long term debt in a timely manner.
4. A reevaluation of revenue sufficiency be conducted in the event of any material change in
customers, operations, fiscal requirements, annual inflation in excess of 3.5 percent or other
items that adversely affect the Utility.
ES -6
City of Cape Canaveral Sewer System
The revenues, expenses, costs, and criteria associated with ratemaking are representative of averages
that are developed primarily from historic and projected data. A significant amount of historical
review and analysis together with the development of assumptions based on prudent engineering,
financial, and ratemaking relationships have been utilized in the development of the proposed rates,
fees, and charges proposed herein. Some of the assumptions will inevitably change or not
materialize and unanticipated events may occur which could significantly change the results
presented herein. The findings, conclusions and recommendations presented herein were
formulated based on reviews, analysis and input from City staff, together with and predicated on
existing conditions, community standards and ratemaking principles.
ES -7
City of Cape Canaveral Sewer System
General
The City of Cape Canaveral, Florida (the "City") retained Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (RFC)
to provide professional services concerning a multi-year Sewer System Rate Study (the "Study") with
the primary goal and objective being that the recommendations result in: (i) operating revenues,
which together with other available resources, that are sufficient to provide for 100 percent of the
fiscal requirements for the City's Sewer Utility (the "Utility"); (ii) just and equitable rate structure and
rates; and (iii) administratively compatible and publicly understandable system of cost recovery.
Important considerations that the City specifically requested were the evaluation of the Commercial
rate structure and the cost recovery of reclaimed water services.
The Study uses a methodology predicated on cost of service ratemaking principles that also takes
into consideration the existing rate structure, City policies, economic conditions, and community
standards. This process results in cost recovery provisions where reasonable relationships exist
between the amounts paid by customers and the benefits/services provided to the customers.
Sewer related customer benefits and services include the availability of service capacity, the
collection, treatment, environmentally responsible disposal of treated effluent and provision of
reclaimed water for reuse purposes. The approach used in this Study followed ratemaking protocol,
which includes reviews of historic, current and projected customers by category, fiscal requirements
and enterprise financials. The approach also takes into consideration concerns the City and
community have regarding the appropriateness of the criteria used for Commercial customers.
The results of this Study contain forecasts and results that are based on assumptions of future
events, which will inevitably change; however, a significant amount of historical reviews and
analyses, together with the development of assumptions based on prudent engineering, financial and
ratemaking relationships, have been utilized in the development of the findings, conclusions and
recommendations presented herein.
Existing Sewer Revenue Generating System
The Utility's existing cost recovery system for providing sewer service is comprised of: (i) user rates
and charges (monthly usage charges); (ii) other charges for services (special service requests,
penalties, interest earnings, reclaimed water hook-up fees, miscellaneous services, etc.); and (iii)
Assessment Fees from new connections. It should be noted that operating revenues provided
through user rates and charges, and other charges for services are unrestricted and primarily utilized
to pay the Utility's operating and maintenance expenses and capital improvements; whereas
Assessment Fee revenues, which are actually impact fees, are restricted and limited for use in
expansion related projects and debt service.
The Utility's existing cost recovery system was last adjusted with the adoption of Resolution No.
2007-25 on September, 18 2007, effective January 1, 2008, and provided for annual rate adjustments
through fiscal year 2011/12. The existing rate structure provides for the following:
1. Sewer Customer Charge — a uniform charge per bill.
2. Sewer Readiness To Serve Charge — a uniform charge per Equivalent Residential Unit
(ERU), where one ERU is equal to the service characteristics of a Single Family dwelling
unit.
3. Sewer Usage Cost — a charge based on the recorded billable metered water usage and a
uniform rate per 1,000 gallons.
4. Flat Charge — a flat charge per residential dwelling unit for Multi -Family class only.
City of Cape Canaveral Sewer System
Summarized in Table 1 are the existing rate component amounts effective as of January 1, 2012. It
should be noted that the City currently does not charge for reclaimed water to customers within the
City's service area nor to the City of Cocoa Beach and Port Canaveral, which have agreements for
reclaimed water.
Table 1. Existing Rates
Amount
Customer Billing Charge per Bill $ 1.64
Monthly Readiness to Serve per ERU' $14.18
Usage Rate per 1,000 gallons of Usage' $ 4.60
Monthly Flat Charge (Mull -Family only) $ 24.30
1 Ccxnmereial conncuion at 3.0 times.
Other operating revenues consist of amounts accumulated from specific charges for specific services
provided including: (i) inspection/tap fees; (n) wastewater discharge permit fees; and (iii) reuse hook-
up fees; as well as late charges, penalty income, interest income and other miscellaneous charges.
All new connections to the Utility are required to pay an Assessment Fee based on $2,337.81 per
ERU. Assessment Fee revenues are accounted for separately with their use limited to expenditures
relating to system expansion facilities and debt service.
Existing Sewer Customers
Customer classifications as established through the Rate Ordinance consist of (i) Single Family -
detached residential dwelling units other than mobile homes; (ii) Multi -Family - attached residential
dwelling units either individually or master metered; (iii) Commercial - nonresidential connections;
and (iv) Public Buildings - all connections associated with public purposes by any department or
branch of government, state, county or municipal, without reference to the ownership of the
building or of the realty upon which it is situated. Also established through the Rate Ordinance is
the equivalency basis referred to as ERU, which relates a Single Family dwelling unit to other
customer classifications, dwelling units and sizes of connection. The ERU basis for Single Family,
Commercial and Public Building classifications is shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Existing ERU Basis
Meter Size ERU
3/4"
1.00
1.0"
2.50
1.5"
5.00
2.0"
8.00
3.0"
15.00
4.0"
25.00
6.0"
60.00
8.0"
80.00
A billing frequency analysis was conducted based on the billing records from the most current full
fiscal year data at the Study's commencement. The primary purpose of the billing frequency analysis
is to identifl, the relationships between the demands (ERUs), service (Usage) and cost recovery
(Revenues) by customer class. Summarized in Table 3 are the results of the billing frequency
City of Cape Canaveral Sewer System
analysis, indicating relative differences between ERUs, Usage and Revenues, namely within the
Commercial class. These differences are primarily due to the effects of the existing rate structure
and rates, which are addressed in this Study.
Table 3. Customer ERUs, Usage and Revenue Relationships
Billable Usage I Revenues
Amount %
$ 558,393
Connections
%
ERUs
%
Amount'
%
Single Family'
1,717
65.3%
1,723
19.6%
65,374
20.5%
Multi -Family
728
27.7%
6,582
74.7%
198,210
62.2%
Commercial
149
5.7%
423
4.8%
47,990
15.1%
Public Building
36
1.4%
81
0.9%1
7,004
2.2%
Amount %
$ 558,393
18.0%
1,720,389
55.4%
783,625
25.2%
41.544
1.3%
Total 2,630 100.0% 8,809 100.0%1 318,578 100.0%1 $ 3,103,951 100.0%
1 In thousands of gallons.
2 Single Family Billable Usage was capped at 7,000 gallons per month in the test year. It is no longer capped.
Proposed Reclassification and Implementation of Reclaimed Water Rates
An important aspect of classifying customers, selecting rate structures, establishing equivalency
criteria and setting rates is to address the requirements of Chapter 180.13 (2) FS, which in part
states: "(2) The city council, or other legislative body of the municipality, by whatever name known,
may establish just and equitable rates or charges to be paid to the municipality for the use of the
utility by each person, ..." Just refers to the relationship between the costs of services and the
benefits of such services to the customer; whereas, equitable refers to similarity and consistency of
charges within and among all customer classes. Just and equitable cost recovery results in reasonable
relationships between cost and services such that customers do not either overly benefit from or
subsidize other customer services due to classification, equivalency, rate structure and/or rate
attributes. A review of the current cost recovery system identified two areas directly affecting the
Utility's ability to maintain just and equitable charges for services. These two areas are: 1) the level
of revenues provided by the Commercial customer class; and 2) the provision of reclaimed water to
certain properties within the City at no charge. These areas of concern can be addressed through
customer reclassification, rate structure modifications and implementation of reclaimed water rates.
Commercial Customer Classification
Commercial customers, as illustrated in Table 3, accounted for 4.8 percent of the total ERUs,
contribute 15.1 percent of the billable flow and provide 25.2 percent of the revenues. This
imbalance between ERUs, flow and revenue is due to both the characteristics of some of the
customers currently included within this classification and the current policy of increasing
Commercial rates by three times the Single Family rate. The Commercial class currently includes
connections whose businesses are that of a hotel, motel or similar rental operation, which are
materially different from the operations of the standard grouping of other Commercial connections
(retail stores, offices, restaurants, etc.). Considering that the Utility's existing customer categories
recognize connections with multiple dwelling units as a separate category and after review of
ratemaking principles together with discussions with City staff, this Study concluded that it is
appropriate to add a new Rental Property user class consisting of connections with multiple dwelling
units that are rented/leased as a hotel or motel property.
The addition of this new customer class necessitates the review and development of appropriate rate
setting attributes for both the remaining Commercial connections and the newly identified Rental
Property connections. Commercial connections are currently identified pursuant to meter
City of Cape Canaveral Sewer System
equivalency criteria that reasonably reflect the demand and service levels associated with the size of
each connection's water meter. This is a common and nationally accepted ratemaking practice and,
therefore, no change is being considered pursuant to the use of meter equivalency criteria. However,
reducing the existing Commercial charge factor to better represent Commercial service cost
characteristics is advisable. This Study does recognize that commercial customers as a class have the
propensity to discharge wastewater containing higher loading characteristics than domestic flows,
and can place higher levels of service demands on the system and pose greater chemical and
financial risks to the system than residential customers. Considering these factors and the
composition of remaining commercial connections, this Study proposed a reduction from 3.0 to
1.25 as a reasonable basis to address the differences between residential and commercial cost
recovery.
Rental Property Equivalency Basis and Usage Rate Attribute
The selection of an equivalency basis for Rental Property customers relies upon similar criteria as
used to set the existing equivalency basis for Multi -Family connections. The criteria utilize the
number of dwelling units as the basis for setting each connection's ERUs. The primary difference in
selection of equivalencies between Multi -Family and Rental Property categories is that Multi -Family
dwelling units in general are similar in wastewater discharge characteristic (sewer fixture units) to
that of Single Family dwelling units; whereas, Rental Property dwelling units in general do not have
kitchen and additional bath facilities associated with most Multi -Family and Single Family dwellings.
A sewer fixture unit relates to a drain or opening that allows for the discharge of wastewater.
Therefore, the level of demand associated with Rental Property connections is lower than for Multi -
Family connections. This distinction allows for the use of a 0.75 equivalency factor in determining
the ERUs for Rental Property connections.
Further review of the Rental Property customer class identified that unlike the flow characteristics of
Muld-Family connections, which allowed for setting a Flat Rate per dwelling unit, the flow
associated with Rental Property connections involve activities that are materially different and not as
consistent as those for Multi -Family connections. Therefore, this Study proposes that in addition to
a Customer Service Charge per bill and Readiness to Service Charge per dwelling unit, each Rental
Property pays for metered flow based on a uniform Usage Rate.
Reclaimed Water Class and Cost Recovery Basis
Information provided by the City indicates that, in addition to providing bulk reclaimed water to the
City of Cocoa Beach and Port Canaveral, the Utility provides reclaimed water to approximately
1,103 properties through unmetered 1, 2 and 4 -inch lines. Currently, the costs for reclaimed water
services, including wastewater effluent filtration, disinfection, storage, pumping and distribution, are
not recovered individually from those who directly benefit, as the services are free of charges. The
cost of providing the reclaimed water service is included in and recovered from the other charges for
services.
In developing a rate structure and rates for reclaimed water services, it is important to realize that
currently due to unmetered connections it is impractical and cost prohibitive at this time to meter
the usage of each connection. Unlike potable water that is used for many different purposes and
allows for classification of different customers, reclaimed water is primarily for irrigation purposes
and therefore representative of one customer class. Additionally, the existing system of assessing
ERUs based on dwelling unit or water meter size is not applicable and requires a new equivalency
basis be established to identify service levels among the different sizes of connections to the
City of Cape Canaveral Sewer System
reclaimed water system. An equivalency basis referred to as Equivalent Reclaimed Irrigation
Connections (ERIC) is proposed setting the service levels for charge purposes as:
1 -inch connection = 1 ERIC
2 -inch connection = 4 ERICs
4 -inch connection = 12 ERICs
The rate structure for Reclaimed Water connections is limited to a flat monthly charge per ERIC
due to the unmetered condition of all connections.
Overview of Customer Classification, Equivalency Basis and Rate Structure Changes
The proposed changes and modifications are intended to provide closer relationships between and
among the customers with respect to the cost recovery of sewer services than previously identified
through the billing frequency analysis shown in Table 3. Summarized in Table 4 are descriptions of
the proposed adjustments and modification to the Utility's system of cost recovery.
Table 4. Summary of Cost Recovery Changes
Customer Class
Equivalency Basis
Rate Structure
Single Family
No Chane
No Change
Muld-Farrdly
No Change
No Change
Public Buildings
No Change
No Change
Commercial
No Change
Rate Index Reduction From 3.0 to 1.25
Rental Property
0.75 ERU Per Dwelling Unit
Addition of Billing Charge Per Bill,
Readiness To Service Charge per ERU
And Usage Rate Per 1,000 Gal.
Reclaimed Water
Per Line Size
Addition of a Flat Rate Per ERIC plus a
Billing Charge Per Bill if billed separately
Projected Sewer Customers
Projections of Sewer Customers for the five year projection period is based on a review of historic
activities, available land use within the City's sewer service area and discussions with City staff. The
results, primarily due to the current economic conditions, suggest that the growth amount is
relatively small and limited. The growth projections by customer class consist of the following, as
summarized from Schedule 1:
• Single Family customers are projected to increase by 2 connections per year.
• Multi -Family customers are projected to increase by an average of 7 equivalencies per year.
• Rental Property customers are projected to increase by 120 Dwelling Units in FY 2012/13
with the addition of an assisted living center.
• Commercial and Public Building are projected to remain constant with no increases.
Fiscal Requirements
Fiscal requirements consist of all expenditures required for the Sewer enterprise regardless of
classification. In general, the fiscal requirements can be categorized as Operating and Maintenance
(O&bl) Expenses, Debt Service, Transfers and Capital as summarized below:
• O&M Expenses — consists of fixed and variable expenses related to labor, materials,
supplies, services, etc. required to manage and operate the Utility at the required level of
service;
City of Cape Canaveral Sewer System
• Debt Service — consists of principal and interest on bonds, loans or other debt instruments
with associated revenue requirements pursuant to covenants contained in the loan agreement
or debt authorizing resolution. Debt Service can also include payments associated with
capital leases and classified pursuant to the seniority of the lien provision on the security or
payment provisions of the debt.
• Transfers — consist of payments in lieu of taxes, provisions for reserves including Renewal
and Replacement (R&R) and/or other specified purposes.
• Capital — consists of scheduled expenditures pursuant to the City's adopted Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) funded from operations, reserves, debt or other sources.
The City's Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 2011/12 (the "Budget") was used as the basis for
projecting the fiscal requirements for the five year period ending fiscal year 2015/16. This total
fiscal requirement is comprised of: 1) amounts to be funded by operating sources (annual cash flow
from user rates, other revenues); and 2) amounts associated with capital requirements derived from
operating sources, existing reserves, debt proceeds and/or grants. Projected fiscal requirements in
Table 5, as summarized from Schedules 2 and 3, include annual escalations for inflation and
growth, allowance for R&R to address ongoing system refurbishments and debt service for
proposed debt to provide $2,000,000 for capital improvements.
Table 5. Projected Fiscal Requirements
Total Fiscal Requirement $4,197,900 $4,336,800 $4,462,800 $4,215,400 $4,001,000
1 Includes provision for proposed CIP funding
Net Rate Requirements for Fiscal Year 2012/13
Net rate requirements refer to the required amount of revenues that need to be generated from user
rates and charges after Other Revenues and CIP amounts have been subtracted from total fiscal
requirements. Fiscal year 2012/13 was selected for the initial rate determination period with rates
for subsequent fiscal years to be adjusted based on revenue sufficiency requirements. A uniform
percentage revenue sufficiency adjustment for fiscal year 2012/13 is not applicable due to proposed
reclassification, addition of reclaimed water rates and reduction of the Commercial rate factor.
Additionally, the use of existing Utility reserves to reduce the net rate requirements is not
contemplated or advisable. The Utility reserves at this time are considered minimal and should not
be used in lieu of generating the required revenues from modifications and adjustments to the
schedule of rates and charges for sewer and reclaimed water services to customers within the City's
service area. Furthermore, providing for increasing the level of unrestricted reserves and
establishing an R&R reserve will increase the Utility's creditworthiness, provide funding for future
cost effective projects and allow opportunities for future rate stabilization. The net rate requirement
for fiscal year 2012/13 is provided below in Table 6.
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
O&M Expenses
$2,352,100
$2,440,300
$2,532,300
$2,627,500
$2,726,200
Debt Service
727,200
805,100
805,100
805,100
553,400
Transfers
243,400
250,000
266,400
292,200
320,000
Capital from Rates
34,000
34,000
34,000
34,000
34,000
Subtotal
$3,356,700
$3,529,400
$3,637,800
$3,758,800
$3,633,600
CIP
841,200
807,400
825,000
456,600
367,400
Total Fiscal Requirement $4,197,900 $4,336,800 $4,462,800 $4,215,400 $4,001,000
1 Includes provision for proposed CIP funding
Net Rate Requirements for Fiscal Year 2012/13
Net rate requirements refer to the required amount of revenues that need to be generated from user
rates and charges after Other Revenues and CIP amounts have been subtracted from total fiscal
requirements. Fiscal year 2012/13 was selected for the initial rate determination period with rates
for subsequent fiscal years to be adjusted based on revenue sufficiency requirements. A uniform
percentage revenue sufficiency adjustment for fiscal year 2012/13 is not applicable due to proposed
reclassification, addition of reclaimed water rates and reduction of the Commercial rate factor.
Additionally, the use of existing Utility reserves to reduce the net rate requirements is not
contemplated or advisable. The Utility reserves at this time are considered minimal and should not
be used in lieu of generating the required revenues from modifications and adjustments to the
schedule of rates and charges for sewer and reclaimed water services to customers within the City's
service area. Furthermore, providing for increasing the level of unrestricted reserves and
establishing an R&R reserve will increase the Utility's creditworthiness, provide funding for future
cost effective projects and allow opportunities for future rate stabilization. The net rate requirement
for fiscal year 2012/13 is provided below in Table 6.
City of Cape Canaveral Sewer System
Table 6. Net Rate Requirement
O&M Expenses
Debt Service
Transfers
Capital from Rates
Subtotal
Other Revenue
2012/13
$2,440,300
805,100
250,000
34,000
$3,529,400
86,200
Net Rate Requirement $3,443,200
1 Includes provision for proposed CIP funding
Allocation of Net Rate Requirements
Determination of each charge or rate is dependent on cost allocations pursuant to reasonable
relationships between the cost and rate service component. The cost allocations shown in Table 7
as summarized from Schedule 4 will be used as the cost basis in determining the individual charges
and rates that comprise the user rate revenue generation system for the Utility. Cost allocations for
Multi -Family takes into consideration certain system cost savings economies, such as less expense
and maintenance for gravity sewer facilities.
Table 7. Cost Allocations
Net Rate Req. $ 3,443,200 $ 54,400 $ 491,100 $ 725,000 $ 1,104,400 $ 903,800 $ 164,500
Rate Determinants by Customer Class
Rate determinants represent the number of billing events, ERUs and/or 1,000's of billable gallons
that function as the denominator with respect to calculating each charge or rate. Determination of
the rate determinants is based on the equivalency basis and rate structure identified for each
customer as previously summarized in Table 4. Dividing the rate determinants into the amount of
costs apportioned for each rate element provides the functional rate for each rate structure
component. For ratemaking purposes the: (i) total number of accounts/connections are used to
determine the monthly Customer Service Charge; (ii) total number of ERUs are used to determine
the monthly Readiness to Serve Charge; (iii) total amount of usage is used to determine the Usage
Rate per 1,000 gallons; and (iv) the total ERICs are used to determine the Reclaimed Water flat
charge. It should be noted that the Multi -Family flat charge is determined through the use of both
Multi -Family ERUs and usage. Rate determinants associated with Sewer and Reclaimed Water
services by customer class are summarized in Table 8.
Customer Readiness
Usage
Multi -Family
Reclaimed
Total
Charge
To Serve
Rate
ERU
Usage
Water
O&M
$ 2,440,300
$ 37,600
$ 398,400
$ 501,300
$ 763,600
$ 624,900
$ 114,500
Debt Service
805,100
12,500
131,400
165,400
252,000
206,200
37,600
Transfers
250,000
3,800
40,800
51,400
78,200
64,000
11,800
Capital
34,000
500
5,600
6,900
10,600
8,700
1,700
Total Allocated
$ 3,529,400
$ 54,400
$ 576,200
$ 725,000
$ 1,104,400
$ 903,800
$ 165,600
Other Revenues
86,200
-
85,100
-
-
-
1,100
Net Rate Req. $ 3,443,200 $ 54,400 $ 491,100 $ 725,000 $ 1,104,400 $ 903,800 $ 164,500
Rate Determinants by Customer Class
Rate determinants represent the number of billing events, ERUs and/or 1,000's of billable gallons
that function as the denominator with respect to calculating each charge or rate. Determination of
the rate determinants is based on the equivalency basis and rate structure identified for each
customer as previously summarized in Table 4. Dividing the rate determinants into the amount of
costs apportioned for each rate element provides the functional rate for each rate structure
component. For ratemaking purposes the: (i) total number of accounts/connections are used to
determine the monthly Customer Service Charge; (ii) total number of ERUs are used to determine
the monthly Readiness to Serve Charge; (iii) total amount of usage is used to determine the Usage
Rate per 1,000 gallons; and (iv) the total ERICs are used to determine the Reclaimed Water flat
charge. It should be noted that the Multi -Family flat charge is determined through the use of both
Multi -Family ERUs and usage. Rate determinants associated with Sewer and Reclaimed Water
services by customer class are summarized in Table 8.
City of Cape Canaveral Sewer System
Table 8. Rate Determinants by Customer Class
1 In thousands of gallons.
Proposed User Rates
The proposed values of the rate structure components were developed based on the aforementioned
cost allocations and rate determinants. The proposed user rates for fiscal year 2012/13, together
with the cost allocation, determinants, existing user rate and differences presented in Table 9.
Table 9. Determination of Proposed User Rates for Fiscal Year 2012/13
Customer
Readiness
Usage
Multi -Family
Reclaimed
Amount t
Accounts
ERUs
Usage'
ERU
ERIC
Single Family
1,719
1,725
76,971
$ 2,008,200
835
Rlulti-Family
729
34,212
141,826
6,589
1,205
Commercial
143
409
18,139
$ 25.40
88
Rental Properties
7
641
39,571
$ 25.64
$ 6.33
Public Buildings
36
76
7,144
57
Total
2,634
2,851
141,826
6,589
2,185
1 In thousands of gallons.
Proposed User Rates
The proposed values of the rate structure components were developed based on the aforementioned
cost allocations and rate determinants. The proposed user rates for fiscal year 2012/13, together
with the cost allocation, determinants, existing user rate and differences presented in Table 9.
Table 9. Determination of Proposed User Rates for Fiscal Year 2012/13
Amount Difference $ (0.01) $ (0.60) $ 0.26 $ (0.24) $ (0.06)
Percentage Difference -0.57% -4.01% 5.35% -0.94% N/A
1 Result of dividing Allocated Net Rate Requirement by Annual Determinants
Results of Reclassification, Modifications and Adjustments
The customer ERU, Usage and Revenue relationships previously presented in Table 3 reflected
relative differences in cost recovery among the various customer classes. Redevelopment of a similar
analysis predicated on the proposed reclassification, modifications and adjustments result in the
relative relationships between the customer classes being more closely aligned. The results of these
proposed changes, shown in Table 10, demonstrate the effectiveness of reestablishing a rate
structure and rates that are reasonably just and equitable to all customers.
Table 10. FY 2012/13 Proposed Customer ERUs, Usage and Revenue Relationships
Connections %
Single Family
Multi -Family
Commercial
Rental Properties
Public Bldg. _
Grand Total
I In thousands of gallons.
1,719 65.3%
729 27.7%
1-43 5.4%
7 0.3%
36 1.4%
nthl
Customer
Readiness
Usage
Multi -Family
Reclaimed
Amount t
Charge
To Serve
Rate
Flat Rate
Flat Rate
Allocated Net Rate Requirement
$ 54,400
$ 491,100
$ 725,000
$ 2,008,200
$ 164,500
Annual Determinants
31,608
34,212
141,826
79,068
26,220
User Rate per Determinant
$ 1.73
$ 14.36
$ 5.12
$ 25.40
$ 6.27
Existing
$ 1.74
$ 14.96
$ 4.86
$ 25.64
$ 6.33
Amount Difference $ (0.01) $ (0.60) $ 0.26 $ (0.24) $ (0.06)
Percentage Difference -0.57% -4.01% 5.35% -0.94% N/A
1 Result of dividing Allocated Net Rate Requirement by Annual Determinants
Results of Reclassification, Modifications and Adjustments
The customer ERU, Usage and Revenue relationships previously presented in Table 3 reflected
relative differences in cost recovery among the various customer classes. Redevelopment of a similar
analysis predicated on the proposed reclassification, modifications and adjustments result in the
relative relationships between the customer classes being more closely aligned. The results of these
proposed changes, shown in Table 10, demonstrate the effectiveness of reestablishing a rate
structure and rates that are reasonably just and equitable to all customers.
Table 10. FY 2012/13 Proposed Customer ERUs, Usage and Revenue Relationships
Connections %
Single Family
Multi -Family
Commercial
Rental Properties
Public Bldg. _
Grand Total
I In thousands of gallons.
1,719 65.3%
729 27.7%
1-43 5.4%
7 0.3%
36 1.4%
nthl
Annual Usage
Revenues
ERUs
%
Amount t
%
Amount
%
1,725
18.0%
76,971
22.994,
$ 783,100
22.7%
6,589
68.8%
198,421
58.9%
2,134,000
61.9%
327
3.4%
14,511
4.3%
171,200
5.0%
855
8.9%
39,571
11.89/6
307,600
8.9%
76
0.8%
7.144
2.1%
53.400
1.5%
2,634 100.0% 9,572 100.0%1 336,619 100.0% $ 3,449,300 100.0%
City of Cape Canaveral Sewer System
Multi -Year Revenue Sufficiency
The fiscal requirements previously established for the five year Study period included allowances for
R&R but did not have any provisions to address increasing the unrestricted operating reserves to
levels that will address creditworthiness and provide for emergencies. Proposed herein are future
rate adjustments that will continue to meet the forecasted increases resulting from inflation and
additionally gradually build the operating reserves to desired levels. The forecasted fiscal
requirements together with rate adjustments are shown in Table 11.
Table 11. Projected Net Rate Requirements
Proposed Multi -Year User Rates
The schedule of user rates and charges for fiscal years 2010/11 through 2015/16 are presented in
Table 12. The rates and charges are adjusted by the annual percentages shown in Table 11;
however, the calculated percentage of any particular rate adjustment may be slightly different due to
rounding the rate or charge to a whole penny.
Table 12. Current and Proposed Multi -Year Rates and Charges
2010/11 2011/12` 2012/132 2013/14 2 2014/15 2 2015/162
Customer Charge per Bill
All Classes $1.55 $1.6.1 $1.74 $1.83 $1.93 $2.03
Readiness to Serve Charge per ERU
Single Family
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
O&M Expenses
$2,352,100
$2,440,300
$2,532,300
$2,627,500
$2,726,200
Debt Service
727,200
805,100
805,100
805,100
553,400
Trans to GF & R&R '
243,400
250,000
266,400
292,200
320,000
Trans to Operating Reserve
214,500
6,100
78,800
141,800
462,500
Capital from Rates
34,000
34,000
34,000
34,000
34,000
Subtotal
$3,571,200
$3,535,500
$3,716,600
$3,900,600
$4,096,100
Other Revenue
79,600
86,200
89,600
87,600
87,800
Net Rate Requirement
$3,491,600
$3,449,300
$3,627,000
$3,813,000
$4,008,300
Future Rate Adjustments
5.50%
5.000/0
5.00%
5.00%
1 Transfers for R&R are based on 3.5% of prior year's revenues for
2012/13, 4.0% for 2013/14,4.5% for 2014/15
and 5.0% 2015/16.
Proposed Multi -Year User Rates
The schedule of user rates and charges for fiscal years 2010/11 through 2015/16 are presented in
Table 12. The rates and charges are adjusted by the annual percentages shown in Table 11;
however, the calculated percentage of any particular rate adjustment may be slightly different due to
rounding the rate or charge to a whole penny.
Table 12. Current and Proposed Multi -Year Rates and Charges
2010/11 2011/12` 2012/132 2013/14 2 2014/15 2 2015/162
Customer Charge per Bill
All Classes $1.55 $1.6.1 $1.74 $1.83 $1.93 $2.03
Readiness to Serve Charge per ERU
Single Family
$13.38
$14.18
Commercial
$40.14
$42.54
Rental Property
N/A
N/A
Public Buildings
$13.38
$14.18
Usage Rate per 1,000 gal.
$15.71
Single Family
$4.34
$4.60
Commercial
$13.02
$13.80
Rental Property
N/A
N/A
Public Buildings
$4.34
$4.60
Sewer Flat Rate
$5.64
$4.86
Multi -Family
$22.92
$24.30
Reclaimed Water Flat Rate per ERIC
All Classes
$0.00
$0.00
1 Rates were adjusted January 1, 2012.
$6.65
2 Adjustments effective October
1 of each year.
$14.96
$15.71
$16.50
$17.33
$18.71
$19.65
$20.64
$21.68
$14.96
$15.71
$16.50
$17.33
$14.96
$15.71
$16.50
$17.33
$4.86
$5.11
$5.37
$5.64
$6.07
$6.38
$6.70
$7.04
$4.86
$5.11
$5.37
$5.64
$4.86
$5.11
$5.37
$5.64
$25.64
$26.93
$28.28
$29.70
$6.33
$6.65
$6.99
$7.34
_("io! of Cajx Canaveral Sewer SvSIC111
Rate Impact on Typical Bills
The impact of the proposed rcclaSSifiCatiCillS, C(ILlivalency adji.istments and rate strLICILtre
modification on typical rnoriffily charges are illustrated in Graph 1. The typical bill irilpact foi- a
Single Family connection is based oil 5,0(10 gallow-, of nionthly service; whereas the NiLilti-l'an-Lify
comparison is based oil a flat Chaqgc per d\N'Clhllg Unit. C oinmercial connections regardless of (isagc
will experience the typical irnpact reflected oil the graph. lint-actsfor each Rental property
connection ,vas developed Using actual fiscal year 2009/10 rnonth1v average tisage for each
individLial CLIStOnlCr.
The impacts oil other usage levels for the proposed rate modifications and adjustments are ftirdicr
provided oil the Schedules 5A, B, C and D for Single ]Family, Nfulti-l"'amilV, Commercial and
Rental 11'rol-,)erty, respectively,
-10.000/4)
-20.00%
in Multi -Family w Commercial
Rental Property
Comparisons to Other Communities
A comparison of typical Single I"amily monthly wastewater service and reclaimed water service bill
an-lounts, exclusive of to and other charges,, is provided in Table 11 It is important to note that
Lifflities thrOUghout Florida and the nation differ significantly in the way thea are capitalized, operate,
service areas, customer characteristics, geographical location, quality of service, coninlunitv
standards and many other factors. 'These difference,; are all reflected in the aniounts charged and
impact oil customer classes. Additionilly, a significant number of utilities use water revenues to
subsidize se\ve:r revenue shortfalls. This corribiried rcvcl-We approach to rates is not Lincon-irrion;
however, since the City, provides 0111v se%ver services the SC%-,7cr accuratek, reflects the costs of such
,services.
City of Cape Canaveral Sewer System
Table 13. Other Utility Comparison
Single Family 5,000 gal Sewer and Reclaimed 10,000 gal Service
(current rates as of February 2012)
Proforma Operating Results
The projected results of the proposed rates and charges for the five fiscal years through 2015/16 are
shown in Table 14. The projections utilize the previously discussed and identified: (i) minimal
customer growth; (ii) fiscal requirements including provisions for additional CIP; and (iii) proposed
rates and charges. The Proforma clearly demonstrates the ability of the rate revenue generated from
the proposed classification, equivalency basis, and rate adjustments together with Other Revenues
and without transfers from prior earnings to:
• Fully fund the budgeted operating and maintenance requirements;
• Pay existing and proposed debt service;
• Provide funding for R&R improvements; and
• Replenish the unrestricted operating reserves.
t
Sewer
Reclaimed
City of Cape Canaveral
$38.82
$0.00
Neighboring Utilities
Brevard County
Barefoot Bay
$52.61
$6.00
North Brevard
$32.66
$6.00
City of Cocoa
$39.18
$7.06
City of Cocoa Beach
$24.09
$9.11
City of Holly Hill
$33.41
N/A
City of Melbourne
$41.67
$8.00
City of Satellite Beach
$52.07
N/A
Town of Indialantic
$52.07
N/A
City of New Smyrna Beach
$34.77
$10.00
City of Edgewater
$35.01
$9.50
City of Titusville
$45.47
$8.00
City of Palm Bay
$38.93
$18.42
City of Rockledge
$26.65
$10.00
City of Vero Beach
$37.84
$19.20
City of West Melbourne
$35.03
$8.00
Average of Other Utilities
$38.76
$9.94
Proforma Operating Results
The projected results of the proposed rates and charges for the five fiscal years through 2015/16 are
shown in Table 14. The projections utilize the previously discussed and identified: (i) minimal
customer growth; (ii) fiscal requirements including provisions for additional CIP; and (iii) proposed
rates and charges. The Proforma clearly demonstrates the ability of the rate revenue generated from
the proposed classification, equivalency basis, and rate adjustments together with Other Revenues
and without transfers from prior earnings to:
• Fully fund the budgeted operating and maintenance requirements;
• Pay existing and proposed debt service;
• Provide funding for R&R improvements; and
• Replenish the unrestricted operating reserves.
t
City of Cape Canaveral Sewer System
Table 14. Proforma Operating Statement
User Revenue
Single Family
Multi -Family
Commercial
Rental Property
Public Buildings
Reclaimed Water
Subtotal User Revenue
Other Revenues
Total Revenues
O&M Expenses
Net Revenues
Debt Service
Existing Loans
Proposed CIP Funding
Total Debt Service
Balance After Debt Service
Non -Operating
Transfer to General Fund
R&R
Capital From Rates
Total Non -Operating
Net Surplus/(Deficit)
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16
$ 671,000
$ 719,700
$ 757,200
$ 796,500
S 837,600
1,906,200
2,042,500
2,147,600
2,257,700
2,373,600
868,500
164,500
172,800
181,500
190,800
-
307,600
323,500
339,800
356,900
45,900
49,100
51,600
54,200
57,000
-
165,900
174,300
183,300
192,400
$ 3,491,600
$ 3,449,300
$ 3,627,000
$ 3,813,000
$ 4,008,300
79,600
86,200
89,600
87,600
87,800
$ 3,571,200
$ 3,535,500
$ 3,716,600
$ 3,900,600
$ 4,096,100
2,352,100
2,440,300
2,532,300
2,627,500
2,72600
$ 1,219,100
$ 1,095,200
$ 1,184,300
$ 1,273,100
$ 1,369,900
$ 649,400 $ 649,400 $ 649,400 $ 649,400 $ 397,700
77,800 155,700 155,700 155,700 155,700
$ 727,200 $ 805,100 $ 805,100 $ 805,100 $ 553,400
$ 491,900 S 290,100 $ 379,200 $ 468,000 $ 816,500
$ 125,000 $ 125,000 $ 125,000 $ 125,000 $ 125,000
118,400 125,000 141,400 167,200 195,000
34,000 34,000 34,000 34,000 34,000
$ 277,400 $ 284,000 $ 300,400 $ 326,200 $ 354,000
$ 214,500 $ 6,100 $ 78,800 $ 141,800 $ 462,500
Reserve Fund Balances
Reserve balances are vital elements in maintaining a fiscally sound utility and, for the purpose of the
Study; consideration is given to the Operating Reserve and Assessment Fee Funds. Although other
funds may exist, such as a Debt Service Reserve and Sinking Funds for compliance with debt
obligations, they are not directly involved in the process of ratemaking. The Operating Reserve
Fund is unrestricted and accumulates funds that can be used for any lawful purpose. The
Assessment Fee Fund is restricted for the accumulation and disbursement of Assessment Fees
(Impact Fees) paid by new connections to the Utility. The annual activities for the Operating
Reserve and Assessment Fee Funds resulting from annual cash inflows and outflows by primary
categories projected within this Study are shown on Table 15.
The beginning balance of the Operating Reserve Fund consists of the unrestricted cash assets at the
beginning of fiscal year 2011/12 less any encumbrances including accounts payable. It should be
noted for conservative purposes that receivables are not included. Added to the Operating Reserve
Fund is income derived from annual operations, which together with existing reserves can and are
used for CIP. Funds provided from the retirement of the Debt Service Reserve Fund associated
with the existing debt that is projected to be retired in fiscal year 2015/16 are projected to be
transferred to the Operating Reserve Fund.
12
City of Cape Canaveral Sewer System
Table 15. Fund Balances
1 Debt Service Reserve Fund (DSRF) released upon retirement of State Revolving Fund (SRF) debt.
CIP Sources and Uses
As previously mentioned, the Utility's five year CIP addressed by this Study includes the budgeted
$2,886,600 plus $411,000 post budget items for a total of $3,297,600. Funding is provided from
unrestricted Operating Reserve and Assessment Fee Funds plus a proposed loan to obtain
$2,000,000 in improvement proceeds. Debt service for the proposed loan for the purpose of this
Study was estimated assuming a 20 year term and a 4.5 percent net interest rate with an additional
$25,000 for loan expenses. The sources and uses for the CIP are shown on Table 16.
Table 16. CIP Sources and Uses
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
Unrestricted Operating Reserve Fund
Sources:
Beginning Balance
$ 1,647,900
$ 1,451,400
$ 1,457,500
$ 1,536,300
$ 1,238,900
Annual Operating Surplus
214,500
6,100
78,800
141,800
462,500
Transfer from DSRF '
-
-
-
-
435,500
Transfer to Project Fund
411,000
-
-
439,200
367,400
Ending Balance
$ 1,451,400
$ 1,457,500
$ 1,536,300
$ 1,238,900
$ 1,769,500
Minimum Balance Target
8 839,200
8 882,400
8 909,500
S 939,700
8 908,400
Expansion Fund
$ 367,400
Uses:
Beginning Balance
$ 49,800
$ 50,200
$ 72,900
$ 15,900
$ 39,700
Assessment Fees
-
22,300
23,000
23,700
24,400
Transfer to Project Fund
-
-
80,000
-
-
Interest Earnings
400
400
-
100
300
Ending Balance
$ 50,200
$ 72,900
$ 15,900
$ 39,700
$ 64,400
1 Debt Service Reserve Fund (DSRF) released upon retirement of State Revolving Fund (SRF) debt.
CIP Sources and Uses
As previously mentioned, the Utility's five year CIP addressed by this Study includes the budgeted
$2,886,600 plus $411,000 post budget items for a total of $3,297,600. Funding is provided from
unrestricted Operating Reserve and Assessment Fee Funds plus a proposed loan to obtain
$2,000,000 in improvement proceeds. Debt service for the proposed loan for the purpose of this
Study was estimated assuming a 20 year term and a 4.5 percent net interest rate with an additional
$25,000 for loan expenses. The sources and uses for the CIP are shown on Table 16.
Table 16. CIP Sources and Uses
13
5 -yr Total
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
Sources:
Beginning Balance
$ -
$ -
$ 1,569,800
$ 762,400
$ 17,400
$ -
Reserve Fund
1,217,600
411,000
-
-
439,200
367,400
Assessment Fees
80,000
-
-
80,000
-
-
Debt Proceeds
2,000,000
2,000,000
-
-
-
-
Total Sources
$ 3,297,600
$ 2,411,000
$ 1,569,800
$ 842,400
$ 456,600
$ 367,400
Uses:
Large Capital Projects
$ 2,337,800
$ 318,000
$ 677,800
$ 733,000
$ 338,800
$ 270,200
R&R Projects
548,800
112,200
129,600
92,000
117,800
97,200
Post Budget Additions
411,000
411,000
-
-
-
-
Total Uses:
$ 3,297,600
$ 841,200
$ 807,400
$ 825,000
$ 456,600
$ 367,400
Ending Balance
$ 1,569,800
$ 762,400
$ 17,400
$ -
$ -
13
City of Cape Canaveral Sewer System
Findings and Conclusions
The findings and recommendations presented herein were formulated based on reviews, analyses,
community standards and ratemaking principles all predicated on existing and anticipated
conditions.
1.
2.
3.
a. The existing rates are not sufficient to fully fund the current budgeted and projected
operating, debt service, transfers and other requirements of the Utility.
b. The Study made provisions to increase the revenues generated by the system and
provide for debt funding of CIP to minimize the annual cash requirements.
a. Uses of reserves accumulated from prior year's earnings to address the rate
deficiencies are not adequate and depletion of the reserves will reflect negatively on
the Utility's creditworthiness.
b. Debt funding to be initiated to reduce the burden on operating reserves and rate
funded pay-as-you-go capital funding needs.
a. The current rate structure does not fully address the customer characteristics and
community standards, and places an undue burden on certain customer classes.
b. Reclaimed water service is a valuable service and costs for such services should be
recovered from those who benefit through a rate structure that does not require an
added expense of metering usage.
c. Connections with multi -dwelling rental activities exhibit unique characteristics and
should be classified independent of other Commercial connections with an
equivalency basis relating to dwelling units in lieu of meter size.
d. The rate factor currently utilized for Commercial connections no longer reflects the
additional demand and loading characteristics of non-residential connections.
Recommendations
Pursuant to the objectives, findings and conclusions previously discussed and the reviews, analyses,
and assumptions summarized herein, along with the needs of the community, the application of
ratemaking principles, and the consultant's experience with similar utilities, it is recommended that:
1. The City proceed to revise the applicable sections of the Code of Ordinance to reflect the
Rental Property and Reclaimed Water customer classifications including the basis of
determining equivalencies and applicable rate structures.
2. The City proceed to adopt the multi-year rates identified herein as summarized in Table 12
with an effective date of the first full billing period after October l of each fiscal year.
3. The City address the need to obtain $2,000,000 in construction proceeds from the issuance
of long term debt in a timely manner.
4. A reevaluation of revenue sufficiency be conducted in the event of any material change in
customers, operations, fiscal requirements, annual inflation in excess of 3.5 percent or other
items that adversely affect the Utility.
14
City of Cape Canaveral Sewer System
The revenues, expenses, costs, and criteria associated with ratemaking are representative of averages
that are developed primarily from historic and projected data. A significant amount of historical
review and analysis, together with the development of assumptions based on prudent engineering,
financial, and ratemaking relationships, have been utilized in the development of the proposed rates,
fees, and charges proposed herein. Some of the assumptions will inevitably change or not
materialize and unanticipated events may occur which could significantly change the results
presented herein. The findings, conclusions and recommendations presented herein were
formulated based on reviews, analysis and input from City staff, together with and predicated on
existing conditions, community standards and ratemaking principles.
15
City of Cape Canaveral Sewer System
Schedule 1. Sewer Customer Accounts, ERUs and Billable Flow Projections
S-1
Growth
Reference
2009/10 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16
Accounts
Single Family
1
1,717
1,717
1,719
1,721
1,723
1,725
Multi -Family
2
728
728
729
730
731
732
Commercial
3
143
143
143
143
143
143
Rental Property
4
6
6
7
7
7
7
Public Buildings
5
36
36
36
36
36
36
Total
2,630
2,630
2,634
2,637
2,640
2,643
ERUs
Single Family
1
1,723
1,723
1,725
1,727
1,729
1,731
Multi -Family '
2
6,582
6,582
6,589
6,596
6,603
6,610
Commercial
3
409
409
409
409
409
409
Rental Property
4
551
551
641
641
641
641
Public Buildings
5
76
76
76
76
76
76
Total
9,341
9,341
9,440
9,449
9,458
9,467
Usage 2
Single Family
3.79
76,882
76,882
76,971
77,060
77,150
77,239
Muld-Family
2.51
19810
1987210
198,421
198,632
198,842
199,053
Commercial
3.70
47,990
14,511
14,511
14,511
14,511
14,511
Rental Property
3.86
0
34,018
39,571
39,571
39,571
39,571
Public Buildings
7.83
7,144
7,144
7,144
7,144
7,144
7,144
Total
330,226
330,765
336,619
336,919
337,219
337,519
ERICs
Single Family
6
835
835
835
835
835
835
Multi -Family
6
1205
1205
1205
1205
1205
1205
Commercial
6
88
88
88
88
88
88
Public Buildings
6
57
57
57
57
57
57
Total
2,185
2,185
2,185
2,185
2,185
2,185
Growth Reference Factors
Single Family
1
1.0000
1.0010
1.0010
1.0010
1.0010
Multi -Family
2
1.0000
1.0010
1.0010
1.0010
1.0010
Commercial
3
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
Rental Property
4
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
Public Buildings
5
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
ERICs
6
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
New Impact Fee ERUs
0
9
9
9
9
1 Multi -Family ERUs represents the number of dwelling units.
2 In thousands of gallons.
S-1
Cite of Cape Canaveral Sewer Svstem
Schedule 2. Net Rate Fiscal Requirements
S-2
Ref #
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
Personnel Services
Salaries and Wages
3
$
765,300$
795,900$
827,700$
860,800$
895,200
Overtime
3
9,600
10,000
10,400
10,800
11,200
Special Pays
3
45,000
46,800
48,700
50,600
52,600
Employee Recognition
3
2,000
2,100
2,200
2,300
2,=400
FICA Taxes
3
59,300
61,700
64,200
66,800
69,500
Retirement Contribution
3
53,600
55,700
57,900
60,200
62,600
Retirement Match
3
23,000
23,900
24,900
25,900
26,900
Life and Health Insurance
3
168,800
175,600
182,600
189,900
197,500
Workers Compensation
3
15,800
16,400
17,100
17,800
18,500
Unemployment Compensation
3
9,000
9,400
9,800
10,200
10,600
Reimburse of GF Payroll Exp.
3
286,400
297,900
309,800
322,200
335,100
Subtotal
$
1,437,800 $
1,495,400 $
1,555,300 $
1,617,500 $
1,682,100
Operating Expenses
Legal Fees
2
S
3,000 S
3,100S
3,200$
3,300$
3,400
Engineering Services
2
15,500
16,000
16,500
17,000
17,500
Physicals
3
800
800
800
800
800
Banking Fees
2
2,500
2,600
2,700
2,800
2,900
Audit Expense
3
20,600
21,400
22,300
23,200
24,100
Contract Services
5
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
Travel Per Diem
5
6,300
6,500
6,700
6,900
7,100
Communication Service
3
7,500
7,800
8,100
8,400
8,700
Postage
2
400
400
400
400
400
Utilities
5
193,100
198,900
205,100
211,500
218,000
Sludge Disposal Fees
4
45,500
45,500
45,500
45,500
45,500
General Insurance
3
158,200
164,500
171,100
177,900
185,000
Buildings & Grounds Maint.
6
25,500
26,500
27,600
28,700
29,800
Plant & Equip. Maintenance
6
183,500
190,800
198,400
206,300
214,600
Collection System Mai.nt.
6
69,500
72,300
75,200
78,200
81,300
Printing
2
800
800
800
800
800
Operating Supplies
2
11,000
11,300
11,600
11,900
12,300
Safety Supplies
2
8,200
8,400
8,700
9,000
9,300
Chemicals
2
93,400
96,200
99,100
102,100
105,200
Uniforms
3
5,100
5,300
5,500
5,700
5,900
Motor Fuel & Lubricants
2
9,800
10,100
10,400
10,700
11,000
Small Tools
2
7,500
7,700
7,900
8,100
8,300
Lab Supplies
2
31,900
32,900
33,900
34,900
35,900
Reclaimed Water Supplies
2
3,000
3,100
3,200
3,300
3,400
Subscriptions & Training
3
3,200
3,300
3,400
3,500
3,600
Operating Fees & Licenses
2
7,300
7,500
7,700
7,900
8,100
Contingency
1
-
-
-
-
-
Subtotal
S
914,300S
944,900$
977,000 $
1,010,000 $
1,044,100
Total O&M
$
2,352,100 $ 2,440,300 $ 2,532,300 $ 2,627,500 $ 2,726,200
S-2
City of Cape Canaveral Sewer System
Schedule 2. Net Rate Fiscal Requirements (continued)
Capital
Buildings
Machinery and Equipment
Capital From Rates
Debt Service
Existing State Revolving Fund Loan
Proposed
Subtotal
Transfers & Contingencies
Transfer to General Fund
R&R
Subtotal
Total Requirements
Other Revenue
Utility Penalty Income
Reuse Hook -Up Fees
Interest Earnings
Subtotal
Net Fiscal Requirement
Growth Factors
Zero
Constant
Inflation
Personnel
Customer Growth
Customer Growth & Inflation
Repairs & Maintenance
Interest Earnings
Utilities
Rate Adjustments
Renewal and Replacement
Ref # 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16
1 $
9,000$
9,000$
9,000$
9,000$
9,000
1
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
$
34,000$
34,000$
34,000$
34,000$
34,000
Input $
649,400S
649,400$
649,400$
649,400$
397,700
Input
77,800
155,700
155,700
155,700
155,700
$
727,200$
805,100$
805,100$
805,100$
553,400
1 $ 125,000$ 125,000$ 125,000$ 125,000$ 125,000
10 118,400 122,200 141,400 167,200 195,000
$ 243,400$ 247,200$ 266,400$ 292,200$ 320,000
$ 3,356,700 $ 3,526,600 $ 3,637,800 $ 3,758,800 $ 3,633,600
9 60,000
63,300
66,500
69,800
73,300
9 1,000
1,100
1,200
1,300
1,400
Input 18,600
21,800
21,900
16,500
13,100
$ 79,600$
86,200$
89,600$
87,600$
87,800
$ 3,277,100 $ 3,443,200 $ 3,548,200 $ 3,671,200 $ 3,545,800
Ref # 2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
2
1.030
1.030
1.030
1.030
3
1.040
1.040
1.040
1.040
4
1.000
1.001
1.001
1.001
5
1.030
1.031
1.031
1.031
6
1.040
1.040
1.040
1.040
7
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
8
1.030
1.031
1.031
1.031
9
1.055
1.050
1.050
1.050
10
3.50%
4.00%
4.509%
5.00%
S-3
City of Cape Canaveral Sewer System
Schedule 3. Capital Improvement Program
S-4
5 -yr Total
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
Sources:
Beginning Balance
$ -
$ -
$ 1,569,800
$ 762,400
$ 17,400
$ -
Revenue Fund Reserves
1,217,600
411,000
-
-
439,200
367,400
Assessment Fee Funds
80,000
-
-
80,000
-
-
Debt Proceeds
2,000,000
2,000,000
-
-
-
-
Total Sources
$ 3,297,600
$ 2,411,000
$ 1,569,800
$ 842,400
$ 456,600
$ 367,400
Uses:
Plant Clarifier Rehab - Eng.
$ 10,000
$ 10,000
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Plant Clarifier Rehab - Const.
95,000
-
95,000
-
-
-
Blovers for Sludge Holding Tank
60,000
-
-
-
60,000
-
Force Main & Manhole Rehab
1,000,000
200,000
200,000
200,000
200,000
200,000
Sand Filter
200,000
-
200,000
-
-
-
Portable Sewer Jet
70,000
-
70,000
-
-
-
Lab Expansion - Engineering
15,000
-
-
15,000
-
-
Lab Expansion - Construction
15,000
-
-
-
15,000
-
Emergency Generators
180,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
-
-
Uft Station Rehabilitation
292,800
48,000
52,800
58,000
63,800
70,200
Sludge Press
325,000
-
-
325,000
-
-
Truck & Crane
75,000
-
-
75,000
-
-
R&R - Capital Equipment
74,300
16,500
41,800
10,000
6,000
-
R&R - Capital Infrastructure
365,800
61,000
57,800
63,000
108,800
75,200
R&R - Vehicles
88,000
20,000
30,000
19,000
-
19,000
R&R - Computers
20,700
14,700
-
-
3,000
3,000
Post Budget Addition
411,000
411,000
-
-
-
-
Total Uses:
$ 3,297,600
$ 841,200
$ 807,400
$ 825,000
$ 456,600
$ 367,400
Ending Balance
$ 1,569,800
$ 762,400
$ 17,400
$ -
$ -
S-4
City of Cape Canaveral Sewer System
Schedule 4. Cost Allocations
S-5
CustomerReadiness
Multi -Family
Usage
Reuse
Charge To
Serve
ERU
Usage
Rate
Connect
Personnel Services
Salaries and Wages
$ 12,300 $
130,000S
249,100 $
203,800 $
163,500
$
37,200
Overtime
200
1,600
3,100
2,600
2,100
400
Special Pays
700
7,600
14,600
12,000
9,600
2,300
Employee Recognition
-
300
700
500
400
200
FICA Taxes
1,000
10,100
19,300
15,800
12,700
2,800
Retirement Contribution
900
9,100
17,400
14,300
11,400
2,600
Retirement Match
400
3,900
7,500
6,100
4,900
1,100
Life and Health Insurance
2,700
28,700
55,000
45,000
36,100
8,100
Worker's Compensation
300
2,700
5,100
4,200
3,400
700
Unemployment Comp.
100
1,500
2,900
2,400
1,900
600
Reimburse of GF Payroll Exp.
4,600
48,600
93,200
76,300
61,200
14,000
Subtotal
$ 23,200 $
244,100 $
467,900 $
383,000 $
307,200
$
70,000
Operating Expenses
Legal Fees
$ - $
500$
1,000S
800$
600
$
200
Engineering Services
200
2,600
5,000
4,100
3,300
800
Physicals
-
100
300
200
200
-
Banking Fees
-
400
800
700
500
200
Audit Expense
300
3,500
6,700
5,500
4,400
1,000
Contract Services
-
200
400
300
200
100
Travel Per Diem
100
1,100
2,000
1,700
1,300
300
Communication Service
100
1,300
2,400
2,000
1,600
400
Postage
-
100
100
100
100
-
Utilities
3,100
32,500
62,300
50,900
40,900
9,200
Sludge Disposal Fees
700
7,400
14,200
11,600
9,300
2,300
General Insurance
2,500
26,900
51,500
42,100
33,800
7,700
Buildings & Grounds Maint.
400
4,300
8,300
6,800
5,400
1,300
Plant & Equip. Maintenance
3,000
31,200
59,700
48,800
39,200
8,900
Collection System 1blaint.
1,100
11,800
22,600
18,500
14,900
3,400
Printing
-
100
300
200
200
-
Operating Supplies
200
1,800
3,500
2,900
2,300
600
Safety Supplies
100
1,400
2,600
2,200
1,700
400
Chemicals
1,500
15,700
30,100
24,600
19,800
4,500
Uniforms
100
900
1,700
1,400
1,100
100
Motor Fuel & Lubricants
200
1,600
3,200
2,600
2,100
400
Small Tools
100
1,300
2,400
2,000
1,600
300
Lab Supplies
500
5,400
10,300
8,400
6,800
1,500
Reclaimed Water Supplies
-
500
1,000
800
600
200
Subscriptions & Training
100
500
1,000
800
700
200
Operating Fees & Licenses
100
1,200
2,300
1,900
1,500
500
Contingency
-
-
-
-
-
-
Subtotal
$ 14,400 $
154,300 $
295,700 $
241,900 $
194,100
$
44,500
Total O&M
$ 37,600 $ 398,400 $
763,600 $
624,900 $
501,300
$
114,500
S-5
City of Cape Canaveral Sewer System
Schedule 4. Cost Allocations (continued)
S-6
Customer Readiness
Multifamily
Usage
Reuse
Charge
To
Serve
ERU
Usage
Rate
Connect
Capital
Buildings
$
100
$
1,500$
2,800$
2,300$
1,800
$
500
Machinery and Equipment
400
4,100
7,800
6,400
5,100
1,200
Subtotal
$
500
$
5,600$
10,600$
8,700$
6,900
$
1,700
Debt Service
SRLF CS120825020 Princ.
$
7,100
$
74,400$
142,700$
116,700$
93,600
$
21,400
SRLF CS 120825030 Princ.
2,000
21,000
40,300
33,000
26,500
6,000
SRLF Interest
1,000
10,600
20,300
16,600
13,300
2,900
Proposed
2,400
25,400
48,700
39,900
32,000
7,300
Subtotal
$
12,500
$
131,400$
252,000 $
206,200 $
165,400
$
37,600
Transfers & Contingencies
Transfer to General Fund
$
1,900
$
20,400$
39,100$
32,000$
25,700
$
5,900
R&R
1,900
20,400
39,100
32,000
25,700
5,900
Subtotal
$
3,800
$
40,800$
78,200$
64,000S
51,400
$
11,800
Total
$
54,400
$ 576,200 $1,104,400 $
903,800$
725,000
$
165,600
Other Revenue
Utility Penalty Income
$
-
$
63,300 $
- $
- $
-
$
-
Reuse Hook -Up Fees
-
-
-
-
-
1,000
Interest Earnings
-
21,800
-
-
-
-
Subtotal
$
-
$
85,100 $
- $
- $
-
$
1,000
Net Revenue Requirement
$
54,400
$
491,100 $1,104,400 $
903,800$
725,000
$
164,500
S-6
R
(6
06
V
w
d
Q
a
PC
0
CL
Y
ist
O
a
a
N
.O.
D
13
to
0 0 0 0 0
A
Ln "t M M M
o 0 00 0
°
to to to to to
°
M 00 M OO M
c1 Ol t1 M
`
Q
O Ci M Ve
c�
tat b4 b`Y va tst
N
N
«
� ^
C
M N r C1
O_ M
^ M 4 .-- G00 CS
is
b4 64 64 ba tfi
AC?
!#t 6N" -t
A
r- ao 00 C:% C�
0 0 0 0 0
1.0
0
Ln to to tri to
e
to to to to to
Q OtnOO
R' ao C') O O
to
A
►n064ui
01 "N to M
O°
btt bei b5} 64 b4
N
N
«otnotnC�
o0 M 00 M
�t Com] -: C1 00
co tn! LA
fY1
111 C N
Rwtss��
60,
:�:
b4 b4 b9 b4 W
A
0 0 0 0
e
C`I M
0
vi to to to to
A69t
OMLr? OR
rMM.,
Q
O CII to er to
tl3
Cb464
CA
U%6464
N
-t C1 -t c
N
tno\O,-.r
�0ui
on 06
W
tR tii rFt
M%0 CNaol+
aha
b•i tat b� as w
A
% e O O
c
V' N M 10 �
Lr) tri to tri to
e�e
7
00 O 00 OO 00
A
OO^fro
CD c1l en %0
69
ui to to
to to to to to
G
N
00 w * to to
«
0 0 0 0 0
e�yy
r t
r OMvoc
'
\:'i ,-: to Ck M
Q
.� 00 ^_
o
iQ
beD tit b4
N
a:
w to b9 b4 bq
"000
o0 0 0 0
A
\00000c%c\
0
Ln tri tri tri tri
C1 C1 C% C% C1
a0 - -t rr C?
�1
`
Q
Cl C`I CO) It 10
CN
64 64 fat 64 64
•,
C'] C'I hl t\l N
00 o0 00 OO 010
N
A
M NO O O
eM-
^
:Q
b4 b`i W b3 to
CII
�I
C1 \^ M O r
rl
A
.t%Yj0000O
�
iC
64 64 b4 CFi on,
N
QJ
10 C
cc
0LnC�+"0
a
to r C% tri
C
A
C'ID C'Io C'lc CII0
O O O O O
o
vi vi tri tri tri
°
00\0000
�-OMMogq
to t-• " . N
`
A
C#i �-• Cl to 7
tat
p
N
N
O O
C
cq '.R
00 1 --to 00
^ M 4 .-- G00 CS
fid
64 664 64
AC?
!#t 6N" -t
°
O O C O O
A
o 0 0 0 0
e
to to to to to
Q OtnOO
R' ao C') O O
to
A
►n064ui
01 "N to M
\446440
Wo be),. b'}} �
N
«otnotnC�
r en to M M
c1l N N N O
-- CO
N N.M-
eM-ONO
fY1
b46b4Cf
Rwtss��
60,
00000
A
M M M M M
o 0 0 0 0
e
to tri tri to ui
0
%Mell tn00
O
A69t
00 -t c% C�
rMM.,
" " to N
to tai btt r.
tl3
N
CA
tg .�-�
b4 iA
1` 4 tr O q
N
ao \0 en oO oO
�0ui
ooh
W
tR tii rFt
M%0 CNaol+
?�
000 00
A
to to to to to
c
ui ui ui ui ui
\0(`1000
e�e
7
to O O M d'
A
Cat C1l to M
646RT64�
o
ui to to
to to to to to
N
00 w * to to
M Ck to M %
e�yy
r t
C,3 N} \M7 N N
'
oR C%C'I e+�
Q
O_ 0 00 N �
o
iQ
beD tit b4
N
6Ri bf#
"000
0 0
A
cINNNN
O O O O o
C11 co
in tin Lnr+M
t
C11I'll 000
L9 O r- N O
Ln 0 to 00
A
Cai N to en
tai tat oil, a.
N
A
a�c.C.cO�
O
0 0
°
0 0
CII
�I
C\ �
rl
A
Of
�
� ea
N
10 C
"
C
00 M 000 Oq
to r C% tri
C`1
C\M ON
N
:Q
C
b4 64 tf3 to
W
04.a
a
ado
`t 00 Ln c O
Q
e-
o
a
Qr
r r r r
0 o a o 0
tri tri tri tri tri
°
oo
ORo r
(11 C, cci tri %0
tsi b"tv CO
en
rh or►
N
ee'7 r M en
C, C11 't c1l Q
.6 .6 r
to O r 't
ur, b .
a`ni
fid
AC?
N PI N
O O O O
°
to to to to to
O
c% 00 N to to
\7 to OC\00
00 0 r
\446440
«otnotnC�
r en to M M
\000x. r
t000M\?"
vci M 00 %C N
Rwtss��
00000
A
tri tri tri to to
0
00 -t c% C�
rMM.,
\?
ri r o o M
64
� M
ri
CA
tg .�-�
b4 iA
N
ao \0 en oO oO
«CiC.otno
M C\ 1- \'7 M
M%0 CNaol+
aaenr-too
d3b�en W
O O
%CO
N \0
.�ooc,aa
o
ui to to
to to to to to
00 w * to to
M Ck to M %
e�yy
r t
C,3 N} \M7 N N
'
oR C%C'I e+�
Q
unfAtvoq
o
�
N
G N N ON C,
«
oO O et en -F
C11 co
in tin Lnr+M
t
b'Yell r in
oit fF► en
O O O Q 0
A
a�c.C.cO�
tri in tri tri tri
°
cs GN m to G,
�I
M O C`1 O O
rl
A
bit `t � N
at fst
�
� ea
N
a O C\ .0 10, It
"
.-�c\c.r
to r C% tri
.-• CT N en \7
.- r t'to w
On,
Ni
W
04.a
a
F- to to
%b CI -'r en in
QLn C11 C11
r %? O
O
vs 64
co 6q.
m
►7
�.an000
W.-i
eV OC Ln
In
O O 0
O
OL a
r7
Attachment #2
Ordinance No. 04-2012
ORDINANCE NO. 04-2012
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE
CANAVERAL, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING ARTICLE IV
OF CHAPTER 78 RELATED TO THE CITY'S RECLAIMED WATER
UTILITY; PROVIDING THAT RECLAIMED WATER RATES SHALL BE
ESTABLISHED BY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL;
ESTABLISHING A NEW EQUIVALENCY BASIS FOR RECLAIMED
WATER SERVICE LEVELS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF PRIOR
INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; INCORPORATION
INTO THE CODE; SEVERABILITY; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Cape Canaveral 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, Article IV of Chapter 78 of the Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances
establishes a reclaimed water utility and provides for the operation, construction,
maintenance, and repair of reclaimed water facilities in the City of Cape Canaveral; and
WHEREAS, Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. recently completed a Sewer
System Rate Study dated February 2012 ("the Study"), which includes findings,
conclusions, recommendations and supporting analysis related to reclaimed water rates;
and
WHEREAS, after careful consideration and deliberation, and after considering the
Study, the City Council desires to revise Article IV of Chapter 78 related to its reclaimed
water utility to authorize the establishment of reclaimed water usage fees by resolution and
to establish a new equivalency basis for reclaimed water service levels; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral deems 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 and are deemed a material part of this Ordinance.
SECTION 2. Code Amendment. Chapter 78, Utilities, of the Code of Ordinances, City of
Cape Canaveral, Florida, is hereby amended as follows (underlined type indicates
additions to and stfikethr-eugh type indicates deletions from the text of Chapter 78, and it is
intended that the text in Chapter 78 denoted by asterisks r * * ]and omitted from this
Ordinance shall remain unchanged from the language existing prior to adoption of this
Ordinance):
CHAPTER 78. UTILITIES
City of Cape Canaveral
Ordinance No. 042012
Page 1 of 3
ARTICLE IV. RECLAIMED WATER
DIVISION 1. GENERALLY
Sec. 78-180. — Reclaimed water kiFigatiGR usage rates.
I'l Rates for reclaimed OFFigation water service shall be established by resolution of
the City Council and incorporated pFemulgated, G91180ed and eRfeFG as a component
of the city rate resolution.
(b) The following Equivalent Reclaimed Irrigation Connections ("ERICs") shall be
used to identify customer service levels based on the size of the customer's connection
to the city's reclaimed water utility:
1 -inch diameter connection = 1 ERIC
2 -inch diameter connection = 4 ERICs
4 -inch diameter connection = 12 ERICs
SECTION 3. Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Ordinances and Resolutions. All prior
inconsistent ordinances and resolutions adopted by the City Council, or prior ordinances
and resolutions in conflict herewith, are hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict.
SECTION 4. Incorporation into the Code of Ordinances. This Ordinance shall be
incorporated into the Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances and any section or paragraph
number or letter and any heading may change or be modified as necessary to effectuate
the foregoing. Grammatical, typographical, and like errors may be corrected and additions,
alterations, and omissions, not affecting the construction or meaning of this Ordinance and
the City Code, may be freely made.
SECTION 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or
portion 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.
City of Cape Canaveral
Ordinance No. 042012
Page 2 of 3
SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon
adoption by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida this 17th day
of April, 2012.
ATTEST:
Rocky Randels, MAYOR
Name For Against
Angela M. Apperson, City Clerk John Bond
Robert Hoog
Buzz Petsos
Rocky Randels
Betty Walsh
Approved as to Form and Sufficiency as to
the City of Cape Canaveral Only:
Anthony A. Garganese, City Attorney
City of Cape Canaveral
Ordinance No. 042012
Page 3 of 3
Attachment #3
Ordinance No. 05-2012
ORDINANCE NO. 05-2012
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE
CANAVERAL, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING ARTICLE III
OF CHAPTER 78 RELATED TO SERVICE RATES, DEPOSITS AND
BILLING PROCEDURES FOR THE CITY'S SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM;
PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; INCORPORATION INTO THE
CODE; SEVERABILITY; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Cape Canaveral 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, Article II of Chapter 78 of the Cape Canaveral code of Ordinance
establishes the City's sanitary sewer system and provides for the operation, construction,
maintenance, and repair of sanitary sewer facilities in the City of Cape Canaveral; and
WHEREAS, Article III of Chapter 78 establishes the service rates, deposits and
billing procedures for the City's sewer customers; and
WHEREAS, Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. recently completed a Sewer
System Rate Study dated February 2012 ("the Study"), which includes findings,
conclusion, recommendations and supporting analysis related to sanitary sewer rates; and
WHEREAS, after careful consideration and deliberation, and after considering the
Study, the City Council desires to make amendments to section 78-152 to reflect that any
new rate adopted by the City Council shall become effective on October 1, concurrent with
the first day of the City's fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral deems 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 and are deemed a material part of this Ordinance.
SECTION 2. Code Amendment. Chapter 78, Utilities, of the Cape Canaveral Code of
Ordinances, is hereby amended as follows underlined type indicates additions to and
sWkethsugh type indicates deletions from the text of Chapter 78, and it is intended that
the text in Chapter 78 denoted by asterisks r * * ]and omitted from this Ordinance shall
remain unchanged from the language existing prior to adoption of this Ordinance):
CHAPTER 78. UTILITIES
City of Cape Canaveral
Ordinance 05-2012
Page 1 of 3
ARTICLE Ill. SERVICE RATES, DEPOSITS AND BILLING PROCEDURES
Sec. 78-152. - Monthly sewer rates.
(a) Any user of the service of the sewer system shall pay a monthly charge or rate as
set forth in Appendix B to this Code. The schedule of fees is subject to revision as may
be necessary to keep rates commensurate with the changes in the cost of providing
service and is otherwise subject to revision due to any regulatory or environmental
factors which increase the cost of sewage treatment. All revisions shall be done by
resolution and shall become effective as of daaeary October 1 of each year. The city
council may utilize, as a basis of any rate increase, a sewer rate study to be conducted,
at a minimum, every five years.
(b) It is the intent of this section that all condominiums or other developments,
particularly developments with a mixture of housing types, be charged a sewer rate in
accordance with the type of structure actually built.
SECTION 3. Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Ordinances and Resolutions. All prior
inconsistent ordinances and resolutions adopted by the City Council, or prior ordinances
and resolutions in conflict herewith, are hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict.
SECTION 4. Incorporation into the Code of Ordinances. This Ordinance shall be
incorporated into the Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances and any section or paragraph
number or letter and any heading may change or be modified as necessary to effectuate
the foregoing. Grammatical, typographical, and like errors may be corrected and additions,
alterations, and omissions, not affecting the construction or meaning of this Ordinance and
the City Code, may be freely made.
SECTION 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or
portion 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.
[ADOPTION PAGE FOLLOWS]
City of Cape Canaveral
Ordinance 05-2012
Page 2 of 3
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida this 171' day
of April, 2012.
ATTEST:
Rocky Randels, MAYOR
Name For Against
Angela M. Apperson, City Clerk John Bond
Robert Hoog
Buzz Petsos
Rocky Randels
Betty Walsh
Approved as to Form and Sufficiency as to
the City of Cape Canaveral Only:
Anthony A. Garganese, City Attorney
City of Cape Canaveral
Ordinance 05-2012
Page 3of3
City of Cape Canaveral
City Council Agenda Form,
City Council Meeting Date: 3/20/20
Item Noi. I
Subject: Adopt Ordinance No. 0�6-2012; amending Chapter 110, Zoning, of the Code of
Ordinances to repeal zoning regulations regarding the permitted location of "Resort
Condominiums" and "Resort Dwellings" now collectively known as "Vacation Rentals"
pursuant to Florida statutes; making conforming amendments to Section 2-283;
providing for the repeal of prior inconsistent ordinances and resolutions; incorporation
into the Code; severability, and an effective date.
Pe�artrnenjL. Building and Code Enforcement
Summary: At its February 21, 2012 meeting, City Council provided direction to the City
Attorney to draft an Ordinance repealing the zoning regulations related to Resort
Condominiums and Resort Dwellings, This will have the effect of allowing residential
property owners the option to use their properties for weekly rentals consistent with the
applicable requirements of State law.
Chapter 2011-119, Laws of Florida, revised the nomenclature for "resort condominium"
and "resort dwelling" and said uses are now collectively referred to as "vacation rentals."
The law also preempted local regulations and ordinances regarding the use of vacation
rentals, but specified that this preemption does not apply to any local law adopted on or
before June 1, 2011 (this would include the City's Ordinances adopted to regulate
vacation rentals, Ord. No. 04-2007 and Ord. No. 02-2011). Even though the City's local
regulations applicable to vacation rentals are exempt from the State's preemption, the
City Council decided, as a matter of policy, to discontinue and forego the regulation of
vacation rentals by specific zoning classification.
Several requirements applicable to vacation rentals unaffected by the repeal of the
City's zoning regulations will remain in effect:
* State DBPR license.
* Fire Code compliance - annual fire inspections.
* Building Code compliance - change of Occupancy Classification triggers a
new Certificate of Occupancy and building permit for upgrades,
* City Code will continue to prohibit residential rentals of less than seven days,
* Local Business Tax Receipt is required.
A Notice of Public Hearing for this Zoning Change was published Monday, March 12,
2012.
Submitti!19_Pep - Todd Morley/\V' te: March 5, 2017
._4Da
Director
rtment
Attachment: Ordi 6'a'" n c e........... N o 1• 0-6-- -2 0 12
Financial Impact: Potential increases in permit and BTR revenue.
Reviewed by Interim Finance Director: John McGinniDa e:
City Council Meeting Date: 3/20/2012
Item No.
Page 2 of 2
The City Manager recommends that City Council take the following action(s):
Adopt Ordinance No. 06-2012, at first reading.
Approved by City Manager: David L. Greene 0 kq.,p-� Date: D / Iq
City Council Action: Approved as Recommended Disapproved
Approved with Modifications
I Tabled to Time Certain
ORDINANCE NO. 06-2012
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL,
FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 110, ZONING, OF THE
CODE OF ORDINANCES TO REPEAL ZONING
REGULATIONS REGARDING THE PERMITTED
LOCATION OF "RESORT CONDOMINIUMS" AND
"RESORT DWELLINGS" NOW COLLECTIVELY KNOWN
AS "VACATION RENTALS" PURSUANT TO FLORIDA
STATUTES; MAKING CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO
SECTION 2-283; 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 previously adopted Ordinance No. 04-2007, as amended by
Ordinance No. 02-2011 (the "Resort Use Ordinances"), which expressly established that the C-1
zoning designation would constitute the applicable zoning classification for resort condominiums
and resort dwellings, as defined by chapter 509, Florida Statutes, to be located within the City; and
WHEREAS, the Resort Use Ordinances also established regulations for allowing existing
and other permitted resort condominiums and resort dwellings not within the C-1 zoning designation
to be grandfathered as nonconfonning uses until abandoned pursuant to the criteria established in
the City's zoning Code; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the adoption of the Resort Use Ordinances, the Florida
Legislature revised the nomenclature for these uses and said uses are now collectively referred to as
"vacation rentals" pursuant to section 509.242(1)(c), Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Chapter 2011-119, Laws of Florida, the City Council
acknowledges and recognizes that the Legislature has now preempted local regulations and
ordinances regarding the use of vacation rentals and that ordinances adopted on or before June 1,
2011 (including the Resort Use Ordinances) were exempted from the new preemption imposed by
the Florida Legislature; and
WHEREAS, although the Resort Use Ordinances are exempt from said preemption, the City
Council desires, as a matter of policy, to discontinue and forego the regulation of vacation rentals
by specific zoning classification; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent and purpose of this Ordinance to repeal the City's current zoning
City of Cape Canaveral
Ordinance No. 06-2012
Page l of 9
policy of only allowing vacation rentals to be located in the C-1 zoning classification and to allow
vacation rentals in dwellings in accordance with the applicable provisions of Florida law including
the Florida Building Code and Florida Fire Prevention Code; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding the City Council's desire to repeal the aforementioned zoning
regulation affecting vacation rentals, it is not the City Council's desire to repeal the minimum seven-
day rental restriction which has existed in the City of Cape Canaveral prior to the adoption of the
Resort Use Ordinances and was upheld as a valid restriction in the Brevard County Circuit Court
Case, Royal Mansions Condominium Association, Inc. v. City of Cape Canaveral, Case No. 89-
16393 -CA -N; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, hereby finds this
Ordinance to be in the best interests of the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Cape
Canaveral.
BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Brevard
County, Florida, as follows:
Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are hereby fully incorporated herein by this
reference as legislative findings and the intent and purpose of the City Council of the City of Cape
Canaveral.
Section 2. Code Amendment. Chapter 110, Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances, City of Cape
Canaveral, Florida, is hereby amended as follows underlined type indicates additions and strikeout
type indicates deletions, while asterisks (* * *) indicate a deletion from this Ordinance of text
existing in Chapter 110. It is intended that the text in Chapter 110 denoted by the asterisks and set
forth in this Ordinance shall remain unchanged from the language existing prior to adoption of this
Ordinance):
CHAPTER 110. ZONING
ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL
Sec. 110-1. Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
City of Cape Canaveral
Ordinance No. 06-2012
Page 2 of 9
. A111I.. .. ..A-MIJ =I
111:110,111111111111 111, P1111 a" I It
.. . . .. .
. .. . . .. .
lA7lTT7lU
�h'/IIPJ��AZ.I�\'1�11�A1-1t ��J�IL-Jl�t.l!l�iialy.11�.L�l
1�Z��1 r.14�11A��.r�.�7l�JIllR.�lU �.1-1�1.1�1.1U�1-LT7
City of Cape Canaveral
Ordinance No. 06-2012
Page 2 of 9
ARTICLE VII. DISTRICTS
DIVISION 2. R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Sec. 110-271. Intent.
The requirements for the R-1 low density residential district are intended to apply to an area
of single-family unattached residential development. Lot sizes and other restrictions are intended
to promote and protect a high quality of residential development free from congestion and
overpopulation, to promote the pernranentresidency of single families and to enhance and maintain
the residential character and integrity of the area.
DIVISION 3. R-2 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Sec. 110-291. Intent.
The requirements for the R-2 medium density residential district are intended to apply to an
area of medium density residential development with a variety of housing types. Lot sizes and other
restrictions are intended to promote and protect medium density residential development maintaining
an adequate amount of open space for such development. Further, the provisions herein are intended
to promote areas free from congestion and overpopulation, to promote the residency of
families and to enhance and maintain the residential character and integrity of the area.
DIVISION 4. R-3 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Sec. 110-311. Intent.
The requirements for the R-3 medium density residential district are intended to apply to an
City of Cape Canaveral
Ordinance No. 06-2012
Page 3 of 9
. . . .
..
. . .. .
hs�
Ir
ARTICLE VII. DISTRICTS
DIVISION 2. R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Sec. 110-271. Intent.
The requirements for the R-1 low density residential district are intended to apply to an area
of single-family unattached residential development. Lot sizes and other restrictions are intended
to promote and protect a high quality of residential development free from congestion and
overpopulation, to promote the pernranentresidency of single families and to enhance and maintain
the residential character and integrity of the area.
DIVISION 3. R-2 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Sec. 110-291. Intent.
The requirements for the R-2 medium density residential district are intended to apply to an
area of medium density residential development with a variety of housing types. Lot sizes and other
restrictions are intended to promote and protect medium density residential development maintaining
an adequate amount of open space for such development. Further, the provisions herein are intended
to promote areas free from congestion and overpopulation, to promote the residency of
families and to enhance and maintain the residential character and integrity of the area.
DIVISION 4. R-3 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Sec. 110-311. Intent.
The requirements for the R-3 medium density residential district are intended to apply to an
City of Cape Canaveral
Ordinance No. 06-2012
Page 3 of 9
area of medium density residential development with a variety of housing types. Lot sizes and other
restrictions are intended to promote and protect medium density residential development maintaining
an adequate amount of open space for such development. Further, the provisions herein are intended
to promote areas free from congestion and overpopulation, to promote the permanent residency of
families and to enhance and maintain the residential character and integrity of the area.
DIVISION 5. C-1 LOW DENSITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
Sec. 110-332. Principal uses and structures.
In the C-1 low density commercial district, the following uses and structures are permitted:
ARTICLE IX. SUPPLEMENTARY DISTRICT REGULATIONS
DIVISION 1. GENERALLY
. .. . .
. ... . . .. . .
.. .. •1115.11191r.49A,
ARTICLE IX. SUPPLEMENTARY DISTRICT REGULATIONS
DIVISION 1. GENERALLY
City of Cape Canaveral
Ordinance No. 06-2012
Page 4 of 9
.. .. •1115.11191r.49A,
Vo;IMI 0 11 1111r.
"WLIIEIIMII
. . . . .
..
. . . .1NEIL"
..
City of Cape Canaveral
Ordinance No. 06-2012
Page 4 of 9
...
:■
.•
.•
.•
. • • • • ■
• 10 go ■ ■
.•
.•
-...
• • 1 •
• wis
..
.
.
. .
. .
..
AF -IN.
V1111141.1111111111JAII.+
.
.
- . . r
.
. .LWA-1 119
5.4119JILOWA-MIM1,9001,
IIIAJIIII.
■ ...
. . ■ ■ . . ■ 1
..
• ■ ■ .
PM
gill■
LWIV.11
MON
■
• 1 IL
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ : i ■ : • . ■
111PL■JIMIJI■NJ■11111!• ■
UJIMIN
K1111■III ■I I I
mi
sawn �,als I III 1LJjjMjjjjfjjjWjjQjj[ • • IKWIIJltNL•
iiis
■ 1
ILIJILGIIJIVILVII
■ •
• i "10
Iff• ■ ■ . ■
•".11r,111IM4111I
• ■ ' ■ • ar. Niemi•
■ ■ • r11!4 11 u 1011 L• ■ • • • •
. • • • • ■
• 10 go ■ ■
• ■ ■
• • ■ • ■
■ • • • • •
• ■ / • •
. ■ 1 • •
StIl ■ ••■ii ■. ■ • •
• • 1 •
• wis
City of Cape Canaveral
Ordinance No. 06-2012
Page 6 of 9
r���...w.i
.P..f....f
..
.. .
Allr.RRLVIIMIBM'ALVAr,ll
..
III III I III NMI I 111 1111 ;.' 111111!
11 1111
11111
.. • ,
. :
.
: sell
..
..
..
. .•
..III
I III IM',A 11 Its 1011
L"ILT1 I Will
Sec. 110-486. Vacation Rentals.
Nothing contained in the City Code shall be construed as prohibiting the use of any dwelling
unit as a vacation rental, provided the vacation rental is duly licensed by the State of Florida and in
compliance with the minimum seven-day rental restriction pursuant to section 110-487 of the City
Code and the applicable provisions of chapter 509, Florida Statutes, the Florida Building Code, and
the Florida Fire Prevention Code.
Sec. 110-487. Rental Restrictions on Dwelling Units.
It shall be unlawful for any person to rent a dwelling for less than seven consecutive days in
any zoning district, excluding hotels; and motels under subsection 110-332(4) andresort
Section 3. Conforming Amendment to Section 2-283. Section 2-283, of the Code of
Ordinances, City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, is hereby amended as follows (underlined type
indicates additions and strikeout type indicates deletions, while asterisks (* * *) indicate a deletion
from this Ordinance of text existing in Section 2-283. It is intended that the text in Section 2-283
denoted by the asterisks and set forth in this Ordinance shall remain unchanged from the language
City of Cape Canaveral
Ordinance No. 06-2012
Page 7 of 9
existing prior to adoption of this Ordinance):
Sec. 2-283. Applicable codes and ordinances; class violations.
(a) The following city codes and ordinances may be enforced by civil citation to the
Brevard County Court, and are assigned the violation classification enumerated below:
(10) Reserved. Section 1 f -.. . •COndorniniuma
IIIN !7.1.' aLa i! a' C \.J IM10 �Ciao
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 S. Incorporation Into Code. This Ordinance shall be incorporated into the Cape
Canaveral City Code and any section or paragraph, number or letter, and any heading may be
changed or modified as necessary to effectuate the foregoing. Grammatical, typographical, and like
errors may be corrected and additions, alterations, and omissions, not affecting the construction or
meaning of this ordinance and the City Code may be freely made.
Section 6. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word or provision
of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent
jurisdiction, whether for substantive, procedural, or any other reason, such portion shall be deemed
a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance.
Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption
by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida.
[ADOPTION PAGE FOLLOWS]
City of Cape Canaveral
Ordinance No. 06-2012
Page 8 of 9
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, this day of
, 2012.
ATTEST:
ANGELA APPERSON, City Clerk
1" Legal Ad Published:
First Reading: March 20, 2012
2nd 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
John Bond
Bob Hoog
Buzz Petsos
Rocky Randels
Betty Walsh
City of Cape Canaveral
Ordinance No. 06-2012
Page 9 of 9
City of Cape Canaveral
City Council Agenda Form
City Council Meeting Date: 03/20/201�2
Item No.
Subject: Xtreme Fun, LLC Appeal of Community Appearance Board Order.
Department: Planning and Development
Summary: On Tuesday, February 28, 2012, the Community Appearance Board
considered a request for approval of architectural elevations for the Beachwave
Complex to be located on the Jungle Village/Traxx property at the corner of AlA and
West Central Blvd. The proposed building is a single story retail structure comprised of
four units, the primary tenant is a Beachwave beachwear outlet. Beachwave stores sell
souvenirs, beach apparel, etc. Other Beachwave stores are located in Cocoa Beach.
Staff reviewed the elevations and made the following recommendation to the
Community Appearance Board. The building is 26 ft. high at the top of the parapet and
35'6" at the top of the roof. Staff identified the following deficiencies with the
architectural design: 1) the buildings is disproportionately tall for a single story retail
space, 2) too much of the wall area is window and therefore too much glass, 3) a lack of
architectural design creating a bland, monolithic appearance that is not human scale,
and 4) the north, south and west elevations lack sufficient architectural treatment.
It is apparent to staff, that the building is designed to maximize window area and
therefore window signage while sacrificing appropriate architectural design. Staff
recommended lowering the building height and/or designing the building to have the
appearance of a two story structure. In this way the window area and therefore signage
area will be reduced.
The proceedings of the hearing before the Community Appearance Board including
presentations by Staff and applicant, comments from citizens, and deliberation by the
Board are conveyed in the Draft CAB Meeting Minutes. They provide a good summary
of the CAB meeting.
The Community Appearance Board approved the elevations with the following
conditions as listed in the Board Order:
1. Reduce/eliminate the parapets across the front and side (see #3 on Exhibit A).
2. Lower all towers, except for the central tower over the entrance (see #1 and #2 on
Exhibit A).
3. Add landscaping around the base of the building and sidewalk along the front of the
building.
4. Provide a wainscot type treatment of dissimilar material below the windows (see #4
on Exhibit A),.
5, Extend the existing horizontal band located over the entry doors, across each of the
City Counc eeting Date: 03/20/2012
Item No. T,
Page 2 of 2
three stacked high windows, to either side of the central entrance (see #5 on Exhibit A).
6. Provide additional banding around the back of the building and vertical pilaster to
break up the horizontal expanse of the stated warehouse area (see #6, #7,, and #8 on
Exhibit A).
The applicant, through, attorney Kim Rezanka, has filed an Appeal of conditions 1, 2, 3
and 5 and seeks the removal of those conditions from the Board Order. According to
Sec. 22-46 of the Code, a final decision rendered by the Community Appearance Board
may be appealed to the City Council. Sections 110-33 & 40 establish the procedure for
the Appeal. The Appeal will be heard at the March 20, 2012, City Council meeting.
The City Council's consideration of the decision being appealed is "de novo". De novo
means "from the beginning- anew". Therefore, Council should approach the Appeal
Hearing as a new hearing of the architectural elevations. In considering the Appeal, the
Council may: affirm or modify the four contested conditions or make its own findings as
to the elevations. Conditions 4 and 6 have not been appealed and stand as enforceable.
Staff does not recommend approval of the elevations as submitted by the applicant or
as amended by the Community Appearance Board. Staff recommends revisions to the
elevations that lower the building height and/or give the appearance of a two story
structure as depicted in Attachment (11).
If the applicant does not agree with the decision, of the Council, an appeal to the Circuit
Court is the next available step.
Submitting Department Director: Brown Date: 3,-12-12
Attachments: (1) Appeal, (2) Board Order, (3) Board Order Exhibit "A" - Elevations
marked up by Community Appearance Board, (4) Beachwave Complex application with
architectural elevations as submitted by applicant, (5) Draft 02/28/12 CAB meeting
minutes, (6) Handout of Article III — Community Appearance Review, (7) Applicant's
Exhibit "A" — Draft AlA Economic Opportunity Overlay District Guidelines, (8)
Applicant's Exhibit "B" — Photos of surrounding properties, (9) Code of Ordinances,
Sections 110-33 & 40, (10) Elevation depicting conditions of Board Order, and (11)
Elevations as recommended bV Staff.
....... . ..
Financial Impact: Not able to be determined at this, time.
Reviewed by_Interim Finance Director: John McGinnis
Date: 3-13-12
The City Manager recommends that City Council
take e f�ollwiiig action(s):
Approve Staff's recommended Building Elevations.
Approved b City Manager: David L. Greene Date: 3-13-12
City Council Action: Approved as Recommended Disapproved
[ 1 Aor)roved with Modifications C 1 Tabled to Time Certain
F7701]
Attorneys and Counselors at Law
8240 Devereux Drive
Suite 100
Viera, Florida 32940
321-259-8900
321-254-4479 Fax
www,deanmead.com
March 6, 2012
David L. Greene, City Manager
City ot'Cape Canaveral
105 Polk Avenue
Cape Canaveral, Fl., 32920
Orlando
Fort Pierce
Viera
KIMBERLY BONDER REZANKA
321-259-8900 x6103
k rezan ka@dean mead, co rn
Re: Xtrelne FLIII, LLC - Community Appearance Board ("CAB") Order of February 28, 2(112
Dear Mr. Greene:
Pursuant to Cape Canaveral Code ofOrdinances, Chapter I 10 - ZONING, ARTICLE 11,
DIV. 1, See. 11(3-33, Xtrerrie Fun, LLC hereby files this Appeal ofthe above referenced Order. A
Sl)ecit-itally, Xti-eiiieFuii,LLCsal)l)eals
condition,.. 1, 2, 3 an(] 5 and seeks the removal of those conditions frorn the CAB's Order. Xtreme
Fun, LLC accepts conditions 4 and 6 imposed by the CAB,
As this is it de novo review before the City Council, we will be Providing it transcript for the
City Council to revie'v, Additionally, the record ficir review should include the CAB Meeting
Packet fior February 28, 2012, the applicable City Code sections regarding Community Appearance
Review (ARTICLE III, See. 22-36 through See. 22-47), the packet ofinfortnation and photographs
submitted to the CAB on behalf of Xtrerne Fun. LLCandthe Draft guidelines f'or the Cape
Canaveral A I A Economic Opportunity Overlay District, also submitted into evidence at the CAB
Hearing.
Xtreme Fun, LLC challenges the CAB Order based upon first-tier certiorari standards,
specifically whether the essential rCqLIireI11CI1tS of law were observed and whether the administrative
findings and judgirient are SLIJ)POrted by competent substantial evidence. Please schedule this
A peal at the next available regular City Council meeting ofMarch 20, 2011
P 1"*�
Sincerely,
Kimberly Bonder Rezanka
eiielosures
cc: Barry Brown, Comniuiiity Development (via einail)
.Anthony Gargariese, Esq. (via eiriail)
0shri Gal (via eniail)
........ ...... ... I .... I ... . ....
A Member of ALFA International - The Global Legal Network
pr City of Cape Canaveral
Planning & Development Department
co" or
CArr CANA COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD ORDER
Applicant: David T. Menzel
Request No. 12-01
Date Request was considered by the Board: 2-28-12
The Community Appearance Board approved Request No. 12-01 subject to the
following conditions;
1. Reduce/eliminate the parapets across the ftont and side (see #3 on Exhibit A),
2, Lower all towers, except for the central tower over the entrance (see M and #2 on Exhibit
A). I
3. Add landscaping around the base of the building and sidewalk along the front of the
building.
4. Provide a wainscot type treatment of dissimilar material below the windows (see 44 on
Exhibit A).
5. Extend the existing horizontal band located over the entry doors, across each of the three
stacked high windows to either side of the central entrance (see #5 on Exhibit A).
6. Provide additional banding around the back of the building and vertical pilaster to break
up the horizontal expanse of the stated warehouse area (see #6, 47, and #8 on Exhibit A).
"Exhibit A, " which consists of architectural elevations prepared by MAI Architects, Engineers,
Inc. dated 9-13-11, was niodified 4y the Conitnunify AI)pearance Board to depict the conditions
of the Boards approval, Exhibit A is attached hereto acrd is expressly incorporated herein as a
material part oj'this Order.
Note: Reference City Code Sections: 22-43 (b), Expiration of Approval; 22-45, Appeal of the
Board's decision.
Chairlie qqyture
antic Avenue —, P.O. Box 326 — Cape Canaveral, FL 32920-0326
Telephone (32 k) 868-1222 — Fax (321) 868-1247
�ywy_w.Lqyflorjda.coin/ca )e e-mail: cityofcapecanaveral,org
m
11041IUMU lvw
14 i at3AVr43 idyl
X31dWOD 3AVMH)V30
z:
m
:W1 'SINDU!OUQ
IJ 'IVU3AVNVD 3dV:)
)GIdWO) 3AVMH)V39
MEMORANDUM
Dais: February 23, 2012
To: Community Appearance Board members
From: Bary Brown, Planning and Development Director
RE: February 28, 2012 CAB Meeting
The agenda Is comprised of an application for review of a single story retail building and
Interview of board applicants.
The first item on the agenda is an application for Community Appearance Board review
of a retail budding to be construct on the Jungle Vfiiage/Traxx property at the conmr
of AIA and Central Boulevard. The proposed building is a sire story structure
comprised of four units; the primary tenant is a Beacuhwave beachwear outset.
Beachwave stores sell souvenirs, beach apparel, etc. Other Beachweve stores are
located In Cocoa Beach.
The building Is 26 R. high at the parapet and 35T at the top of the roof. Staff has
Identified the following deficiencies with the architectural design: 1) the building Is
disproportianateiy tail for a single story retail space, 2) too much of the wall area Is
window and therefore too much glass, 3) a lack of architectural design creating a bland,
monolithic appearance that is not human scale, and 4) the north, south and west
elevations lack sufficient architectural treatment.
The deficiencies can be remedied by lowering the building height and/or designing the
budding to have the appearance of a two story structure. The window area and
therefore glses area can be reduced and window treatments added.
It Is obvious the building Is designed to maximize window area and therefore window
signage while sacrificing appropriate architectural design. This is a prime example of
why we need to adopt architectural design standards.
Please see the enclosed draft of the AIA Economic Opportunity Overlay D1strsct. The
Overlay District addresses archkeeturai design standards, Increased budding height;,
revised hotel requirements, landscaping, parking, signage, and allows for additional
uses. At the meeting, Staff and consultants will provide an overview of the AIA Overlay
District to Include a PowerPoint presentation and Google Earth tour of existing projects
that have been developed according to similar standards.
There will also be a discussion about new responsibilities assumed from the former
Beautification Board.
f?evt6�-- /': - 0 1
1) �l t e S L 11) 11111 Lt
Pi'oject Naiiw (I
N -o ect Adcli-ess-- '� v-,
Legal Description. Section
3-2 -.4-1 L
11 arc e EM-(
Narne(s) of flropert),-
Ov,,'ner(s) AdclreW LIV
tl
Applicant Nanit:
(Office Use Only)
Is application complete-, YedDo
11 lz�6'111
If no, date application I-etLl-fned to
&'frN
Date/Time Board will consider request:
Appllcatio:i Few :;j! Fee Pair]:
A.pplication Revie-vied
Date Revilev;'415-111
-3-
Sto Most Popular Finish Textures Collection 0 StoColor System
Finish DroducL
sjnClude:
- St011t@ 1,0
- Sto Fine Sand
- StoSilco@ Lit 1,0
- Sto Powerflex Fine
- Sto Powerflex Silco Fine
Freeform 1
Finish products include.*
Stolit@ Freeform
Sto Powerflex Freeform
Sto Powerflex Silco Freeform
(custom texture shown above)
,,_.--.._Umestone
Finish products inducle:
- Stolit@ 1.5
- Sto Medium Sand
- Stosilco@ Lit 1,5
Sto Powerflex Medium
Sto Powerflex Silco Medium
Freeform 2
Finish products include:
Stolit@ Freeform
Sto Powerflex Freeform,
Sto Powerflex Silco Freeform
(custom texture shown above)
.—GraniTex
Finish oroducts inclu
- Stolit@ RI,S
- Sto Swirl
- StoSilco@ Lit RI.5
Sto Powerflex Swir
Sto Powerflex Silcc
#
E rrur
X%4!E'
Finish r i Hwip• Finish oroducts include„ Finish products anglL
- Sto Limestone - Sto GraniTex - Sto Decocoat
JOB . . ........... . INA VA-
SHEET J. OF
CALCULATED BY
94-oll-cm
SCALE
Cgit-A X�R
sw,
PED 13A
SWX321
. . . . . . . . . . .
DATE
mm
m
11"o m
9;10
!
Fn
YHE
q9
N'D
14mo
0
D
m0 Zo
m 10,
C
c)<
_
a�
HEACHWAVE COMPLEX
2?
1
a'a
i
pnjie�
25
"'�
a A�a.Au •
CfiNER SHEET i FAX
1 1 i
CD
>
an
^n
oo
ch
a
o�A
co ch
02
ch
r
02mo
Ci
cn
z
G)�
�
ilF
��r'sf
r� 7C CGd
}_
C/)
?�
(a"zm
z0
'zm
Q r�
m
11"o m
9;10
!
Fn
YHE
q9
N'D
14mo
0
D
m0 Zo
m 10,
C
c)<
_
a�
HEACHWAVE COMPLEX
2?
2
a'a
i
pnjie�
2Mon
"'�
a A�a.Au •
CfiNER SHEET i FAX
CD
>
an
^n
oo
ch
a
o�A
co ch
an
ch
r
02mo
Ci
cn
z
G)�
�
C/)
?�
(a"zm
z0
Zw
F
co
z
ar
m
w
�(
c-400:z.wto
m
11"o m
9;10
!
Fn
YHE
q9
N'D
14mo
0
D
m0 Zo
m 10,
C
c)<
_
a�
HEACHWAVE COMPLEX
I argineers frac
..tea 8
a'a
i
pnjie�
.Fa.
�CdPECAf�.4NEitti,L,PL I �P
"'�
a A�a.Au •
CfiNER SHEET i FAX
- -�-
� Nna mwn aus r,
t'-84-
row 7C3'IL_.
kill
,l�i:
a�waa+e M3 3AVMIOV39 i !1 11 �:� i I
•»RE
M-- exx tuYtaau zxa ._.. N"d 3B✓3;l9lAgMIS ,•gip s ::
.,..,,. M : ,Ij zLw ii'i`Y29ih4P7' 73dV7
rrmaanal qac a fum n1a WOW 3AVNMH)V30 ^ a t
"✓" ✓ ^"✓l Jy'"/�,✓ �.. ,., a W°. a„ 'gyp
/ "
r r"'r✓n F�" /r`'✓/f �.r ,�"",.r ,.� '.''*��,..�"---�.��� ym ",C+ � nk "":�'��1 �'�.� ca
NIM
yli
Yi
fill
".
✓,,�� ��`" fir' ,. �w*. � �.��,^�p� �`�� � �, `��"��" � � �,
/ � r v�"'�'rz 7"'�Kvw """ d�✓`} .�,, ✓� 'W�e a ,�.���� ) "' p� ��y y 4yW„
,r� �a`'wy ^ ""4�•� �" ✓'` . ., I',� `,p �� � �, ��� "br��f " 1 w �I;f� � \. ' 1"".`�,�. �'� \.k tiL
���\ uT"'`f' $}M ,/' a+/Ff✓ A"".ryy^'�, �.�',r. \ y�'�� ✓ � „Nb\ , w 4,�'� {i� �yh � ��'° �p ��q\41��
"4 4 l ✓ O \\ "� \`1 r"` 4� � w" i h G 5� V
"IG `t � ✓'," �,,✓��✓; /'�,.✓�°•� w� `'�, w''`'`ow, �p �, '� ,°�, w "�,'`�,�..,'�: ,w.'4y4�y�
r -A
f�
a
.a
mr ! a
� 1
I
r
lite, ( r ryryryg
IN F� �y,q
a 8 ;
1 [
P s
��
(c
i ae Pit yy
2
It
J;'
a
1; qill PIM
hP fiµ
.. ... � � aw i 91011tlAiLi •. -
�Kaea�aow
�-�
f`7V�
1 � o •
�i
nWO:) 3AVM :)V39
'U "M A14 o un �� a
MWI
iso
ii
•
b'mwnmsar�
xrwm I%V#MMB
MWI
iso
ii
I
4,
ilk
4
nr
,w
I -Al, L
eartn' 'eel 1000
rr. eters 400
0
wommomm
eart�i feet 300
meters 100
earth deet 10
meters
Em
w io
e a r th feet 10 A6.
noters 4
talkAU
w io
e a r th feet 10 A6.
noters 4
l° a
a.
8� fl feet 10
meters
CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL
COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD
FEBRUARY 28, 2012
MINUTES
A meeting of the City of Cape Canaveral Community Appearance Board was
held on February 28, 2012, in the Cape Canaveral Public Library, 201 Polk
Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Randy Wasserman, Chairperson, called the
meeting to Order at 6:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Randy Wasserman
Joyce Kelley
Rosalie Wolf
Walter Bowman
OTHERS PRESENT
Kate Latorre
Barry Brown
Susan Chapman
Andre Anderson
Kendall Keith
Chairperson
Vice Chairperson,,
Assista t City Attorney
Planni g "&Development Director
Board Secretary
Planning Design Group
Planning Design Group
All persons giving testimony were sworn, in by Kate` Latorre, Assistant City
Attorney.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Approval of Meetina.Minutes: October 5, 2011 and February 15, 2012.
Motion.. by Joyce Kelley, seconded by Rosalie Wolf, to approve the meeting
minutesW October 5, 2011 and February 15, 2012, as written. Vote on the
motion carMed unanimously.
2. Reauest'No. 12=01 - Beachwave Complex, 8801 Astronaut Blvd. - David
Barry Brown, Planning & Development Director, stated his name for the record.
He advised the Board members that he had placed a hand-out at their seat titled
Article III - Community Appearance Review, and he advised that this is the
Section of the Code this Board uses to evaluate elevations. He called their
attention to Section 22-42 (C) Conduct of Hearing Approval or Denial. He noted
that the last sentence of that paragraph states that the Community Appearance
Board may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the application after
the consideration of the six (6) criteria listed. He brought their attention to
paragraph (1), which read that the plans and specifications of the proposed
project indicate that the setting, landscaping, ground cover, proportions,
Community Appearance Board
Meeting Minutes
February 28, 2012
Page 2 of 14
materials, colors, textures, scale, unity, balance, rhythm, contrast and simplicity
are coordinated in a harmonious manner relevant to the particular proposal,
surrounding area and cultural character of the community. He brought the
Board's attention to paragraph (4), which reads that:
The plans for the proposed building or structure are in harmony with the
established character of other buildings or structures in the surrounding area with
respect to architectural specifications and design features deemed significant
based upon commonly accepted architectural principals ,of the local community.
He advised that the Board is evaluating, reviewing and "making recommendation
on the elevations in their packet based on the current adopted Code Section 22-
42. He called the Boards attention to his memorandum dated -February 23, 2012,
and advised that the last two (2) paragraphs -of the memo,.should have been
deleted. He explained that in drafting the memo he failed to`Aelete those two
paragraphs from the previous meeting's memo. Brief discussion followed. Barry
Brown further advised that the first item on the Agenda,_is the Board's`review of a
retail building to be constructed on the Jungle Village/Traxx property at the
corner of A1A and Central Blvd... He explained"that the proposed building is a
single story building comprised``.of four (4) unfits.;,. the primary tenant is a
Beachwave beachwear outlet that sells .'souvenirs, beach .apparel, etc. He noted
that other Beachwave stores are located in'Cocoa Beach. He pointed out that
the proposed building is 26 ft. high of the,,parapet and- 35 Y2 ft. high at the top of
the roof, and Staff has identified the following deficiencies with the architectural
design:
1) The building is disproportionately tall for a single story retail space;
2) Too much .of the wall,area is window and therefore, too much glass;
3) There is a lack ,of architectural design creating a rather bland, monolithic
appearance that is not to human scale; and
4) The north, south, and west elevations lack sufficient architectural
treatment. ,
He advised that the deficiencies identified can be remedied by lowering the
building height, and/or designing the building to have the appearance of a two
story structure. The window area, and/or glass area, can be reduced and
window treatments added. It is obvious that the building is designed to maximize
the window area; and therefore, window signage, while sacrificing appropriate
architectural design. This is a prime example why the City needs to adopt
architectural design standards. At this time, he introduced the City's expert
witnesses, consultants with Planning Design Group, Kendall Keith and Andre
Anderson, who would give the Board their evaluation of the elevations.
Community Appearance Board
Meeting Minutes
February 28, 2012
Page 3 of 14
Kendall Keith, Planning Design Group (PDG), 930 Woodcock Road, Orlando,
Florida, stated his name and address for the record and informed the Board of
his qualifications as an expert witness. He testified that he possesses a
Bachelor's Degree in landscape architecture, a Master's Degree in urban
planning; he has been practicing as a landscape architect and planner for
approximately 24 years. The last 20 years of which have been in the State of
Florida, and has been privately consulting since 1999, working for development
interests in local government; and prior to that he was the Chief of Urban Design
Planning for Orange County.
Motion by Joyce Kelley, seconded by Rosalie Wolf, to qualify Kendall Keith as an
Expert Witness. Vote on the motion carried unanimously.
Kendall Keith advised that he did not have a,formal'presentatioin. as much as he
had images to talk about and discuss. He`'�explained that prior to'being-hired by
the City, PDG had performed some work`iri`tf e City for a property n6grby, and as
part of that work they had familiarized thdrnselves with the Envision Cape
Canaveral project that the City had embarked oris few years earlier, and PDG is
now under contract with the City. He advised that Mr. Brown asked them to take
a look at this specific submittal, and.discuss their concerns with the proposal. He
advised that they had one meeting with. the project architect, where they
discussed some of their concerns. He mentioned the size of the glass on the
building, and they are not suggesting that glass is"A bad thing. In fact, this is an
area we have people walking up and down A1A and staying at the hotels, so you
want glass in the'building. F pwever, this%yle building, where the glass is about
18 ft., high seems out of proportion with the rest of the building. He pointed out
that the C e addresses the project being harmonious with the character of the
community -and, surrounding development. In this particular case you have to
work jt`back, because this is really the first new proposal located directly on A1A,
of comrnercial retail development in a while. So outside of the developments of
the hotels that have been built, PDG had to go back to the Envisioning Cape
Canaveral to get a sense of what the City wants to see in this area. The Board
members viewed the front elevation that would be seen from A1A. One of the
concerns discussed,.was why is there so much glass on this building that looks
out of proportion with this style of building. The Board viewed some of the other
projects of Beachwave and other similar style retail. What they saw was the
expanse of glass that comes with the attempt to draw attention to the
merchandise being sold. In addressing those specific concerns of scale and
proportion, there are some nice features including: the detail in the barrel tile
roof, and color scheme which are appropriate to the architectural features. He
advised that at Mr. Brown's request, they looked at what could be done with the
expanse of the glass to change it, and make it look different, as well as the West
side of the building, the concern with the monolithic approach, and the lack of
detail. He showed the Board a sketch of a revised elevation that depicted some
Community Appearance Board
Meeting Minutes
February 28, 2012
Page 4 of 14
ideas of how they might approach it differently using the exact same building
footprint, not changing the overall structure of the building, only changing some
elements of the facade, to make the building more of an appropriate scale and
proportion. He suggested adding some additional and simple architectural
features to address the concerns, by adding a base detail of masonry of different
color; adding vertical details that break-up the large window expanses in a
column; and off -set from the face of the building, which would provide a little
more detail along different expanses. He suggested adding horizontal banding;
because when you have a building this size it is suggesting -that it is a two-story
building. They suggested adding awnings to define -tlie openings to give the
building a more human scale. He suggested that another alternative would be to
shrink the building. The Board viewed a drawing showing how the building would
look with the height reduced by 5 ft. He clarified:that these ideas will address this
building style in a different manner and addresses Staffs concern's..
Kim Rezanka, Attorney representing the Applicant,' Extreme Fun) LLC, asked
Kendall Keith various questions in which he responded. He agreed that PDG
was paid by the City under contract of which- encompasses PDG to have
reviewed the plans; the contract ,provided for general planning consultant
services; the contract is not specifically for the A1A Economic Opportunity
Overlay District; the contract does ` nclude, the draft overlay guidelines under
separate proposal, and purchase order. Man"y-of -the suggestions he made this
evening are included in .the draft dated `01/2012; A1A Economic Opportunity
Overlay District (Applicant's Exhibit A); he had three issues with this proposal -
the expanse of glass, the monolithic approach, and the lack of detail on the back
and sides of the building; there were no other issues. He read Article III of the
Code that was -handed--out earlier.by .Mr;"Brown to the Board members; there is
nothing. in that Code that specifically states that the applicant shall not have
expanse of glass, monolithic. approach, or lack of detail; there is nothing right
now in. the Code that references the required type of architecture or design,
making 'abuilding look like a two-story, or awnings being suggested for
architectural, detail; human scale is also not mentioned in the Code, as it exists
now. The character of the community is a mixed architectural style in this area;
there are several, buildings in the area that have large glass and large monolithic
style walls. He has seen people walking down A1A along the narrow sidewalks
right next to the road in that particular area, because of all the hotels; it is part of
the City's design criteria to make it a pedestrian friendly area in this particular
part of the City; he was not aware of any definitions in the Code that tells an
applicant about architectural principals, architectural standards, or cultural
character; the Envision Cape Canaveral document that was adopted identifies
both A1A and Central Blvd. as being key components to the future development
and redevelopment of the City and refers to it as the future town center area; and
the visioning encompasses a one mile square area of the City.
Community Appearance Board
Meeting Minutes
February 28, 2012
Page 5 of 14
Walter Bowman asked Andre Anderson and Kendall Keith who authorized them
to assume the Board's responsibilities. Kate Latorre replied that they were here
on behalf of Staff to provide testimony on the application. Walter Bowman voiced
his opinion that the Board should adjourn, because the Board is not responsible
for anything anymore as Staff has assumed their responsibilities. Bary Brown
clarified that it is Staffs responsibility to present the application to the Board.
Kate Latorre clarified that the Board will hear testimony and evidence, and will
render a decision based on the criteria in the Code. She advised that Staff chose
to use their professional planning consultants to help analyze..,the application on
their behalf. Walter Bowman questioned why Staff was trying to make the
building look like a two-story building? He explained that this was a particular
design for this type of structure serving this type ofbusiness. He advised that he
has designed several of them within a six to ten mile radius,: and he did not
understand why Staff was now challenging.. the design. He did. not believe the
building looked bad at all, and commented that a lot of glass is not .a problem.
Chairperson Wasserman thanked him for his comments.
Randy Wasserman read a portion of the Code relevant to this particular proposal
and surrounding area. He advised that the Code -,includes plans for proposed
buildings, or structures, be in harmony with any future' development. He recalled
an application a few years ago with`an assisted living facility (ALF), located just
around the corner from this property. He advised that each time the Board meets
they look to previous..requests. Kendall Keith advised that he is familiar with that
property, because. just before PDG contracted with the City, they were working
for that applicant.. Randy Wasserman `asked Kendall Keith to speak of the
qualities between this application., and theALF in relation to architectural design
and harmony. Kendal l'Keith responded that the ALF was a different use, which
affects the style.and appearance of the architecture; the location of that project
cannot be seen from. AIA; the colors are similar to this proposal; the roof style is
also similar; the ALF is a four-story building close to the 45 ft. height limit, which
is entirely, different from this request; the approach to the ALF building has a
porte-cochere with an awning and is not intended to look like a one-story, which
is very much different than this proposal; and the ALF has a different scale to it at
the ground floor than what is being proposed for this project. Rosalie Wolf asked
that because the proposed project is within the general vicinity of the ALF, if he
felt that this proposal will be harmonious with that project. Kendall Keith
answered that they are both very similar. He did not believe the buildings need
to be the same styles. The difference is that the scales of the buildings are
dissimilar.
David Menzel, President of MAI Architects and Engineers, Melbourne, Florida,
representing the property owner, advised that his client is a very successful
retailer and has a successful business model. The picture of the building is
proportionately correct for a building that is retail on a major highway. He
understood what Staff is trying to accomplish, but the reality is that this is a retail
Community Appearance Board
Meeting Minutes
February 28, 2012
Page 6 of 14
building, located on a major highway, next to a gas station, across the street from
the entrance to a major industrial area. He commented that down the road,
probably in visible site, is the largest and tallest dry boat storage building in the
eastern United States. He understood compatibility, but this type of business has
to have physical exposure. He advised that the proposed building is 120 ft. long.
He explained that if the building was 10 ft. tall, which would be tall enough, it
would not be seen. He agreed with Walter Bowman not to make it look like two
stories, it should look real, not fake. He further explained that the business
model, with the glass, may not be what everyone would':"agr_ee too, but it is a
successful model that sells the retail product that his client is trying to sell at that
location. He is replacing a go cart track that is losing money, with a retail building
based on his other buildings, which will be successful. ufo: try and make it an
urban retail harmonious building is going to be'a _.financial failure, because it is
unproven in this area, and that is a burden that his client will notta'ke, and did not
feel he should. He advised that what has been presented to the City is. a building
that they have done that is similar, maybe not ;as much; glass, maybg not as tall,
or maybe not as long, but every building is its own,entity based on the use that is
within it. This building is what his client needs to,sell his product. They tried to
make it blend -in. He advised that the example they used for this building is
similar to a Beachwear building located in the downtown, Clearwater in the middle
of that City. He believes Staff has some good-thoughts„but for the City to try and
run this man's business based on what they"feel :the City needs will ultimately
doom him to failure... -He, commented That' Staffs major plan is to move it to the
street and cut back on the`parking, but everybody drives to where they are going.
Some people walk,` but not a lot, not epough to carry a business this size.
People have to seethe building. Part of 'seeing the building and selling the
product is exactly what they are showing; That is what they are selling, and what
they are asking for, no more. They believe they have met all the requirements
the City has asked. ` -no
City asking to make a drastic change to this building is
basrcally;getting involved in this; business, and he did not believe that is what the
Board was"here for. He: was following what his client wants. The design is what
he needs to"-- ell his product. Being next to a gas station it is very hard to create
a human scale. . He did not believe the canopy over the gas station has any
human scale. HOP, hoping this project could move forward. He asked the Board
to keep in their thoughts that this project will bring people work. Randy
Wasserman commented that business objectives are important. He asked if
there were any elements to the alternatives that Staff presented that could be
done without being drastically damaging to the business model, or the cost.
David Menzel replied that when you look at the building you see a predominately
single building that has an identity to itself. When you scale it down to look like
two stories, like the one Staff presented, it looked like little buildings that fade into
the background. The whole idea is to create something that is going to attract
and draw people to the building. He used the Dinosaur Store in Cocoa Beach,
and the Cocoa Beach Surf Company, as examples of buildings that draw
people's attention. You have to create a product that does not look like
Community Appearance Board
Meeting Minutes
February 28, 2012
Page 7 of 14
everybody else, and it needs to have its own identity. The large glass and the
large expanse create an image that there is a lot to offer, and that is the focus.
He advised that they looked at all the alternatives and this is what his client
wishes to build. They actually started with brighter colors, and they toned them
down. He advised that he will not be able to change the owner's mind, but if the
Board decides that it is something he should do he will present it to him. He
advised that the owner has had a strong stance with this building all the way.
The owner has a property that is economically depressed and this will make it
profitable, which there are benefits the City will gain. If the City wants the front
and back enhanced, he was sure there is something they could do there. He
advised that the reason they did not do much with the back of the building is
because it is not visible. He explained that the windows are designed for the
functional success of the project. He advised that -the back of the building is
warehouse area for the products he sells. Randy Wasserman <advised that the
banding on the top of the building creates a nice -..outline. He' ,explained that
typically in most applications, structures are. enhanced by a midline banding to
some degree. He understands the column effect that Staff mentioned in some of
the alternatives which makes it look like multiple buildings, but would the
applicant consider banding? David Menzel responded that economically, the
glass is cheaper when it's not 18 ft. tall, so he had proposed some banding and
the owner took it out. The owner ,has a budget he, is dealing with, and he
believed that the owner feels that a `big .part of, his retail success is the large
glass. Randy Wasserman asked how banding Would compromise the glass?
David Menzel replied that the owner would have to answer that. He advised that
the owner actually., modified, the glass panels to allow for as much glass as
possible. Joyce Kelley asked if there was a possibility that the glass windows
could cause a traffic hazard. David Menzel responded that there were no
statistics that a -building with large windows would cause that. He believed that
whether the building had a band or not people would still look at it, because
proportionately it is a large building. Randy Wasserman commented that he
could not..understand what a band would do in terms of so called damage to a
business model. David* Menzel asked what the significance was in not having it,
and noted that there are five story buildings that are all glass from the ground
level to the top? To a certain degree glass may be a sign of quality because of
the significant cost. He commented that CVS and Walgreens are tall for a
reason. They are'tall so people can see them, and all have plenty of parking in
front of them. Randy Wasserman believed that a band would complement the
top of the building and that is why he saw a value in it. David Menzel verified that
the air conditioners and equipment were located on the roof, and the parapets on
three sides of the building would hide the equipment from view.
Attorney Kim Rezanka, representative for Extreme Fun, LLC, commented that
Barry Brown began his presentation reading from Code Section 22-32 (C) (4),
which was discussed earlier regarding the proposed building plans being in
harmony, with the established character, with respect to architectural
Community Appearance Board
Meeting Minutes
February 28, 2012
Page 8 of 14
specifications and design features deemed significant based upon commonly
accepted architectural principals of the local community. She advised that there
is no way for an applicant in the City to know what those accepted architectural
principals are. There are no written guidelines and are subjective. They don't
know what significant means. The Board has a very unique function pursuant to
the Code, and that is to encourage uniform architectural standards and cohesive
community development consistent, with the intent and purpose of this article. It
is not clear what the intent and purpose of this article is. There are no clear and
definitive guidelines to guide anyone submitting a plan to -them. The City is
working on it, and has been working on it for a few months. Extreme Fun has
been working on this project for almost a year, and 'has met with the City a
number of times, and Staff has tried to encourage the",owner to change the
building. This is the building that Extreme Fun .wants to build: -,.,David Menzel had
explained why. Attorney Rezanka advised that the owner does•not want a band;
he does not want to change anything. Since there are no clear standards in the
Code, and the City's own expert has admitted to it the applicant "has no idea
what to submit. Since there are no clear standards a court will hold that the
applicant's property rights are superior to the Cify's'vague and ambiguous goals.
Kate Latorre emailed her today advising that the application is governed by two
sections of the Code, which have, been discussed.' -.One of which is that the
proposed overlay standards that d6,not apply as discussed at the Board's last
meeting of February 15th, which are not in 6460t, and do not apply. She advised
that there is nothing in ;the Code about human scale, monolithic approach, or
large windows. In reviewing Section 22-36, the only item that may apply to the
elevations does.not apply, as this project -Js not located on the beach, ocean or
the river. The project is located on a major highway in the City. Looking at the
Code the standard seems to be compatibility, which is generally a standard that
everyone-' has heard; courts have a very difficult time explaining what
compatibility is; and even the City's expert has said that there are many different
styles -in the City. In Mr. Brown's memorandum dated February 23rd provided to
the Board, it talks about deficiencies, and so did Kendall Keith, but there is
nothing in'those deficiencies that are relevant to the Code, and it appears that
they are using the AM Overlay District Draft, not what is currently in the Code.
She read the last paragraph of Barry Brown's memorandum, which states that "it
is obvious the building is designed to maximize window area and therefore
window signage while sacrificing appropriate architectural design. This is a
prime example of why we need to adopt architectural design standards". She
believed that Barry Brown would admit that there are no design standards
currently in the Code and that he doesn't like the windows, which was apparent
through this past year when her client met with the City. She referred the Board
to Section 22-42, and pointed out that what is important is that it says that it is
harmonious relevant to the proposal, surrounding area, and cultural character of
the community. David Menzel had explained how large the building is and why it
is necessary. The cultural character of the community is a mixed style. She
pointed out that the City's expert testified that the ALF has a similar style and
Community Appearance Board
Meeting Minutes
February 28, 2012
Page 9 of 14
color; however, the scale is different, because it's a different use in a residential
zone. She advised that they meet the standard of not using bright colors, and for
the Level II review the applicant has met the criteria, and is compliant with the
Code for the strict guidelines she had just referenced. Without any guidelines,
the City can't take away Xtreme Fun's right to build their building if there is
nothing that says they can't build it the way they want to. She advised that she
went to the Brevard County Property Appraiser's website and printed out pictures
of ten buildings in the area to show and prove, by competent evidence, that there
is a mixed style in the City (Applicant's Exhibit B). She discussed the Exhibit and
advised that there are no uniform criteria. The Board members reviewed the
Exhibits showing various building sizes; many buildings,:with large windows; the
variety of colors and styles; and the lack of band"i"ng on various large buildings.
She advised that Xtreme Fun's building is both ".,somewhat similar and dissimilar
to existing buildings, the colors are compatible, the windows* are similar to the
windows on building around it, and the scale is similar to the buildirigs_around it.
She asked that the Board approve the building basically, because 'there are no
written guidelines. The Board cannot apply the"`proposed guidelines to this
building. The applicant's design is compatible with existing and surrounding
development. This is the building the applicant wishes to build to be a successful
business. If the request is denied; she: requested written findings be issued by
the Board for further appeal to the City Council..
Walter Bowman, Architect, Engineer, `Planner, and Board Member advised that
he agreed with the majority of what was said. He did not agree with the
applicant's judgment on the 'free aesthetics rule of the City. He advised that the
Board does have aesthetic choices, and they have been tested by the rules they
are governed by. Aesthetics is a choice: There will never be a clear statement.
They are::an aesthetic Board. He doesnot agree with the overlay district, and did
not believe most of the Board does. He disagreed strongly with the effort to bring
A1A to._a human scale with store fronts. He believed that the expanse of glass is
well presented by David Menzel, as it was when he did his designs for this
property owner. He had';some suggestions of what could be done to the building,
and believed the Board will probably approve the request with conditions. As to
the height, he agreed -that the client has always wished to have a high building.
He believed the height of the building could be adjusted and still has the impact
that they want, by lowering all the towers, except the one at the entrance, and
lowering the parapets to the current roof height. He noted that this may hinder
hiding the air conditioners and equipment, but at that height it will not be seen
with any consequence. He believed that the banding is a justifiable interest. He
believed that the applicant's spokesman was correct in trying to bring some
element to it. He proposed that they bring some type of banding across the front
of the entrance, and it be extended to just the high windows in the bronze/yellow
area, not the ones in the light tan. He noted that he had the same problem with
the windows when he did them. The back portions of the building are bland,
which could be resolved with stronger banding at the roof level as shown on the
Community Appearance Board
Meeting Minutes
February 28, 2012
Page 10 of 14
front, with possible wainscot banding along the lower area, possibly some vertical
pillars spaced across the length to break it down in scale. He commented that
the retail scale across the vast expanse of A1A was not going to achieve human
scale at that distance. He believed they could utilize some additional
landscaping mixed in along the sidewalk in front of the building. Brief discussion
followed among the Board members for clarification.
Chairperson Wasserman opened the floor to public comment.
Jack Gordon, resident of Puerto Del Rio, stated that he is extremely disappointed
after living with the RaceTrac development that they are going to get a
Beachwave Store. He disagreed with a few points: „He believes they will be able
to see the back of the building from Central, because if you =look at the way the
street turns coming from that direction, and when you come out�you can see the
back of the building. They can do a lot better with the look of the -back of the
building. He disagreed with the point that -the building conforms;.to the ALF.
Danny Ringdahl has spent a lot of money for: architedural designs and plans,
and he does not think the Beachwave store is compatible, or in the same class
as the ALF. He understood why they needed the large windows, but has a hard
time visualizing it because the "going out of, business" banners are missing. He
also disagreed that there are five storyoffice -buildings with a lot of windows;
most do not have towels hanging in the windows.` He believed the City can do
better than a Beachwave.
Art Spurrell, 8934 Puerto Del; Rio Drive, Unit 401, and President of the Puerto Del
Rio HOA, advised that he had similar concerns as Jack Gordon. He advised that
comments were made this evening indicating that there is no clear standard of
which toAesign.byildings in this area. He submitted that the ALF was designed
and bought -off, and the way that worked from him watching it was by somebody
who wanted to provide a good`'business, as well as a project that is right for the
community, and he would wager there were at least a dozen revisions in that
process. He believed that the area was rezoned from residential to a modified
use, and if yoU take the standard that was presented by Council it would lead you
to believe that when you look around and see this building over here that is not
so good, and another building over there that is not so good, then it is okay for us
not to be so good. If you follow that logic it takes you to the end point that
nothing will get better. At some point somebody has to standup and say "I can
do better than that and I will". The ALF was designed with that attitude, it was
designed to be a first class facility, and it is what we need in our community. The
community needs things that are uplifting. He advised that David Menzel stated
that the building is designed for the functional success of the business, and
believed he was absolutely correct, in that the people see the building and they
sell the product, and what it does to the community doesn't matter. He advised
that David Menzel had stated that the owner is a very successful business
person. Art Spurrell questioned, if he is so successful then why are his other
Community Appearance Board
Meeting Minutes
February 28, 2012
Page 11 of 14
businesses continually going out of business? He explained that the problem is
when people come in to the City this is what they are going to see. He voiced his
opinion that the other tourist retail Beachwave building looked like trash, and say
frequently "going out of business sale". He submitted that the City wants an
environment that uplifts the community, not advertisement that they are "going
out of business", that we are shutting down the space coast, we can't make ends
meet, and businesses are leaving. He stated that we want positive messages,
not negative messages. He pointed out that they want the glass because they
are going to decorate it with all sorts of things. If it was to stay like what they
show, and they would agree that it will look like that' with the product being
placed back away from the front windows, then he could support it, because
when you look at it as submitted it is a decent looking building. You can quibble
left or right. When you superimpose what the other tourist retail You
like all of a
sudden you take what looks fairly nice, and you recognize that it's only a pig with
lipstick on, and pretty soon the real character is, going to show up. That
character will be detrimental to the community and detrimental to their property
values. His reference point is the ALF, which is.designed to uplift the community,
and as a result the quality that ,is there. With,:all., the condominiums that are
around and that raise property values, which allows property owners to spend
more money on taxes, which he really did not mind because he loves living in the
City. He thanked the Board and Staff for the hard work they do to make the City
a wonderful place to live.
Randy Wasserman' commented that it was an interesting point about the use of
the building, and the way it looks now, and the way it will look when in use. He
confirmed that the Board can only consider the look of the building the way it has
been presented. But the City's Planning & Zoning Board may be able to consider
how the,,actual glass treatments are otherwise presented. Kate Latorre advised
that advertising and,signage is regulated by the Code to an extent, and usually
becomes a code enforcement issue. She did not believe it would be an issue for
Planning,-& Zoning.
Walter Bowman commented that he would strongly support future modification to
the Code for prohibiting the allowance of advertising in windows. He voiced his
opinion that it was a shame they couldn't save the golf course he designed.
Assistant City Attorney, Kate Latorre, clarified for the record that the applicant
bares the initial burden of showing that they have met all the requirements of the
Code to submit the application, the required information in the packet has been
provided, and they have met all the criteria in the Code, which the Board is
guided by under Section 22-36 (C). The Board needs to weigh all the testimony
of the City, all the testimony of the applicant, and all the evidence presented, and
determine whether the applicant by competent substantial evidence has met their
burden, but if not, the City had to present testimony that they did not meet that
burden. If the Board feels that they have met the burden, then the Board can
Community Appearance Board
Meeting Minutes
February 28, 2012
Page 12 of 14
make a motion to approve, approve with conditions, or move to deny. Any
conditions imposed on the approval have to be reasonable based on the criteria
that the Board has to consider, and furtherance making it more consistent with
the criteria in the Code. She noted that if there is a two/two vote on the motion
the motion will fail.
Motion by Walter Bowman, seconded by Joyce Kelley to approve the request,
with conditions consistent with Article III - Community Appearance Review of the
Code, Section 22-42 - Procedure (c) (1) (2) & (4), specifically calling to the
setting and landscaping, groundcover, proportions, scale, balance, and a greater
simplicity of design in a harmonious manner appropriate. for what this Board
judges and passes on. The conditions are as follows.
1) Reduce the parapets across the front.
2) Lower the towers, all but the one over the entrance.
3) Add landscaping around the base of the building, and sidewalk along the
front of the building.
4) Provide a wainscot type treatment of, dissimilar material below the
windows.
5) Extend the existing horizontal band located over the entry doors across
each of the.. three stacked high windows to either side of the central
entrance only:
6) Provide additional banding around the back of the building and vertical
pilasters to break up the horizontal expanse of the stated warehouse area.
Discussion on the motion followed for clarification. Walter Bowman depicted the
specific conditions included in the motion by drawing on a copy of the elevations
submitted in the packet, which would be made part of the executed Board Order.
The Board members, Staff, and the Applicant reviewed the marked up
elevations. The Applicant verified that he understood the conditions as stated
and depicted on the elevations. Chairperson Wasserman asked if there were
any comments or questions on the motion. Art Spurrell questioned if the air
conditioners and equipment would be visible? Walter Bowman responded no.
He explained that the sides of the parapet wall will still exceed the height of the
air conditioners and equipment. Mr. Spurrell voiced his opinion that the parapet
wall should go all around the entire building. Walter Bowman disagreed. He
voiced his opinion that there should be fencing or shielding installed close to the
air conditioners and equipment themselves.
Community Appearance Board
Meeting Minutes
February 28, 2012
Page 13 of 14
Vote on the motion carried by a (3) to (1) majority vote as follows: Walter
Bowman, for; Joyce Kelley, for; Rosalie Wolf, for; Randy Wassermann, against.
3. Interview and Recommendation to City Council - Potential New Board
Members: Angela Raymond, Mary Jo Tichich, and Bob Nienstadt.
Chairperson Wasserman thanked the applicants for their interest to serve on the
Board.
The Board members interviewed Angela Raymond. She advised that some
places in the City could use a lot of work and encouraged the adoption of design
standards; the proposed Beachwave was better"than the .pink elephant with
glasses and that residents probably will not shop at'Beachwave; she loves living
in the City; she was an English professor and involved in interna#onal programs;
she is part of a university faculty, is civic minded, ,has been a trustee for 100
homes, and is "in -tune" to aesthetics.
Motion by Randy Wasserman, seconded by Walter Bowman to recommend that
Council appoint Angela Raymond to the Board. `-Vote on the motion carried
unanimously.
The Board members interviewed Mary Jo'Tichich. She advised that she has
lived in various communities and has a.good eye for aesthetics and design; she
is a volunteer at City Hall, and cares about the City.
Motion by Walter Boman, seconded by; Joyce Hamilton to recommend that
Bowman,
Council appoint Mary `Jo Tichich to the` Board. Vote on the motion carried
unanimously.
The Board members interviewed Bob Nienstadt. He advised that this is the first
time that, he has lived in a small community and wants to get involved; he has
good common sense; he has no aesthetic background; believed most of the
residential was okay in ;the City; he does not like looking at the empty buildings
along Al A; and is a boat Captain for Disney.
Motion by Randy- Wasserman, seconded by Rosalie Wolf to recommend that
Council appoint Bob Nienstadt to the Board. Vote on the motion carried by
majority with members voting as follows: Walter Bowman, against; Joyce Kelley,
for; Rosalie Wolf, for; and Randy Wasserman, for. Walter Bowman stated that
he was against the motion because Mr. Nienstadt did not have any experience in
aesthetics.
Community Appearance Board
Meeting Minutes
February 28, 2012
Page 14 of 14
OPEN DISCUSSION
Barry Brown, Planning & Development Director, handed the Board members a
copy of FDOT Scope of Services for the Multimodal Corridor Planning and
Engineering Analysis dated November 10, 2011. He advised that the Economic
Development Open House was a success.
Motion by Walter Bowman, seconded by Rosalie Wolf to adjourn the meeting at
8:10 p.m.
Approved on this day of , 2012.
Randy Wasserman, Chairperson
Susan L. Chapman, Board Secretary
Page I of 5
22
CQMW,A"J,11'Y A,RTii.I EIlH..q"ONaMUNININ APMEARANCI= REWEVV
ARTICLE Ill. - COMMUNITY APPEARANCE REVIEW
22-36, -State rni�-,!nt,' Hnf,,JHmp,,; and purpcwse
The logo of Cape Canaveral, and its accompanying motto "Sun, Space and Sea," signifies Cape
Canaveral's unique cultural character and beauty. Indicative of Cape Canaveral's uniqueness is its
reputation as primarily a residential waterfront community with beautiful beaches and scenic ocean
vistas, within close proximity to several internationally renown tourist destinations including the Kennedy
Space Center and several major cruise ship terminals,
(b) In recognition of Cape Canaveral's uniqueness, the city council has determined that a deliberate and
conscientious effort must be made by community leaders, in partnership with architects, planners,
realtors, builders and the citizenry of Cape Canaveral, to protect the general welfare of the community
by preserving and improving Cape Canaveral's aesthetic appearance, beauty, and character, so as to
ultimately enhance the quality of life and civic pride of all people who reside, work, vacation, or spend
time in: Cape Canaveral'.
(c) The facilitator of this effort shall be the community appearance board whose primary purpose shall be to
encourage uniform architectural standards and cohesive community development consistent with the
intent and purpose of this article.
(d) The cultural character and beauty of Cape Canaveral involves, among other things, the aesthetic quality
of all one sees in moving about the entire community. Consequently, the ultimate designers and
developers of buildings and structures must be informed of the larger context in which their particular
works will be viewed! within the community. The task of the community appearance board shall be to
provide a mechanism by which proposed new development and modifications or rehabilitations, (of
buildings and structures) can be reviewed and approved, in a uniform manner, so as to be in harmony
with the comprehensive architecturally related policies, objectives and standards adopted by Cape
Canaveral for the overall betterment of the community.
(e) It is recognized by the Florida Supreme Court that zoning solely for aesthetic purposes is not outside
the scope of the police power of municipal governments, like Cape Canaveral. It has also been judicially
recognized in Florida (and in other jurisdictions) that the promotion of aesthetic beauty also protects
property values, tourism, and other economic interests which Cape Canaveral deems vital to the
community.
(f) Zoning is the single most powerful legal enforcement of an overall urban concept, but alone it does not
create beauty, aesthetic order, or amenity. The task of the community appearance board shall be to
preserve various elements of urban beauty and require that new projects being developed enhance
existing development and the landscape of the community.
(g) The essential foundation of beauty in communities is harmony. The plan for achieving beauty must grow
out of out special local characteristics of site, development and redevelopment potential. Some local
areas of natural beauty are the beaches, ocean and the Banana River. The vistas and visual delight of
these should only be enhanced.
http:Hlibrary.ni,unic(,)de,coni/-ii-irit.aspx?clientlD=126,42&H'rMRequest=http%3a%2Plo2fli... 2/28/2012
u, 22 2,7
......... . W
s e v
S 2
'2 D
S 2 4, 1
'u r rj���e vvdh othei c�.,)de ......... . .... .......
Sin c 2 2 4 2,
P ro ck,� d u i!
S e c 22 43
NpOce, ql apprp,,,r: pi Je,[ hIal
Sc,c
cjjki�ria
Sec, 2" Tg
t
22-16,
r1[td jevV(jw:
I(M li..
22-36, -State rni�-,!nt,' Hnf,,JHmp,,; and purpcwse
The logo of Cape Canaveral, and its accompanying motto "Sun, Space and Sea," signifies Cape
Canaveral's unique cultural character and beauty. Indicative of Cape Canaveral's uniqueness is its
reputation as primarily a residential waterfront community with beautiful beaches and scenic ocean
vistas, within close proximity to several internationally renown tourist destinations including the Kennedy
Space Center and several major cruise ship terminals,
(b) In recognition of Cape Canaveral's uniqueness, the city council has determined that a deliberate and
conscientious effort must be made by community leaders, in partnership with architects, planners,
realtors, builders and the citizenry of Cape Canaveral, to protect the general welfare of the community
by preserving and improving Cape Canaveral's aesthetic appearance, beauty, and character, so as to
ultimately enhance the quality of life and civic pride of all people who reside, work, vacation, or spend
time in: Cape Canaveral'.
(c) The facilitator of this effort shall be the community appearance board whose primary purpose shall be to
encourage uniform architectural standards and cohesive community development consistent with the
intent and purpose of this article.
(d) The cultural character and beauty of Cape Canaveral involves, among other things, the aesthetic quality
of all one sees in moving about the entire community. Consequently, the ultimate designers and
developers of buildings and structures must be informed of the larger context in which their particular
works will be viewed! within the community. The task of the community appearance board shall be to
provide a mechanism by which proposed new development and modifications or rehabilitations, (of
buildings and structures) can be reviewed and approved, in a uniform manner, so as to be in harmony
with the comprehensive architecturally related policies, objectives and standards adopted by Cape
Canaveral for the overall betterment of the community.
(e) It is recognized by the Florida Supreme Court that zoning solely for aesthetic purposes is not outside
the scope of the police power of municipal governments, like Cape Canaveral. It has also been judicially
recognized in Florida (and in other jurisdictions) that the promotion of aesthetic beauty also protects
property values, tourism, and other economic interests which Cape Canaveral deems vital to the
community.
(f) Zoning is the single most powerful legal enforcement of an overall urban concept, but alone it does not
create beauty, aesthetic order, or amenity. The task of the community appearance board shall be to
preserve various elements of urban beauty and require that new projects being developed enhance
existing development and the landscape of the community.
(g) The essential foundation of beauty in communities is harmony. The plan for achieving beauty must grow
out of out special local characteristics of site, development and redevelopment potential. Some local
areas of natural beauty are the beaches, ocean and the Banana River. The vistas and visual delight of
these should only be enhanced.
http:Hlibrary.ni,unic(,)de,coni/-ii-irit.aspx?clientlD=126,42&H'rMRequest=http%3a%2Plo2fli... 2/28/2012
Mirnicode Page 2 of 5
S e C 7, 0 d e s t a b s (J" " f {,nf
(a) Established. There is hereby established a community appearance board which shall consist of five
members.
(b) Qualifications. All members shall be qualified by reason of training or expertise in art, architecture,
community planning, land development, real estate, landscape architecture or other relevant business
or profession, or by reason of civic interest so as to be considered a sound judge of the aesthetic effect
and impact upon property values, desirability, and the economic, social and cultural patterns of the
community of a proposed building or structure on surrounding areas.
(0 d No 2 12-19-911 Ord Na 1-0110) 6 "r 1247_J'.'3 Otd (aio O -2003, § 2 3-4-03 Ord No 12-2003 § 4 74-
03)
L:Vilo;'s nnIE—
Ord. No. 12-2003, § 4, deleted ,s _t n, 2 which pertained to rules of conduct of board business and
derived from Ord. No. 16-95, § 2, adopted Dec. 1!9, 1995.
(a), Meetings shall be held on the first and third Wednesday of each month unless no business is presented
to, the board for a particular meeting. The time and place of meetings, and the order of business, and
procedure to be followed at meetings, shall be prescribed by the board.
(b) The city shall provide administrative, legal, architectural and other professional expert services deemed
necessary for the board to perform its duties and obligations under this article.
rc No 16-95, §2, 12-I2:.35, Orcl Nc, 7-1,03 (;'ml Nc &I-PGiG �? 2
(a) Without exception, the following shall be approved by the community appearance board before a permit
is issued for development of property which has an exterior, visual impact or effect on the community:
(1) All plans, elevations and proposed signs for buildings or structures within any zoning district, or
any alterations thereto.
(2) Exterior building and roof colors for non-residential development within the C-1, C-2, and M-1
zoning districts, or any alterations thereto.
(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, if the building official determines (at his sole discretion)
that a building permit application is minor or insignificant, the building official may grant the permit
without submitting the application to the community appearance board for approval, providing the permit
is consistent with the intent and purpose of this article. For purposes of this paragraph, the phrase
,.minor or insignificant" shall mean a small scale renovation or modification project affecting a small site
and having a nominal exterior visual impact and effect on the community. Any party or person adversely
affected' by a decision made by the building official may appeal such decision to the community
appearance board.
(Ord, d'Vc 15�5, § 2 12 1�,1-95 0a.' 1"10 04-2003. § 2 2-18-03� Cd No 011-2008 § 2 4.15-08)
Sec, 22 4j,"I C,oiilpdance v"fH"h pin n,,' s V o n s
The requirements of this article are deemed supplemental of, and in addition to, all other applicable
codes adopted by the city including, but not limited to, the land development regulations, and all fire and
building regulations. Approval of plans and specifications by the community appearance board shall be
construed only for the limited purpose of complying with this article, and in no way shall the applicant construe
such approval as evidence of compliance with any other applicable city codes and regulations,
f0rd No 16-1?5, § 2j 124995�
S 2 2-42, - P r a c tl.::! d ilii e,
(a) Submission of application. All applicants for a building permit, subject to the provisions of this article,
shall submit to the building official the documents prescribed in sec,'lion together with an
application fee to be adopted pursuant to appendix B.
(b) Scheduling and notice of hearing. Upon receipt of the required documents, the building official shall
forthwith schedule a hearing on the application before the community appearance board. Notice of the
http://Iibrary.municode.com/[)riiit.aspx?clientlD= I2642&IITMRequest=http%3a%2P/o2fli... 2/28/2012
Municode
Page 3 of 5
time and place of the public hearing shall be given to the applicant at least seven days prior to the date
of the public hearing. Public notice of the time and place of the public meeting shall also be posted at
places within the city deemed reasonably appropriate for providing such notice. Public notice shall also
contain the name of the applicant, a general description of the property, and a general description of the
application request.
(c) Conduct of heating,- approval or denial. At the designated public hearing, the community appearance
board shall hear the applicant on the proposed application, and shall hear from members, of the general
public in accordance with the rules and procedures adopted' by the city council and the board. During
the public hearing, the applicant may be present in person or by counsel, and the applicant has the right
to present evidence in, support of his position and cross examine adverse witnesses whose testimony is
offered at the hearing. The community appearance board may approve, approve with conditions, or
disapprove the application only after consideration of whether the following criteria are, complied with:
(1) The plans and specifications of the proposed project indicate that the setting, landscaping,
ground cover, proportions, materials, colors, texture, scale, unity, balance, rhythm, contrast and
simplicity are coordinated in a harmonious manner relevant to the particular proposal,
surrounding area and cultural character of the community.
(2) The, plans for the proposed building or structure are in harmony with any future development
which has been formally approved by the city within, the surrounding area,
(3) The plans for the proposed building or structure are not excessively similar or dissimilar to any
other building or structure which is either fully constructed, permitted but not fully constructed, or
included on the same permit application, and facing upon the same or intersecting street within
500 feet of the proposed site, with respect to one or more of the following features of exterior
design and appearance:
a. Front or side elevations;
b. Size and arrangement of elevation facing the street, including reverse arrangement; or
c. Other significant features of design such as, but not limited to: materials, roof line and
height or design elements.
(4) The plans for the proposed! building or structure are in harmony with the established character of
other buildings or structures in the surrounding area with respect to architectural specifications
and design: features deemed significant based upon commonly accepted architectural principles
of the local community.
(5) The proposed' development of the building or structure is consistent and compatible with the
intent and purpose of this article, the Comprehensive Plan for Cape Canaveral, and other
applicable federal, state or local laws.
(6) Within the C-1, C-2, and M-1 zoning districts, any exterior building or roof color used shall' be well
designed and integrated with the architectural style of the building and surrounding landscaping
in order to create a subtle and harmonious effect and promote aesthetic uniformity within the
district. Bright or brilliant colors shall not be permitted except for use as an accent color within the
C-1, C-2, or M-1 zoning districts.
(d) Limitations on tabfing.
(1) No application before the community appearance board for a particular development, or part
thereof, shall be tabled more than once by request of the board. Further attempts by the board to
table such application shall permit the applicant to by-pass the board and seek a hearing before
the city council at its next regular meeting. In no way shall the applicant be permitted to by-pass
the board if the board's reason for tabling the application was caused by the applicant's request,
misconduct or failure to make adequate preparations for a hearing before the board.
(2) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the applicant is permitted to request (once as a matter of right)
that the board table a particular application:. Further attempts by the applicant to table such an
application shall be deemed a withdrawal and the applicant shall be prohibited from submitting a
substantially similar application for 30 days from the date of withdrawal. An application
resubmitted shall begin the application process anew, including the filing of a new application
and payment of all applicable permit fees.
!()rd, No 1f5 (95 § 2, 12-19-95 Ord No 04-2003 § 2 2-18-03)
Sec- 22-43, , Notk1,j,,,,,, of appr�:jva'dr denda,
(a) Promptly after the community appearance board has rendered a decision on a particular application, the
board shall prepare and deliver to the applicant thereof a formal written notice which indicates its
decision on the application (approval, approval with conditions, denial). If the application is approved
with conditions, the notice shall contain a statement which clearly indicates the conditions. If the
application is denied, the notice shall contain a statement which indicates the rationale for denial.
(b) Approvals by the board shall be valid for a maximum: of 12 months from the date the board renders its
approval at a public meeting. If the applicant fails to obtain a building permit within the 12 -month period,
the board's approval shall expire at the end of the period. However, once a building permit is issued, the
li,ttp�Hlibrai-y.muiiicode.com/Print.aspx?clieiitlD=12642&1-1'1'MRequest=http�/`3a' 2P/�2,ni... 2/28/2012
Municode
Page 4 of 5
approval shall be valid for a time period equal to the permit and shall expire only if the building permit
expires. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the board may approve extensions for good cause shown
including, but not limited to, a building permit application pending with the city related to the approval,
natural disasters, and reasonable permitting and construction delays.
f0id Alt) '16-95 § 2 '12- 19 95 Cal Alo 07-20,03, § 19 3-4-03)
S(,,,,,c, 22-44, - Pp�jflk.,,afl(.'m cr�Lerk�i
Upon an application create by the building official, an applicant shall submit the following application
criteria to the building official for consideration by the community appearance board:
(1) Level I review (Small commercialfindustrial projects of 850 square feet or less or residential units
not exceeding three in number):
a. Vicinity map locating all zoning classifications, including orientation of the color
photographs;
b. For new development of unimproved property, a concept plan locating improvements;
C. Minimum three color photographs of site and setting (surrounding area);
d. At least two elevations to scale; and
el Presentation of the materials:, texture and colors.
(2) Level 2 review (Commercial, residential subdivisions, four or more multifamily residential and
industrial not covered in level 1):
a. Vicinity map locating all zoning classifications, including orientation of all color
photographs;
b. For new development of unimproved property, a rendered concept plan depicting, in
detail, location of landscaping and all the elements on the site-,
C. All preliminary elevations;
d. Materials, texture and colors board depicting location of colors; and
e. Minimum of three color photographs of site and setting.
(3) Level 3 review (Change of exterior building or roof color upon commercial buildings or structures
within the C-1, C-2, or M-1 zoning districts):
a. Vicinity map locating all zoning classifications, including orientation of all color
photographs;
b. Materials, texture and color board depicting location of colors; and
C. Minimum of three color photographs of site and setting (surrounding area).
�Oc! 1,40 2 1219-95C)id No 04-2003. § 2: 2-18-03 OrO No 07.2003 § 2 3-4-03)
Slac, 22-45, -, Concept
All concept plans submitted for consideration under this article for the new development of unimproved
property shall indicate the following sufficiently;
(1) Dimensions and orientation of the parcel;
(2) Location, height and use of buildings, structures and encroachments both existing and proposed;
(3) Location and arrangement of manmade and natural ground cover;
(4) Proposed ingress and egress facilities;
(5) A conceptional preliminary landscaping plan;
(6) Unusual grading or slopes, if any;
(7) Location of walls and fences and the indication of their height and the materials of their
construction;
(8) Location and size and graphic content of proposed exterior signs, outdoor advertising or other
constructed elements other than habitable space, if any;
(9) Such other architectural and engineering data as may be requested to clarify the presentation.
(O�d Alo. 16-95, § 2 12-19-95)
2246o , Apjieais an4,.,J reOevv
Any person(s) or the city aggrieved by a final decision rendered by the community appearance board
may appeal the decision to the city council pursuant to the procedure set forth in se,ction I 10 of this Code.
(Ord Ab 15-95 q 2 12- P<,-95, Old No 3r1-2003, § 2, 11-18-03 Ord No 07-2007� §'. 1a -a..37)
22 47, Bi.Jh,_fi[r[g p rul rirn l ts; erif(,)r1cenient
Ji,ttp:Hlibrary.municode.com/Print.aspx?clientlD=12642&IATMRequest=http`/`�3a�/`2P/`2fli,.. 2/28/2012
Municode
Page 5 of 5
Unless otherwise provided by this article, no building permit shall be issued until the community
appearance board has approved the proposed building or structure's architectural specifications and design
features, pursuant to this article. Any final plans and specifications that differ substantially, in the opinion of the
building official, from the approved application by the community appearance board shall be resubmitted prior
to the issuance of the building permit. All approved specifications and design features shall become a binding
condition of, and made a part of, the building permit(s) secured for the building or structure associated
therewith. The building permit shall be enforced in a manner similar to all other building permits issued by the
city. The city shall have the right, power and ability to recover all costs, expenses and reasonable attorney's
fees ("costs") incurred as a result of enforcing he permit. All costs shall be a lien on the property to which the
building or structure is associated from the date the costs become due until the costs are paid. The owner of
the property shall be obligated to pay the costs, which obligation may be enforced by the city by action at law
or suit to enforce the lien in the same manner as the foreclosure of mortgages.
(Ord. No. 16-95, § 2, 12-19-95)
http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?clientID=12642&HTMRequest=http%3 a%2P/o2fli... 2/28/2012
CITY OF
�i
H�
H.
Exterior Surface Materials...............................................................................................................14
I.
Windows & Transparency................................................................................................................14
J.
Storefronts...........................................................................................................................................15
K.
Color.....................................................................................................................................................15
L.
Awnings and Canopies......................................................................................................................16
M.
Ground Floor Lighting.......................................................................................................................16
N.
Utilities and Mechanical Equipment Screening and Trash/Recycling Containers...................16
IX.
PARKING.............................................................................................................................................18
A.
Surface Parking..................................................................................................................................18
B.
Shared Parking...................................................................................................................................18
C.
Parking Structures..............................................................................................................................18
X. LANDSCAPING.......................................................................................................................................19
A.
Surface Parking Lots..........................................................................................................................19
XI.
SIGNAGE.............................................................................................................................................20
A.
All Signs...............................................................................................................................................20
B.
Awning Signs.......................................................................................................................................21
GPedestrian
Signs.................................................................................................................................21
D.
Projecting Signs..................................................................................................................................21
E.
Wall Signs...........................................................................................................................................22
F.
Hanging Signs.....................................................................................................................................22
G.
Window Signs.....................................................................................................................................22
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Economic Overlay District Boundary Map................................................................................ 1
Figure2 — Economic Opportunity District — Gateway Area.................................................................... 2
Figure 3 Economic Opportunity District — Main Street Area................................................................. 2
Figure 4 - Building Articulation....................................................................................................................1 1
Figure5 - Building Scale...............................................................................................................................12
Figure 6 - Building Proportion......................................................................................................................13
Figure7 - Facade Rhythm.............................................................................................................................13
Figure8 - Windows & Transparency.........................................................................................................14
Figure9 — Building Color..............................................................................................................................15
Cape Canaveral EOOD DRAFT ( 1/25/2012) Planning Design Group Page I ii
B. AIA Economic Opportunity Overlay District Background
The AIA Economic Opportunity Overlay District is a one -mile commercial corridor,
generally recognized as extending from the entrance to the City of Cape Canaveral on
the north to the Canaveral River area on the south. This one -mile corridor is intersected by
Central Boulevard which generally runs east -west.
Ngvrc 7 — Frxmomwc Opporkpniy Ovedny Dkf�"rck „ ("WeV"MY Fukxl
The District along ARA is intended to serve as the main gateway area into the City of
Cape Canaveral. The District along Central Boulevard is intended to serve the main street
to the City of Cape Canaveral's Town Center and as a transition between the land use,
circulation, and streetscape along Central Boulevard and the interior of the Town Center.
This District is intended to have the most intense commercial density in relation to existing
residential densities adjacent to the District and within the proposed Town Center. The
EOOD is meant to provide a lively and attractive interface between the proposed Town
Center and the adjacent residential communities, while maintaining a primarily commercial
street frontage along AIA and Central Boulevard.
The streets will have a retail/commercial service atmosphere with small or large
neighborhood stores at street level and apartments or offices on upper floors. The retail
composition of the district should include stores, personal services, hotels, cultural facilities,
hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, convenience stores with gas, high tech manufacturing,
entertainment, and eating establishments that serve the EOOD as well as stores, eating
establishments, and business services (printing, accounting, etc.) that serve the other
Cape Canaveral EOOD DRAFT (1/25/2012) Planning Design Group Page 12
The guidelines are intended to ensure that the appearance of new development, infill
development, and redevelopment is representative of the City of Cape Canaveral.
The guidelines will enable development to occur in a manner that is not only beneficial
and worthwhile for the developers and property owners, but the development will also
have a positive impact on the surrounding properties, neighborhoods, citizens, and the
entire city.
Design Principles
The AIA EOOD is based upon a set of principles. These principles are:
1. Consistency:
The AIA Commercial corridor features a mixture of development types including office
buildings, hotels and convention facilities, strip -commercial centers, neighborhood -serving
retail, nighttime entertainment uses, an amusements park, and restaurants. Design of these
structures has been influenced by use, age, and site dimensions. Within the context of
these constraints, developments can achieve the principle of consistency through selection
of colors, exterior surface materials, landscaping and sign programs.
2. Activity:
Active street life, which can be enhanced by design considerations, is a major component
of thriving pedestrian commercial districts. In spite of recent development, which has
detracted from a pedestrian environment, there are many opportunities to insert options
for increased street -level pedestrian activity along AIA. Through building orientation,
circulation, storefront design and landscaping, development can further promote the
principle of pedestrian activity.
3. Pedestrian Orientation:
Pedestrian orientation can be achieved through storefront ornamentation, reduction of
blank surfaces, building articulation, color, and texture. Guidelines and Standards based
upon this principle address wall surfaces, windows, awnings, signage, and architectural
treatments.
4. Safety:
Public safety is critical to the success of a commercial district. Public safety in this case
refers not only to safety from criminal activity, but also creating an environment in which
pedestrian and automobile traffic can safely coexist. The design and development of
commercial centers and the public open space adjacent to them should include
considerations of public safety. Public safety issues can be addressed through site
planning considerations such as the location of parking lots, lighting, signage and
landscaping.
5. Simplicity:
Design Guidelines and Standards for the AIA FOOD should provide for public
convenience by clearly identifying the nature of the business and communicating points of
ingress and egress for pedestrian and automobile traffic.
Cape Canaveral FOOD DRAFT (1 /25/2012) Planning Design Group Page 1 4
V. DEFINITIONS
The following words and phrases, whenever used in this document, shall be construed as defined
in this section. Words and phrases not defined herein shall be construed as defined in Section
110-1 of the Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances.
Accent Color: A contrasting color used to emphasize architectural elements.
Architectural Bay: The area enclosed by the storefront cornice above, piers on the side and the
sidewalk at the bottom.
Awning: A roof -like cover of canvas or cloth framed by wood or metal that extends in front of a
doorway or window to provide protection from the sun or rain.
Awning Sign: Any sign located on the valance of a shelter supported entirely from the exterior
wall of a building which extends over a building feature such as a door or window or a
landscape/site feature such as a patio, deck or courtyard and which is constructed of fabric.
Bright Paint. Paint containing "fluorescent dye of pigment which absorbs UV radiation and re -
emits light of a violet or bluish hue. Used to increase the luminance factor and to remove the
yellowishness or white or off-white materials." (Coatings Encyclopedic Dictionary)
Canopy: A projecting horizontal architectural element of a building that is constructed of solid
material and has the form of a flat band.
Cast Stone: A refined architectural concrete building unit manufactured to simulate natural cut
stone, used in masonry applications.
Color Palette: A color scheme that incorporates related colors of complimentary hues and shades.
Cornice: Horizontal architectural band.
Electronic Message Display Sign: A wall, projecting or pedestrian sign that displays still images,
scrolling or moving images, including video and animation, utilizing a series of grid lights that may
be changed through electronic means such as cathode ray, light emitting diode display (LED),
plasma screen, liquid crystal display (LCD), fiber optic, or other electronic media or technology.
Entablature: The superstructure of moldings and bands which lie horizontally above a column.
Fa;ade: The front of a building or any of its sides facing a public way or space.
Fenestration: The design, proportioning, and disposition of windows and other exterior openings
of a building.
Floor area ratio (FAR): A measurement of the intensity of building development on a site. The
floor area ratio is the relationship between the gross floor area on a site and the gross land
area. The FAR is calculated by adding together the gross floor areas of all buildings on the site
and dividing by the gross land area.
Cape Canaveral EOOD DRAFT (1 /25/2012) Planning Design Group Page 1 6
VI. USE MATRIX
The AIA Economic Opportunity Overlay District is intended to serve as both the main gateway
area into the City as well as the main street to the City's proposed Town Center. The District will
have the most intense commercial intensity along AIA and there will be a transition between the
land use, circulation, and streetscape along Central Boulevard. The following land use matrix
identifies the uses which are permitted by right (P), permitted by a special exception (SE), or not
allowed (NA).
11 1 MOM
Not a cern tete listing of uses
mom
Retail
P
P
NA
Personal Services
P
p
SE
Professional offices
P
P
P
Hotels and Motels
P
P
NA
Restaurants,
P
P
SE
Cultural facilities
P
P
NA
Hospitals, clinics
P
P
NA
Banks
P
P
SE
Residential
SE
NA
NA
Assisted Living Facility
SE
NA
NA
Automotive Service Stations
SE
P
NA
Add the following uses
Pharmacies
P
P
NA
Flex space (office, showroom, warehouse)
SE
SE
P
Convenience store w/gas
SE
SE
NA
Warehousing and storage
NA
SE
P
Higih tech manufacturing
SE
SE
P
Distribution warehouse
NA
SE
P
Assembly and light manufacturing
SE
SE
P
Off-site cruise ship parking (Accessory use to hotels
SE
SE
NA
and motels)
VII. SITE PLANNING
Site planning involves the proper placement and orientation of structures, maximum structure
height, minimum development acreage, open spaces, parking and pedestrian and vehicular
circulation on a given site. The purpose of good site design is to create a functional and attractive
development, to minimize adverse impacts, and to ensure that a project will be an asset to the
community.
Proper site planning should promote harmony between new and existing buildings and should be
sensitive to the scale, form, height, and proportion of surrounding development. Good design with
complementary landscaping is a major component in creating vibrant commercial areas that
foster a pleasant and desirable character, pedestrian activity, and economic vitality. Factors such
as the size and massing of buildings, the orientation of storefronts, and circulation greatly
influence the quality of the pedestrian experience.
Cape Canaveral FOOD DRAFT (1 /25/2012) Planning Design Group Page 18
Standard 5a: All vehicular entrances should, to the maximum extent possible, be
located off of a side street or an alley in order to minimize pedestrian and
vehicular conflicts.
Standard 5b: Walkways for pedestrian access should be provided between
parking areas and the Project.
Standard 5c: Passenger loading zones located on the street should not impede
foot traffic or sidewalks.
Standard 5d: Parking lots and structures should be designed to provide safe
pedestrian circulation between parked vehicles and the primary building through
the use of clearly marked pedestrian walkways, stop signs, speed bumps, lighting,
or other similar measures.
H. Utility & Service Areas
Guideline 6: Locate utilities, storage areas, mechanical equipment, fire alarms, sprinklers
and other service areas so that they are not visible from the public right-of-way.
Standard 6: Utilities, storage areas, mechanical equipment, fire alarms and
sprinklers installed as part of a new project should be placed to the rear of the
site or underground when feasible.
Cape Canaveral EOOD DRAFT (1/25/2012) Planning Design Group Page 110
B. Building Continuity
Guideline 2: Maintain building: openings that enhance building design and continuity, as well
as the pedestrian experience.
Standard 2: Buildings should generally be designed to maintain a continuous street wall
along the length of a block except to accommodate building articulation pursuant to
Guideline 1.
C. Scale
Guideline 3: Maintain human scale of building that enhances the pedestrian experience at the
ground floor of commercial areas.
Figmu 5 - BuHd�nq Scolc
Standard 3: Facades should incorporate a minimum of two (2) continuous details refined to
the scale of 12 inches or less within the first 10 feet of the building wall, measured
vertically at the street level.
D. Proportion
Guideline 4: Maintain ground level pedestrian scale with traditional storefront facade
components and proportions to provide a consistent pattern of architectural detailing,
including the use of decorative elements, changes in roofl'ines and windows, and changes in
building materials and color.
Cape Canaveral EOOD DRAFT (1 /25/2012) Planning Design Group Page 1 12
Standard 6d: Doors should be comprised of non -tinted clear glass, which is free of
temporary signage and/or other types of materials that may obstruct visibility.
G. Roof Lines
Guideline 7: Design new buildings to achieve consistency by creating continuity between the
heights of adjacent roofs, parapets, and cornices.
Standard 7a: Roof lines should be designed to reflect a distinct style (such as) a relatively
consistent horizontal cornice with a dominant vertical architectural element to meet the roof
line; or 2) a collage effect with clearly juxtaposed roof lines that have a repetitive
element.
Standard 7b: Severe roof pitches that create prominent out -of -scale building elements
should be avoided.
H. Exterior Surface Materials
Guideline 8: Select high quality, human -scale building materials to reduce building mass,
create visual interest, and complement the existing architectural style of the AIA E'OOD.
Standard 8a: The base of a building (tile first two to five feet above the sidewalks) should
be differentiated from the rest of the building facade with treatments such as change in
material and/or color.
Standard 8b: The exterior fa5cide of low -and mid -rise buildings should incorporate no less
than two building materials including but not limited to tile, brick, stucco, cast stone, stone,
formed concrete or other high quality, long-lasting masonry material over a minimum 75
percent of the surface area (excluding windows, doors and curtain walls.) The remainder
of the wall area may incorporate other, materials.
1. Windows & Transparency
Guideline 9: Add visual interest and create a feeling of openness by incorporating windows
with architectural defining features such as window frames, sashes, muntins, glazing, paneled
or decorated iambs and moldings.
Nquie 9 - )&I'nndov�,s & hansparency
Standard 9a: A minimum percentage of transparency for different levels of non-
residential uses should be achieved as follows-
• Ground level retail: 50% of surface area minimum;
• Ground level office or other commercial uses: 35% of surface area minimum;
Cape Canaveral FOOD DRAFT l 1 /25/2012) Planning Design Group Page 1 14
Standard 11 a: A maximum of three (3) primary colors for each building segment may be
proposed with a maximum of two (2) secondary accent colors.
Standard 11 b: Bright or intense colors should not be utilized for large areas unless
consistent with the historical context of the area as shown in historic documentation.
Standard IIc: Bright colors on architectural detailing, trim, window sashes, doors and
frames, or awnings may be used if they are consistent with the historical context of the
area as shown in historic documentation.
Standard 11 d: All vents, gutters, down spouts, etc. should be painted to match the color of
the adjacent surface, unless being used expressly as trim or an accent element.
L. Awnings and Canopies
Guideline 12: Add awnings or canopies to provide variation to simple storefront designs in
order to establish a horizontal rhythm between structures where none exists and add color to
a storefront.
Standard 12a: The size, scale and color of the awnings should be compatible with the rest
of the building and should be designed as an integral part of the building architecture.
Standard 12b: Awnings and canopies should be constructed of high quality, substantial
materials which must be durable and fade resistant and maintained in good condition and
replaced periodically.
Standard 12c: Canopies and awnings that span an entire building are discouraged. The
careful spacing of awnings that highlight certain features of a storefront or entryway is
encouraged.
M. Ground Floor Lighting
Guideline 13: Incorporate lighting into the design not only to accentuate architectural
features, but to provide a safe environment for pedestrian activity.
Standard 13a: Lighting should be shielded to prevent glare to adjacent properties.
Standard 13b: Intense lighting which is used solely for advertising purposes should not be
used.
Standard 13c: Buildings should be highlighted through "up" lights or accent lights placed
on the fo5ode.
N. Utilities and Mechanical Equipment Screening and Trash/Recycling Containers
Guideline 14: Screen or enclose existing utilities, storage areas, mechanical equipment, fire
alarms, sprinklers and other service areas with attractive landscaping or architectural barriers.
Standard 14a: Screen or enclose rooftop mechanical equipment by materials that are
architecturally integrated with the building.
Standard 14b: Locate enclosed trash/recycling containers at the rear where they are not
visible to the public.
Cape Canaveral EOOD DRAFT (1/25/2012) Planning Design Group Page 1 16
IX. PARKING
The location and design of parking lots and buildings in a development is critical in promoting
safety for pedestrians and minimizing conflict with vehicles. Parking structures and areas should
form an integral part of the project and be well landscaped, so as not to detract from the
pedestrian experience and maintain visual interest.
A. Surface Parking
Guideline 1: Locate surface parking in the rear or side of buildings and provide pedestrian
access from the parking to the building and street.
Standard 1: A surface parking lot adjacent to a public street should conform to the
landscape requirements detailed in Section X of these guidelines.
B. Shared Parking
Guideline 2: Shared parking is encouraged within the district so as to provide an option to
reduce the amount of land needed for parking and create opportunities for more compact
development, more space for pedestrian circulation, or more open space and landscaping.
Shared parking may be approved administratively by the Community Development
Department.
Standard 2a: Provide incentives for shared parking such as increased floor are ratio
(FAR) and building height.
Standard 2b: Shared parking in commercial areas in the district should be encouraged as
part of the development review process.
Standard 2c: Shared parking must be located on the same block as the land uses they are
intended to serve or on opposite sides of an alley.
Standards 2d: As part of the approval process, the developer would need to demonstrate
that the two land uses have differing peak -hour demand, or that the total parking
demand at any one time would adequately be served by the total number of spaces.
Standard 2e: A development agreement between the sharing property owners is required
in order to ensure proper functioning of the shared parking arrangement.
C. Parking Structures
Guideline 3: Integrate a parking structure into the overall design of a development through
compatible materials, color and architectural defining features.
Standard 3: Parking structures should be compatible with the main building through a
consistency in building material, color and design.
Cape Canaveral EOOD DRAFT (1/25/2012) Planning Design Group Page 118
XI. SIGNAGE
The placement, construction, color, font style, and graphic composition of signs have a collective
impact on the appearance of an entire district. Therefore, it is important to integrate signage with
the overall design of a building and its surrounding landscape. Signage should convey a simple
straightforward message to identify businesses and/or to assist pedestrians and vehicular traffic
in locating their destination. The size, number, location and use of signage are further regulated in
Chapter 94 of the Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances.
A. All Signs
Guideline 1: Design signage which is incorporated into the overall design of a building
and complements the fagade or architectural element on which it is placed.
Standard la: All signs should be maintained in good repair.
Standard 1b: Easy to read signs with a brief simple message and a limited array
of font styles are encouraged.
Standard 1c: Colors should be selected to contribute to the legibility and design
integrity of a sign with sufficient contrast between the background color and that
of the letter or symbol.
Standard Id: Signs should not dominate or obscure the architectural elements of
building fa;ades, roofs or landscaped areas.
Standard le: Signs should be constructed of metal, stone, wood, recycled
composite material or other non -illuminated material.
Standard 1f: Signs made up of channel lettering, hung away from the face of a
building such as a projecting sign and or signs perpendicular to the face of a
building tend to have a lighter appearance and are permitted.
Standard 19: Neon signs and channel lettering are permitted.
Standard 1 h: Internal illumination should be used only for signs composed of
individual channel or neon letters or graphics.
Standard 1 is The height and width of letters and logos should be properly
proportioned to the sign area on which the sign is to be located.
Standard 11: Signs should be scaled to fit within the boundaries of a storefront or
building it is advertising.
Standard 1k: The exposed backs of all signs visible to the public should be
suitably finished and maintained.
Standard 11: Projects or buildings containing more than one storefront should have
a planned coordinated sign program that provides consistency with regard to
height, size, shape, colors and degree of illumination.
Standard 1 m: The restoration of historic signage as prescribed in recognized
preservation guidelines is strongly encouraged.
Cape Canaveral EOOD DRAFT (1 /25/2012) Planning Design Group Page 1 20
Standards 3d: The text, copy, or logo face should not exceed 75 percent of the
sign face of a projecting sign.
E. Wall Signs
Guideline 4: Design wall signs, which are compatible with the architectural context of the
AIA Corridor and which improves the overall appearance of the area.
Standard 4a: Multiple wall signs on a building facade should be located in order
to maintain a physical separation between each individual sign, so it is clear that
the sign relates to a particular store below.
Standard 4b: Wall signs should be mounted on a flat building surface, and, unless
a projection is an integral design element, should generally project as little as
possible from the building's face. Wall signs should not be placed over or
otherwise obscure architectural building features, nor should they extend sideways
beyond the building face or above the highest line of the building to which it is
attached.
Standard 4c: Wall signs should be located on the upper portion of the storefront,
within or just above the storefront opening. On multiple story buildings, the best
location for a wall sign is generally a band or blank area between the first and
second floors.
Standard 4d: New wall signs in a shopping center that does not have an approved
sign program should be placed consistent with sign locations on adjacent
businesses.
Standard 4e: For new and remodeled shopping centers, a comprehensive sign
program for all the signs in the center should be developed.
F. Hanging Signs
Guideline S: Design hanging signs to be suspended below a marquee or a canopy to help
define entries and identify business names to pedestrians.
Standard 5a: Where overhangs or covered walkways exist, pedestrian -oriented
hanging signs are encouraged.
Standard 5b: Hanging signs can be particularly useful for storefronts that have
multiple tenants.
Standard 5c: Hanging signs should be simple in design and not used to compete
with any existing signage at the site, such as wall signs.
G. Window Signs
Guideline 6: Design window signs to complement the fagade of the building and be
incorporated into and not detract from the overall design.
Standard 6a: Only one window sign per business is allowed.
Standard 6b: Window signs, consisting of text, graphics or images, either
permanent or temporary, should not exceed 25% of the maximum copy area
permitted based on the linear front footage of the primary favade or up to 25%
of the total window area, whichever is less.
Cape Canaveral EOOD DRAFT (1 /25/2012) Planning Design Group Page 1 22
V.
ti
City of Cape Canaveral
Community Appearance Board
Meeting of February 28, 2012
- PRESENTED ON BEHALF OF -
XTREME FUN, LLC
a/k/a Beachwave Complex
(8801 Astronaut Boulevard)
KIMBERLY BONDER REZANKA, ESQ.
DEAN MEAD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE 100
8240 DEVEREUX DRIVE
VIERA, FL 32940
Page I of I
Brevard County Pro,perty Appraiser -i Map Soarc!h
htti)s-,Ilwww.bi-evar(it)ronertyat)t)raiser.com/sci-ii)ts/esi-iiiiaD.dll?nanie=Bi-evardl &id=20120... 2/28/2012
Page I ot'l
FF�qrd:
CFA,
Sre%(4-�4 Pqu:on� Prqp�lo�j�ty� App:r"a $or, -, Map, Search
26
ZZ 839
36
7651
INN
2-1 IQ
�C) z
lO.A
786
510
wY
X
C ENTPIP�11-
>
V)
5.A ✓778
L2)
507.1 752
11 Brevard County Property Appraiser-- Online Real Estate Property Card
Pagel of
e M 1`4 Ac h/
J
Onlineord. 0- F.A.
Homestead
PropertY Appralls.or Filing
CLICK HERE
Brevard,County,Fl
General Parcel Information for 24 -37 -IS -00-00817.0-0000.00 Trim Notice
Parcel Id:
24-37-15-00-
00817.0-
New
L=J'Map
MV-/Ortllo
Aerial
Millage
26GO
Exemption:
Use
3500
Code:
00W00
11
Code:
-
Code:
Agricultural
Site
8801 ASTRONAUT BLVD, CAPE CANAVERAL 32920
Tax
so
Address: 1
j Acct:
12441264
* Site address information is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for E9- I-] purposes; this
information may not reflect community location of property.
Tax infonnation is available at the Brevard Count Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
Owner Name: XTREME FUN LLC
Second Name:
Mailing Address: 185 COCOA BEACH
CSWY
City, State, COCOA BCH, 171, 32931
Zipcode: I
Value Summary
Abbreviated Description
Sub T OF RECLAIMED LANDS AS
Name: IDESC IN ORB 3064 PG 2885
Land Information
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.con-iasp/Show_parcel. asp?acct=2,441.2, 64&gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
2009
2010
2011
Acres:
5
*'MarketSite
$2,180,960
$1,871,840
$1,822,200
Code:
340
Value Total. .
Agricultural
Market
$o
so
$o
Value:
Assessed
Value Non-
$2,180,960
$1,871,840
$1,822,200
School:
Assessed
$2,180,960
$1,871,840
$1,822,200
Value School:
** Homestead
so
so
so
Exemption:
,** Additional
$0
$0
$0
Homestead:
** Other
$o
$0
$0
Exemptions:
*** Taxable
52,180,960
$1,871,840
$1,822,200
Value Non-
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.con-iasp/Show_parcel. asp?acct=2,441.2, 64&gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
Brevard County Property Appraiser-- Online Real Estate Property Card
Jim Ford, C.F.A.
is S 0
General Parcel Information for 24-37-15-00-00767.0-000!0.00 Trim Notice
Pagel of
Online
Homestead
Filing
K�LICK HERE
Site address infon-nation is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for E9-1-1 purposes; this
information may not reflect community location of property.
,Tax information is available at the Brevard County Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
24-37-15-00-
M42
TWO INC
Second Name:
M""g'
Market
C/O ROBERT A BAUGHER
Use
2210 S ATLANTIC AVE
Parcel Id:
00767.0-
lZipcode:
Map/Ortho
Aerial
26GO
-
Exemption:
3920
0000.00
II
Code:
$0
Code.-
Value:
Site
8701 ASTRONAUT BLVD, CAPE CANAVERAL 32920
Tax
2430859
Address:
I
1 Acct:
I
Site address infon-nation is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for E9-1-1 purposes; this
information may not reflect community location of property.
,Tax information is available at the Brevard County Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
Abbreviated Description
Sub PART OF SE 1/4 LYING SWLY OF
Name: ST RD #401 AS DES IN ORB 20'72 PG
1351
Land Information
COCOA BEACH MOTEL
Owner Name:
TWO INC
Second Name:
9.55
Market
C/O ROBERT A BAUGHER
Mailing Address:
2210 S ATLANTIC AVE
City, State,
COCOA BCH, FL 32931
lZipcode:
Value Total:
Value Summary
Abbreviated Description
Sub PART OF SE 1/4 LYING SWLY OF
Name: ST RD #401 AS DES IN ORB 20'72 PG
1351
Land Information
littps://www,brevardpropertyappraiser.com/asp/Show_p,,ii-cel.asp?acct=2430859&gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
2009
2010
2011
Acres:
9.55
Market
$I 1)80'07000
$9,800,000
57,500,000
Site Code:
340
Value Total:
Agricultural
Market
$0
$0
Value:
Assessed
Value Non-
$11,800,000
S9,800,000
$7,500,000
School:
Assessed
Value
$11,800,000
$9,800,000
$7,500,000
School:
Homestead
$0
$o
so
Exemption:
Additional
$0
so
$0
Homestead:
** Other -
$0
$0
$01
littps://www,brevardpropertyappraiser.com/asp/Show_p,,ii-cel.asp?acct=2430859&gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
Brevard County Property Appraiser-- Online Real Estate Property Card Page 2 of 4
Exemptions:
Use
Code
Sale
Deed
*** Taxable
*** Sales
Screening
Physical
Change
Vacant/Improved
Value Non-
$11,800,000
$9,800,000
$7,500,000
School:
1967
10
03,04
*** Taxable
03
09
03,11
Value
$11,800,000
$9,800,000$7,500,000
0
School:
4/1/1991
$1,575,000
NN
*This is the value established for ad valorem purposes in accordance with s.193.01 l(1) and (8), Florida Statutes. This
value does not represent anticipated selling price for the property.
** Exemptions as reflected on the Value Summary table are applicable for the year shown and may or may not be
applicable if an owner change has occurred.
*** The additional exemption does not apply when calculating taxable value for school districts pursuant to amendment
1.
Sales Information
Official
Use
Code
Sale
Deed
*** Sales
*** Sales
Screening
Physical
Change
Vacant/Improved
Records
Sale Date
Amount
Type
Screening
1967
10
03,04
Book/Page
03
09
03,11
Code
Source
Code
0
3117/4691
4/1/1991
$1,575,000
NN
03
10
11
I
2072/035117/1/1979
33920
1 $806,7001
1967
1
03
03
03
0855/0624
3/11/1966
$490,000
121
43920
1
1
1 V
* * * Sales Screening Codes and Sources are from analysis by the Property
Appraiser's staff. They have no bearing on the prior or potential marketability of
the property.
Building Information Building Photos Drawings
PDC
#
Use
Code
Year
Built
Story
Height
Frame
Code
Exterior
Code
Interior
Code
Roof
Type
Roof
Mater.
Floors
Code
Ceiling
Code
13920
RV
Gar
1967
10
03,04
032.09
03
09
03,11
03
03
21110
0
1967
10
03
03
03
10
11
03
04
33920
0
1967
10
03
03
03
08
03, 11
03
03
43920
1967
10
03
03
03
08
03,11
03
03
53920
1967
11967
10
03
03
03
08
03111
03
03
63920
1967
10
03
03
03
08
03, 11
03
03
73920
10
03
03
03
08
03,11
03
03
83200
1967
19
13,04
03
03204
13
03
02,03
03,04
93920
1999
10
03
03
03
0903,11
03
03
103920
2000
10
03
03
L31
09
03, 11
03
03, 04
11,1920-1
2000
10
03
03
0309
03, 11
03
03,04
Building Area Information
PDC
#
Base
Area
Garage
Area
Open
Porches
Car
Port
Screened
Porches
Utility
Rooms
Enclosed
Porch
Basements
Attics
Bonus
Rooms
RV
Carport
RV
Gar
121160
0
3804
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2782
0
10201
01
01
01
01
0
0
01
0
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.conVasp/Show_parcel. asp?acct=2430859&gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
11 Brevard Coutity Property Appraiser - Photos
z: Cocoa Beach MotelTwo Inc; C/O Robert A Baugher
..)Oc Add rr!,,.: 8701 Astronaut Blvd Cape Canaveral 32920
IF): 24-37-15-00-767 1 n,, 11): 2430859 Phc)c. 74
Page I of 13
littp:lllllap.brevardpropertyappraiser.cojiilMap2lPhotos.aspx?taxAcct=2430859 2/28/2012
Brevard County Property Appraiser— Online Real Estate Property Card
General Parcel Information for 24-37-15-001-00757.0-0000.00 Trina Notice
Page I of 2
Online
Homestead
Filing
CLICK HERE
* Site address information is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for E9-1-1 purposes; this
information may not reflect community location of property.
Tax information.1s available at the Brevard County Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
Owner Name:
24-37-15-00-
�I Ma2
BENSON, JEANNE A
TRUSTEES I
Acres:
Millage
Mailing Address:
627 ADAMS STREET
Use
CAPE CANAVERAL, FL
32920 1
Pat -cel Id:
00757.0-
___
alL/Ortho
�L
Aerial
Code:
2L6GO-
lExemption:
Code.
1810
$0
$0
Market Value:
0000.00
Tj
Assessed Value alue
$801,000
$675,000
Site
8660 ASTRONAUT BLVD, CAPE CANAVERAL 32920
Tax
Address:
1Acct:
124308491
* Site address information is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for E9-1-1 purposes; this
information may not reflect community location of property.
Tax information.1s available at the Brevard County Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
Owner Name:
BERGER, ARTHUR W JR
Second Name:
BENSON, JEANNE A
TRUSTEES I
Acres:
0.73
Mailing Address:
627 ADAMS STREET
City, State,
Zipcode.-
CAPE CANAVERAL, FL
32920 1
Value Summary
Abbreviated Description
Sub PART OF LOTS 3 & 4 AS DESC IN
Name: ORB 577 PGS 843 & 845, 1718 PG 772
PAR 782
Land Information
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.coi,i-i/asp/Sliow_parce1.asp?acct=2430849&gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
2009,
2010
2011
Acres:
0.73
Market Value
$801,000S675,000
$570,000
Site Code:
340
Total:
Agricultural
$0
$0
$0
Market Value:
Assessed Value alue
$801,000
$675,000
$570,000
Non -School:
Assessed Value
$801,000
$675,000
$570,000
School:
** Homestead
$0
$0
$0
Exemption:
** Additional
$0
$0
$0
Homestead:
,** Other
$0
so
$0
Exemptions:
*** Taxable Value
$801,000
$675,000
$570,000
Non -School:
*** Taxable: Value
�tq
$6757000
I
000
I$801,000 $570, I
School,:
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.coi,i-i/asp/Sliow_parce1.asp?acct=2430849&gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
Brevard County Property Appraiser-- Online Real Estate Property Card Page 2 of 2
* This is the value established for ad valorem purposes in accordance with s.193.011(1) and (8), Florida Statutes. This
value does not represent anticipated selling price for the property.
** Exemptions as reflected on the Value Summary table are applicable for the year shown and may or may not be
applicable if an owner change has occurred.
* * * The additional exemption does not apply when calculating taxable value for school districts pursuant to amendment
Sales Information
Official
Records
Book/Page
Sale Date
Sale
Amount
Deed
Type
*** Sales
Screening
Code
*** Sales
Screening
Source
Physical
Change
Code
Vacant/Improved
4200/1951
7/27/2000
$100
WD
RV
Gar
1963
11
I
3527/3148
12/1/1995
$205,200
03
02
01
0
I
3354/1507
12/1/1993
$100
PT
I
2870/1472
12/1/1987
$366,500
NN
2870/1470
112/l/1987,$366,500.
NN
2870/1468
12/l/19871$733,0001
NN
* * * Sales Screening Codes and Sources are from analysis by the Property
Appraiser's staff. They have no bearing on the prior or potential marketability of
the property.
Building Information Building Photos Drawings
PDC
#
Use
Code
Year
Built
Story
Height
Frame
Code
Exterior
Code
Interior
Code
Roof
Type
Roof
Mater.
Floors
Code
Ceiling
Code
11810
RV
Gar
1963
11
03
03205
03
10
03
03
03
Building Area Information
PDC
#
Base
Area
Garage
Area
Open
Porches
Car
Port
Screened
Porches
Utility
Rooms
Enclosed
Porch
Basements
Attics
Bonus
Rooms
RV
Carport
RV
Gar
1
11630
0
1910
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Extra Feature Information
Extra Feature Description
Units
FENCE
23
FENCE
46
PAVING
20183
FENCE
146
Data Last Updated: Tuesday, February 28, 2012- Printed On: Tuesday, February 2a, 2012.
New Search Heip
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser. comlasp/Show_parcel. asp?acct=2430849&gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
, Brevard County Property Appraiser - Photos
Berger, Arthur W Jr; Benson,, Jeanne A Trustees
8660 Astronaut Blvd Cape Canaveral 32920
24-37-15-00-757 2430849 m.woLc
Page I of 2
litti):Ilii,iap.bi-evardpropertyappraiser.coi-nlMap2li'lliotos.aspx?taxAcct=2430849 2/28/2012
Brevard County Property Appraiser-- Online Real Estate Property Card
Jim
A
Ford, C.F..
Property Apprafsor
Brevard, County, F1
General Parcel Information for 24-37-15-00-00824.0-00,00.00 Trim Notice
Page I of 2
C-
Online
Homestead
Filing
CLICK HERE
11 Site address information is assigned by thea Drevard County Address Assignment Office for E9-1-1. purposes; this
infonnation may not reflect community location of property.
Tax information is available at (lie Brevard County Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
Owner Name:
24-37-15-00-
New!
2011
Millage
26GO
Mailing Address:
Use
1700
Parcel
Parcel Id:
00824,0-
MaIL/Ortho
Aerial
Code:
Exemption:
Co
de;
$o
$0
0000,00II
Market Value:
Assessed Value
$940,000
Site
8700 ASTRONAUT BLVD, CAPE CANAVERAL 32920
Tax
2443783
Address:
Acct:
Assessed Value
11 Site address information is assigned by thea Drevard County Address Assignment Office for E9-1-1. purposes; this
infonnation may not reflect community location of property.
Tax information is available at (lie Brevard County Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
Owner Name:
KUCZEK, WILLIAM J
TRUSTEE
Second Name:
2011
Acres:
2.04
Mailing Address:
5492 SHARP DRIVE
City, State,
Zipcode:
HOWELL, MI 48843
Value Summary
Abbreviated Description
Sub PART OIC' GOVT LOT 3 & PART OF
Name- FILLED LAND AS DESC IN ORB
3500 PG 3630
Land Information
littps://www.brevardpi-opertyappraiser.con-i/asp/Show_parcel.asp?acct=2443783&gcn=T&t... 2/28/2012
2009
2010
2011
Acres:
2.04
Market Value
$940,000
$81.5,000
$735,000
Site Code: 340
Total:
Agricultural
$o
$0
$0
Market Value:
Assessed Value
$940,000
$815,000
$735,000
Non -School:
Assessed Value
$940,000
$81.5,000
$735,000
School:
Homestead
Exemption
Additional
$0
$0
$0
Homestead:
Other
$0
so,
$o
Exemptions:
*** Taxable Value
$940,000
$8T5,0®0..$735,000
,Non -School:
Taxable Value
$940,000
I
$815,0001$735,000
School:
littps://www.brevardpi-opertyappraiser.con-i/asp/Show_parcel.asp?acct=2443783&gcn=T&t... 2/28/2012
' Brevard County Property Appraiser-- Online Real Estate Property Card Page 2 of 2
* This is the value established for ad valorem purposes in accordance with s.193.011(1) and (8), Florida Statutes. This
value does not represent anticipated selling price for the property.
** Exemptions as reflected on the Value Summary table are applicable for the year shown and may or may not be
applicable if an owner change has occurred.
*** The additional exemption does not apply when calculating taxable value for school districts pursuant to amendment
1.
Sales Information
Official
Use
Code
Sale
Deed
*** Sales
*** Sales
Physical
Change
Vacant/Improved
Records
Sale Date
Amount
Type
Screening
Screening
12
03, 04
Book/Page
03
09
04
Code
Source
Code
0
3500/3630,8/30/1995,$221,800
WD
V
*** Sales Screening Codes and Sources are from analysis by the Property
Appraiser's staff. They have no bearing on the prior or potential marketability of
the property.
Rnfldinu Information Building Photos Drawint?s
PDC
#
Use
Code
Year
Built
Story
Height
a
Frame
Code
Exterior
Code
Interior
Code
Roof
Type
--
Roof
Mater.
Floors
Code
Ceiling
Code
1
1700
1996
12
03, 04
06, 08
03
09
04
02, 03
04
Buildine Area Information
PDC
#
BaseGarage
Area I
Area
Open
Porches
Car
Port
Screened
Porches
Utility
Rooms
Enclosed
Porch
Basements
Attics
Bonus
Rooms
RV
Carport
RV
Gara
1187121
AUTO DOCK LEVELER
2012
0
2602
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Extra Feature Information
Extra Feature Description
28
Units
PAVING
17300
FENCE
24
PAVING
20300
LOADING WELL
1598
PAVING
1000
FENCE
658
AUTO DOCK LEVELER
2012
2
Data Last Updated: Tuesday, February 28, 2012- Printed On: Tuesday, February ,
New Search Help
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.com/asp/Show_parcel.asp?acct=2443783 &gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
Brevard County Property Appraiser - Photos
Kuczek, William J Trustee
8700 Astronaut Blvd Cape Canaveral 32920
24-37-15-00-824 �, b : 2443783 P�-wn 4
Page I of I
littp://iiiap.brevardpi-opertyappraiset-.com/Map2/Photos.aspx?taxAcct=2443783 2/28/2012
Brevard County Property Appraiser— Online Real Estate Property Card
(S-) Mc-DONAL-DIs
General Parcel Information for 24-37-15-00-00825.0-0000.00 Trim Notice
Page] of
Online
Homestead
Filing
CLICK HERE
* Site address information is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for 139-1 -1 purposes; this
information may not reflect community location of property.
Tax information is available at the Brevard Counjy Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
Owner Name:
24-37-15-00-
raw
2011
Acres:
Millage
Collage
Mailing Address:
1.299 BEDFORD: DR STE B-
I
Use
MELBOURNE, FL 32940
I
Parcel Id:
00825.0-
—ap
-
MaIL/Ortho
Aerial
26GO
Exemption:
Code:
2110
Market Value:
0000.00
11
Assessed Value
$871,530
$775,250
$685,000
Non -School:
Site
8780 ASTRONAUT BLVD, CAPE CANAVERAL 32920
Tax
24437841
Address:
I
jAcct:
I
* Site address information is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for 139-1 -1 purposes; this
information may not reflect community location of property.
Tax information is available at the Brevard Counjy Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
Owner Name:
MC DONALDS CORP
Second Name:
2011
Acres:
C/O JFG MANAGEMENT
INC
Mailing Address:
1.299 BEDFORD: DR STE B-
I
City, State,
Zipcode:
MELBOURNE, FL 32940
I
Value Summary
Abbreviated Description
Sub PART OF GOVT LOT 3 & PART OF
1.LLED LAND AS DESC IN ORB
Nance:
3531 PG 1978
Land Information
littps://v,r",w.brevardprt)l)ertyappraiscr.com/asp/Show I)ai-cel.asp?acct=2443784&gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
2009
2010
2011
Acres:
1.48
Market Value
$871,530
$775,250
$685,00�O
Site Code: 340
'Total:
Agricultural
$o
$0
$0
Market Value:
Assessed Value
$871,530
$775,250
$685,000
Non -School:
Assessed Value
$871,530
$775,2.50
$685,000
School:
** Homestead
$o
$0,
$0
Exemption:
** Additional
$0
$o
$0
Homestead:
** Other
$0
$o
$0
Exemptions:
*** Taxable Value
$871,530
$775,250
$685,000
INon-School:
F—*Taxable Value
littps://v,r",w.brevardprt)l)ertyappraiscr.com/asp/Show I)ai-cel.asp?acct=2443784&gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
. Brevard County Property Appraiser-- Online Real Estate Property Card Page 2 of 2
(School: 1$871,5301$775,2501$685,0001
* This is the value established for ad valorem purposes in accordance with s.193.011(l) and (8), Florida Statutes. This
value does not represent anticipated selling price for the property.
* * Exemptions as reflected on the Value Summary table are applicable for the year shown and may or may not be
applicable if an owner change has occurred.
*** The additional exemption does not apply when calculating taxable value for school districts pursuant to amendment
1.
Sales Information
Official
Use
Code
Sale
Deed *** Sales
*** Sales
Screening
Physical
Change
Vacant/Improved
Records
Sale Date
Amount
Type Screening
12110
RV
Gara
1996
Book/Page
03
03 08
Code
Source
Code
03
3531/1982
12/30/1995
$193,000
WD
V
3531/1978
12/30/1995
$1001
WD I
I
I
IV
* * * Sales Screening Codes and Sources are from analysis by the Property
Appraiser's staff. They have no bearing on the prior or potential marketability of
the property.
Building Information Building Photos Drawings
PDC
#
Use
Code
Year
Built
Story
Height
Frame
Code
Exterior
Code
Interior
Code
Roof
Type
lRoof
Mater.
Floors
Code
Ceiling
Code
12110
RV
Gara
1996
13
03
03 08
03
10
03
03
O1 03
Building Area Information
PDC
#
Base
Area
Garage
Area
Open
Porches
Car
Port
Screened
Porches
Utility
Rooms
Enclosed
Porch
Basements
Attics
Bonus
Rooms
RV
Carport
RV
Gara
14505
WALL
0
357
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Extra Feature Information
Extra Feature Description
Units
OUTBUILDING
150
WALL
240
FENCE
15
LIGHT POLES
5
PAVING
26900
FENCE
24
WALL
1240
Data Last Updated: Tuesday, rebruary 2S, 2012- Printed On: Tuesday, reuruary ca, cuiL.
New Search Help
I
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.com/asp/Show_parcel.asp?acct=2443784&gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
, Brevard County Property Appraiser - Photos
wiwr, Mc Donald's Corp; C/O Jfg Management Inc
8780 Astronaut Blvd Cape Canaveral 32920
24-37-15-00-825 iD. 2443784 7
Page I of'2
littp://n,iap.brevardpropertyappi-aiser.com/Map2/Photos.aspx?taxAcct=2443784 2/28/2012
, Brevard County Property Appraiser— Online Real Estate Property Card
0 7nC4-fADrAjJ1S
General Parcel Information for 24-37-15-0�0-00763.0-0000.00 Trim Notice
Page I of 2
Online
Homestead
Filing
CLICK HERE
Site address information is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for E9-1-1 purposes; this
information may not reflect cornmunity location of property.
Tax information is available at the Brevard County Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
Owner Name:
24-37-15-00-
New,
LIGERAKIS, ADAMANTS IA
H/W
Acres:
Millage
Mailing Address:
531 SUNSET LAKES DR
Use
MERRITT ISLAND, FL
32953 1
Parcel ld-
00763-0-
Mia/Ortho
Aerial
Code:
26GO
1
Exemption:
Code.
2.100
$0
0000.00II
i
Assessed Value
$360,000
$310,000
$255,000
Site
8799 ASTRONAUT BLVD, CAPE CANAVERAL 32920
Tax
lAcet:
243085S
Address:
Assessed Value
S360,000
$310,000
Site address information is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for E9-1-1 purposes; this
information may not reflect cornmunity location of property.
Tax information is available at the Brevard County Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
Owner Name:
LIGERAKiS, ZACBARJAS
Second Name:
LIGERAKIS, ADAMANTS IA
H/W
Acres:
0.38
Mailing Address:
531 SUNSET LAKES DR
City, State,
,Zipeode:
MERRITT ISLAND, FL
32953 1
Value Summary
Abbreviated Description
Sub PART OF GOVT LOT 3 W OF STRI)
l�lanne: 1401 AS DES IN ORB 716 PG, 92
Land Information
https:llww-w.brevardpropei-tyappraisei-.coinlaspIShowj)arcel.asp?acct=2430855&gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
2009
2010
2011
Acres:
0.38
Market Value
$360,000
5310,000
$255,000
Site Code:
340
"t'o'tal:
Agricultural
so
$0
$0
Market Value:
i
Assessed Value
$360,000
$310,000
$255,000
Non -School:
Assessed Value
S360,000
$310,000
$255,000
School:
** Homestead
$0
$0
$0
Exemption:
** Additional
$0
$0
$0
Homestead:
"I Other
$0
$0
$0
Exemptions:
Taxable Value
$360,000
$310,000
$255,000
Non -School:
*** Taxable Value
�$360,000
$310,000
$255,000
School:
https:llww-w.brevardpropei-tyappraisei-.coinlaspIShowj)arcel.asp?acct=2430855&gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
Brevard County Property Appraiser-- Online Real Estate Property Card Page 2 of 2
*This is the value established for ad valorem purposes in accordance with s.193.011(1) and (8), Florida Statutes. This
value does not represent anticipated selling price for the property.
** Exemptions as reflected on the Value Summary table are applicable for the year shown and may or may not be
applicable if an owner change has occurred.
*** The additional exemption does not apply when calculating taxable value for school districts pursuant to amendment
1.
Sales Information
Official
Use
Code
Sale
Deed
*** Sales
*** Sales
Physical
Vacant/Improved
Records
Sale Date
Amount
Type
Screening
Screening
Change
03
Book/Page
03
09
03, 04
Code
Source
Code
01
3112/1927
3/30/1991$235,000
WD
I
0768/0694
3/12/1965
$1001
QC
I
I
I
I V
* * * Sales Screening Codes and Sources are from analysis by the Property
Appraiser's staff. They have no bearing on the prior or potential marketability of
the property.
Building Information Building Photos Drawings
PDC
#
Use
Code
Year
Built
Story
Height
Frame
Code
Exterior
Code
Interior
Code
Roof
Type
Roof
Mater.
lFloors
ICode
Ceiling
Code
1:2100
RV
Gars
1965
10
03
03205
03
09
03, 04
03
01,03
Building Area Information
PDC
#
Base
Area
Garage
Area
Open
Porches
Car
Port
Screened
Porches
Utility
Rooms
Enclosed
Porch
Basements
Attics
Bonus
Rooms
RV
Carport
RV
Gars
1
26361
0
0
01
0
576
0
0
01
01
0
Extra Feature Information
Extra Feature Description
Units
FENCE
30
PAVING
12359
PAVING
1076
Data Last Updated: Tuesday, Februarym, M2- rrlbten On: t uesnay, reoruary ca, ZVI&.
New Search Help
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.com/asp/Show_parcel. asp?acct=2430855 &gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
Brevard Comity Property Appraiser - Photos
,:nm7ors, Ligerakis, Zacharias; Ligerakis, Adamantia H/W
8799 Astronaut Blvd Cape Canaveral 32920
PzwW P. 24-37-15-(7 j- , ",D:
0-763 , I 24308 (755 R� �,-; Lc, (:) u i i:: S
Page I of I
http://niap.brevardpropert3lappraiser.co,iiilMap2lP'liotos.aspx?taxAcct=2430855 2/28/2012
Brevard County Property Appraiser— Online Real Estate Property Card
J:im Ford, C.F.A.
Property Appraise
SrevatdiCountyr, F
Page I of 3
u, LT�+
le, C
Online
Prqp Homestead
Filing
Reearch, CLICK HERE
General Parcel Information for 24-37-15-00-00758.0-0000.00 Trim Notice
* Site address information is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for 9-1-1 purposes; this
information may not reflect coniniunity location of property.
Tax information is available at the Brevard Count y Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
Owner Name: SHELDON COVE LLLP
Second Name:
Mailing Address: P 0 BOX 9002
City, State, CAPE CANAVERAL, FL
�Zipeode: 32920
Value Summary
Abbreviated Description
Sub PART OF GOVT LOT 3 AS DES IN
Name: IIORB 601 PG 651
Land Information
24-37-15-00-
MaP-
I
Acres:
Millage
Market
°2,410,000
$2,059,000
$1,750,000
Parcel Id:
0075&0-
Map/Ortho
Aerial
Code:
26GO
Exemption:
Code.-
Co
1810
Market
0000.00
II
$0
Value:
Site
8810 ASTRONAUT BLVD, CAPE CANAVERAL 32920
Tax
24308501
Address:
I
jAcct:
$2,410,000
* Site address information is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for 9-1-1 purposes; this
information may not reflect coniniunity location of property.
Tax information is available at the Brevard Count y Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
Owner Name: SHELDON COVE LLLP
Second Name:
Mailing Address: P 0 BOX 9002
City, State, CAPE CANAVERAL, FL
�Zipeode: 32920
Value Summary
Abbreviated Description
Sub PART OF GOVT LOT 3 AS DES IN
Name: IIORB 601 PG 651
Land Information
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.conn/asp/Showy parcel. asp? acct=243 0 8 5 0 &gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
2009
2010
2011
Acres:
2.61
Market
°2,410,000
$2,059,000
$1,750,000
! Site Code.
340ValueTotal:
j
Agricultural
'
Market
$0
$0
$0
Value:
Assessed
Value Non-
$2,410,000
$2,059,000
$1,750,000
School:
Assessed
$2,410,000
$2,059,000
$,1,750,000
Value School:
Homestead
$0
$0
$0
Exemption:
** Additional
$0
$0
$ 0j
Homestead:
** Other
$0
$0
$0
Exemptions-
*** Taxable
Value Non-
52,410,000
$2,059,000
51,750,000
School:
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.conn/asp/Showy parcel. asp? acct=243 0 8 5 0 &gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
Brevard County Property Appraiser-- Online Real Estate Property Card Page 2 of 3
*** Taxable $2,410,000$2,059,000 $1,750,000
Value School:
* This is the value established for ad valorem purposes in accordance with s.193.01 l(1) and (8), Florida Statutes. This
value does not represent anticipated selling price for the property.
** Exemptions as reflected on the Value Summary table are applicable for the year shown and may or may not be
applicable if an owner change has occurred.
*** The additional exemption does not apply when calculating taxable value for school districts pursuant to amendment
Sales Information
Official
Records
Book/Page
Sale Date
Sale
Amount
Deed
Type
*** Sales
Screening
Code
*** Sales
Screening
Source
Physical
Change
Code
Vacant/Improved
3607/4108
9/30/1996
$1,085,000
WD
1963
11
03 03, 0803,
I
2427/0854
5/2/1983
$550,000
WD
214810
01
1998
V
2072/0342
7/1/1979
$350,000
03
02
03
01
0
0601/0651
5/28/1963
$100,000
WD
01
0
V
*** Sales Screening Codes and Sources are from analysis by the Property
Appraiser's staff. They have no bearing on the prior or potential marketability of
the property.
Building Information Building Photos Drawings
PDC
#
Use
Code
Year
Built
Story
Height
Frame Exterior
Code Code
Interior
Code
Roof
Type
Roof
Mater.
Floors
Code
Ceiling
Code
11810
RV
Carport
1963
11
03 03, 0803,
04
10
03
03
04
214810
01
1998
10
03 L31
03
09
03
02
03
Building Area Information
PDC
#
Base
Area
Garage
Area
Open
Porches
Car
Port
Screened
Porches
Utility
Rooms
Enclosed
Porch
BasementsAttics
35
Bonus
Rooms
RV
Carport
RV
Gar
1,334401
FENCE
0
3846
0
0
0
0
01
0
0
0
21
29281
01
5311
01
0
--01
01
0
01
01
0
Extra Feature Information
Extra Feature Description
Units
ELEVATOR
1
PAVING
44600
LIGHT POLES
4
FENCE
35
PAVING
2479
WALL
440
FENCE
140
Data Last Updated: Tuesday, February 28, 2012- Printed On: Tuesday, February 28, 2012.
New Search Help
https://www.brevardproper,tyappraiser.com/asp/Show_parcel.asp?acct=2430850&gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
Brevard County Property Appraiser - Photos
Sheldon Cove Ulp
8810 Astronaut Blvd Cape Canaveral 32920
24-37-15-00-758 Tax T�.: 2430850 Phoi--� Colint: 7
Pagel of2
http://inap.brevardpropertyappraiser.com/M,ap2/Pliotos.aspx?taxAcct=2430850 2/28/2012
Brevard County Property Appraiser— Online Real Estate Property Card
Jim Ford, C.F.A.
P
rp-) RACC"TZIAC
General Parcel Information for 24-37-15-00-00826.0-0000.00 Trim Notice
Page I oft
Online
Homestead
Filing
CLICK HERE
Site address information is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for E9-1-1 purposes; this
information may not reflect community location of property.
Tax information is available at the Brevard County Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
24-37-15-00-
Ham,
MaR
INC
Second Name:
Millage
Market Value
CIO SAVAGE ETAL INC
Use
RACETRAC 5918
Parcel Id:
00826"0-
Address:
MuOrtho
A_cria.1
Code:
26GO
Exemption-
Code.
1.130
Market Value:
0000.00
Assessed Value
$1,161,830
$869,370
$755,000
Non -School.
Site
8899 ASTRONAUT BLVD, CAPE CANAVERAL 32920
Tax
2444421
Address:
$1,1.61,830
jAcct:
I I
Site address information is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for E9-1-1 purposes; this
information may not reflect community location of property.
Tax information is available at the Brevard County Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
Abbreviated Description
i
Sub PART OF FILLED LANDS W OF ST
�
I
Nalue: RD NO 401 AS DESC IN ORB 3643 PG
41,81 EXC 3949 PG 1127
Land Information
R.ACETRAC PETROLEUM
Owner Name:
INC
Second Name:
2.04
Market Value
CIO SAVAGE ETAL INC
$869,370
RACETRAC 5918
Mailing
P 0 BOX 22845
Address:
City, State,
OKLAHONIA CITY, OK 73123,
Zipcode:
so
Value Summary
Abbreviated Description
i
Sub PART OF FILLED LANDS W OF ST
�
I
Nalue: RD NO 401 AS DESC IN ORB 3643 PG
41,81 EXC 3949 PG 1127
Land Information
littP � s-//www.brevai-dpropei-tyippraiser.con-i/asp/Shol�N,_parcel.asp?acct=244442I &gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
2009
2010
2011
Acres:
2.04
Market Value
$1,161,830
$869,370
$755,000
ISite Code: 340
Total:
Agricultural
so
$0
$0
Market Value:
Assessed Value
$1,161,830
$869,370
$755,000
Non -School.
Assessed Value
$1,1.61,830
$869,370''$755,000
School:
** Homestead
$0
$0
$0
Exemption:
**'Additional
$o
$o
$0
Homestead:
** Other
$0
$0
$0
Exemptions:
I
*** Taxable
$1,161,830
$869,370
I
$755,000
I
Value Non-
littP � s-//www.brevai-dpropei-tyippraiser.con-i/asp/Shol�N,_parcel.asp?acct=244442I &gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
Brevard County Property Appraiser-- Online Real Estate Property Card Page 2 of 2
School:
Use
Code
Sale
Deed
*** Taxable
$1,161,830
$869,370$755,000
Vacant/Improved
Value School:
Sale Date
Amount
Type
* This is the value established for ad valorem purposes in accordance with s.193.011(1) and (8), Florida Statutes. This
value does not represent anticipated selling price for the property.
** Exemptions as reflected on the Value Summary table are applicable for the year shown and may or may not be
applicable if an owner change has occurred.
*** The additional exemption does not apply when calculating taxable value for school districts pursuant to amendment
Sales Information
Official
Use
Code
Sale
Deed
*** Sales
*** Sales
Screening
Physical
Change
Vacant/Improved
Records
Sale Date
Amount
Type
Screening
1997
13
03, 05
Book/Page
03, 04
09
11
Code
Source
Code
0
3643/4181
2/28/1997
$440,000
PT
V
*** Sales Screening Codes and Sources are from analysis by the Property
Appraiser's staff. They have no bearing on the prior or potential marketability of
the property.
Building Information Building Photos Drawings
PDC
#
Use
Code
Year
Built
Story
Height
Frame
Code
Exterior
Code
Interior
Code
Roof
Type
Roof
Mater.
IFloors
lCode
Ceiling
Code
1
1130
1997
13
03, 05
053, 08
03, 04
09
11
03
03
Building Area Information
PDC
#
BaseGarage
Area
Area
Open
Porches
Car
Port
Screened
Porches
Utility
Rooms
Enclosed
Porch
Basements
Attics
Bonus
Rooms
RV
Carport
RV
Gara
1
2964L
0
480
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Extra Feature Information
Extra Feature Description
Units
FENCE
22
FENCE
680
TANK
1
TANK
2
PAVING
37850
LIGHT POLES
7
CANOPY
18960
WALL
1252
Data Last Updated: Tuesday, February 28,2012- Printed On: Tuesday, February 28, 2012.
New Search I Help
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.com/asp/Show_pareel.asp?acct=2444421 &gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
I Brevard COLInty Property Appraiser - Photos
C),, vers: Racetrac Petroleum Inc; C/O Savage Etal Inc Racetrac 5918
Site A�,;dlrrl,,.,,: 8899 Astronaut Blvd Cape Canaveral 32.920
24-37-15-00-826 ID: 2444421 Photc Court� 6
Page I of I
littp:lliiiap.bi•evardprol)ertyappraiser.com/Map2/ilhotos.aspx?taxAcct=244442l 2/28/2012
Brevard County Property Appraiser-- Online Real Estate Property Card
K IN 61
General Parcel Information for 24-37-,15-00-00037.0-0000.00 Trim Notice
Page I of 2
Online
Homestead
Filing
CLICK HERE
Parcel Id:
24-37-15-00-
00037.0-
He,,
!L=1J"aP
Map/Ortho
Aerial
Millage
26G0
P 0 BOX 20783 GENERAL
UseIExemption:
2110
City, State,
MIAMI, FL 33102
Zipcode:
Value Summary
Code:
Agricultural
$0
Code;
$0
Value:
0000.00II
lMarket
Assessed Value
$1,037,930
$932,310
$650,000
Non -School:
Site
8939 ASTRONAUT BLVD, CAPE CANAVERAL 32920 Tax
24607591
Address:
jAcct:
I
* Site address information is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for 139-1-1 purposes; this
information may not reflect community location of property.
Tax inforn-Cation is available at the Brevard County Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
Abbreviated Description
Sul) PART OF FILLED LANDS W OF ST
Name: RD NO 401 AS DESC IN ORB 5735
PG 7094
Land Information
BURGER KING
Owner Name:
CORPORATION
Second Name:
Market Value
Mailing
P 0 BOX 20783 GENERAL
Address:
MAIL FACILITY
City, State,
MIAMI, FL 33102
Zipcode:
Value Summary
Abbreviated Description
Sul) PART OF FILLED LANDS W OF ST
Name: RD NO 401 AS DESC IN ORB 5735
PG 7094
Land Information
littps://www-brevardpropertyappraiser,con-i/asp/ShoW_I)arcel.asp?acct=2460759&gcn=T&t... 2/28/2012
2009
2010
2011
Acres: 1.43
Market Value
$1,037,930
$9'32,310
$650,000
Site Code: 340
Total:
Agricultural
$0
$o
$0
Value:
lMarket
Assessed Value
$1,037,930
$932,310
$650,000
Non -School:
Assessed Value
$1,037,930..,$932,310..,
$650,000
School:
** Homestead
$0
$o
$0
Exemption:
** Additional
so
$o
$0
Homestead:
** Other
$0
$0
$0
Exemptions:
*** Taxable
Value Non-
$1,037,,930
$932,310
$6'50,000
School:
littps://www-brevardpropertyappraiser,con-i/asp/ShoW_I)arcel.asp?acct=2460759&gcn=T&t... 2/28/2012
Brevard County Property Appraiser-- Online Real Estate Property Card Page 2 of 2
*** Taxable $1,037,930 $932,310 $650,000
Value School:
* This is the value established for ad valorem purposes in accordance with s. 193.011(1) and (8), Florida Statutes. This
value does not represent anticipated selling price for the property.
* * Exemptions as reflected on the Value Summary table are applicable for the year shown and may or may not be
applicable if an owner change has occurred.
*** The additional exemption does not apply when calculating taxable value for school districts pursuant to amendment
1.
Sales Information
Official
Use
Code
Sale
Deed
*** Sales
*** Sales
Screening
Physical
Change
Vacant/Improved
Records
Sale Date
Amount
Type
Screening
2008
12
04
Book/Page
03, 04
09
03
Code
Source
Code
0
5847/1000
2/18/2008
$1,500,000
WD
25
03
V
5735/7094
12/12/2006
$1001
WD
I
I
I
I V
*** Sales Screening Codes and Sources are from analysis by the Property
Appraiser's staff. They have no bearing on the prior or potential marketability of
the property.
Building Information Building Photos Drawings
PDC
#
Use
Code
Year
Built
Story
Height
Frame
Code
Exterior
Code
Interior
Code
Roof
Type
Roof
Mater.
IFloors
ICode
Ceiling
Code
12110
RV
Gara
2008
12
04
03, 12
03, 04
09
03
03
01,04
Building Area Information
PDC
#
Base
Area
Garage
Area
Open
Porches
Car
Port
Screened
Porches
Utility
Rooms
Enclosed
Porch
Basements
Attics
Bonus
Rooms
RV
Carport
RV
Gara
12527
PAVING
0
1497
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Extra Feature Information
Extra Feature Description
Units
LIGHT POLES
6
PAVING
13488
PAVING
495
WALL
424
FENCE
25
WALL
424
PAVING
14525
Data Last Updated: Tuesday, February 28, 20!2- Printed On: Tuesday, February 2.a, 2.012.
New Search Help
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.com/asp/Show_parcel. asp?acct=2460759&gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
Brevard County Property Appraiser - Photos
r , -I , Q-*, ��� IA,I WIN 512,11,T41'' A
Uvv.-i�,rs: Burger King Corporation
8939 Astronaut Blvd Cape Canaveral 32920
Flzn,,t-,I fl): 24-37-15-00-37 Frrfl): 2460759 Photo Cok,rmt: 10
Page I of 2
http://iiiap.brevardpropertyappraiser.com/Map2/1'liotos,aspx?taxAcct=2460759 2/28/2012
Brevard County Property Appraiser-- Online Real Estate Property Card
Jim Ford4 C.F.A.
Property Appiraisler
Brevard County, F1
Page 1 of 3
N /\I
General Parcel Information for 24-37-15-00-00025.0-0000.00 Trim Notice
0 0 r#7 11 ff IT -M
Site address information is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assigm-nent Office for E9-1-1 purposes; this
iriforniation may not reflect community location ol'property.
Tax infonnation is available at the Brevard County Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
Owner Name: Al A ACQUISITION GROUP
LTD LLP
Second Name:
Mailing 3425 N ATLANTIC AVE
Address:
Cit -y' State,
COCOA BCH, FL 32931
Zipcode:
Value Summary
Abbreviated Description
PART OF FILLED LANDS W OF ST
Sub RD NO 401 AS DES,C IN ORB 3675 PG
Name: 971 3949 PG 1127 EXC ORB 5566 PG
4525, 5735 PG 7094 PAR 829
Land Information
24-37-15-00-
�w, Map
2011
Acres:
6,23
Market
$5,500,000,
Use
$3,300,000
Parcel ld:
00025.0-
.�
MgR/Ortho
AerialMillage
Z6GOlExeniption:
1
Agricultural
3920
Market
11
$0
$0
Code:
Value:
Code;
0000.00
Value Non- '$5,500,000
$3,900,000
$3,300,000
Site
8959 ASTRONAUT BLVD HOTEL, CAPE CANAVERAL 32920
Tax
2444423
Address:
Assessed
Acct:
S3,90'0,000
Site address information is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assigm-nent Office for E9-1-1 purposes; this
iriforniation may not reflect community location ol'property.
Tax infonnation is available at the Brevard County Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
Owner Name: Al A ACQUISITION GROUP
LTD LLP
Second Name:
Mailing 3425 N ATLANTIC AVE
Address:
Cit -y' State,
COCOA BCH, FL 32931
Zipcode:
Value Summary
Abbreviated Description
PART OF FILLED LANDS W OF ST
Sub RD NO 401 AS DES,C IN ORB 3675 PG
Name: 971 3949 PG 1127 EXC ORB 5566 PG
4525, 5735 PG 7094 PAR 829
Land Information
littps:llw�vv.brevardpropertyappralser.coiiilaspIShow_parcel.asp?acct=2444423&gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
2009
2010
2011
Acres:
6,23
Market
$5,500,000,
$3,900,000
$3,300,000
Site Code:
340
.
Value'rotal.
Agricultural
Market
$0
$0
$0
Value:
Assessed
Value Non- '$5,500,000
$3,900,000
$3,300,000
School:
Assessed
$5,500,000
S3,90'0,000
$3,300,000
Value School:
** Homestead
$0
$0
$0
Exemption:
** Additional
$o
$0
$0
Homestead:
** Other
$0
$0
$
Exemptions:
1***'raxable
littps:llw�vv.brevardpropertyappralser.coiiilaspIShow_parcel.asp?acct=2444423&gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
Brevard County Property Appraiser-- Online Real Estate Property Card Page 2 of 3
Value Non-
$5,500,000
$3,900,000
$3,300,000
School:
*** Sales
Screening
Physical
Roof
Type
Taxable
$5,500,000
$3,900,000
$3,300,000
Value School:
Val
2006
Change
Vacant/Improved
* This is the value established for ad valorem purposes in accordance with s.193.01 l(1) and (8), Florida Statutes. This
value does not represent anticipated selling price for the property.
** Exemptions as reflected on the Value Summary table are applicable for the year shown and may or may not be
applicable if an owner change has occurred.
*** The additional exemption does not apply when calculating taxable value for school districts pursuant to amendment
1.
Sales Information
Official
Use
Code
Sale
Deed
*** Sales
*** Sales
Screening
Physical
Roof
Type
Records
Sale Date
Amount
Type
Screening
2006
Change
Vacant/Improved
Book/Page
03
ngl
11
Code
Source
Code
0
5288/2198
5/5/2004
$1,735,300
WD
PT
V
3675/0971
15/30/19971
$569,8001
WD
I
I
I
I V
*** Sales Screening Codes and Sources are from analysis by the Property
Appraiser's staff. They have no bearing on the prior or potential marketability of
the property.
Building Information Building Photos Drawings
PDC
#
Use
Code
Year
Built
Story
Height
Frame
Code
Exterior
Code
Interior
Code
Roof
Type
IRoof
Mater.
Floors
Code
Ceiling
Code
13920
RN
Ga
2006
10
03,04
03212
03
ngl
11
03
03
Building Area Information
PDC
#
Base
Area
Garage
Area
Open
Porches
Car
Port
Screened
Porches
Utility
Rooms
EnclosedBonus
Porch
Basements
Attics
Rooms
RV
Carport
RN
Ga
1121668
ELEVATOR STOPS
0
3351
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Extra Feature Information
Extra Feature Description
Units
POOL
1844
PAVING
6050
PAVING
8492
PAVING
104219
LIGHT POLES
31
WALL
330
ELEVATOR STOPS
8
WALL
660
FENCE
1058
FENCE
962
ELEVATOR
14
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.com/asp/Show_parcel.asp?acct=2444423&gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
ZIOZ/8z/z EZtt7t7t7Z=I,),)Vxt,,)ixdsp,soloLld/ZdtIN/woo-.iosiLjddLXlj�cloidp.iLA,,)jq-dtLu//:dilq
CT :Juncj—, Ezt?t7l7tlZ :(JP I SZ -00, -ST -/E -VZ
OZ6ZE leJDAeU2:) @de:) P 10 44un PAJO jneuOJ4sV 6S68
dil pyl dnojE) uoi4pnb:)V eTV
JO I -,)'3vd soloqd - jostuiddV Xl.t,.)do.i(I Xltjiio,) pirA,-)JU
Brevard County Property Appraiser— Online Real Estate Property Card
trAw"
ry ;A v
Pagel of
PATT / 5 T-;Av N C O'K4-)
Online
property Homestead
Filing
R,esparc h CLICK HERE
General Parcel Information for 24-37-15-00-00756.0-0000.00 Trim Notice
* Site address infon-nation is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for E9-1-1 purposes; this
information may not reflect community location of property.
Tax information is available at the Brevard County Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information Abbreviated Description
Owner Name: 8910 ASTRONAUT BLVD Sub PART OF LOTS 2 & 3 AS DESC IN
LLC Name: IORB 6228 PG 746
Second Name:
CIO STANCORP MTG
INVESTORS LLC
Mailing 19225 NW TANASBORNE DR
Address: 3RD FL
City, State, HILLSBORO, OR 97124
Zipcode:
Value Summary Land Information
24-37-15-00-
New!
2011
Acres: 3.42
Millage
$,4,100,000
$3,335,000
Use
Site Code: 340
Parcel Id:
00756.0-
Map/Ortho
Aerial
Code:
26GOlExemp
tion: l
Cadre:
1800
$0
0000.00II
$0
Value:
Assessed
Site
8910 ASTRONAUT BLVD HQTRS, CAPE CANAVERAL 32920
Tax
2430848
Address:
$3,335,000
jAcct:
I I
* Site address infon-nation is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for E9-1-1 purposes; this
information may not reflect community location of property.
Tax information is available at the Brevard County Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information Abbreviated Description
Owner Name: 8910 ASTRONAUT BLVD Sub PART OF LOTS 2 & 3 AS DESC IN
LLC Name: IORB 6228 PG 746
Second Name:
CIO STANCORP MTG
INVESTORS LLC
Mailing 19225 NW TANASBORNE DR
Address: 3RD FL
City, State, HILLSBORO, OR 97124
Zipcode:
Value Summary Land Information
https://www.brevardl)ropertyappraiser,con-i/asp/Show_parcel.asp?acct=2430848&geii=T&t... 2/28/2012
2009
2010
2011
Acres: 3.42
Market
$,4,100,000
$3,335,000
$2,850,000
Site Code: 340
Value Total:
Agricultural
Market
$0
$0
$0
Value:
Assessed
Value Non-
$4,100,000
$3,335,000
$2,850,000
School:
Assessed
$4,100,000
$3,335,000
$2,850,000
Value School:
Homestead
$0
$0
$0
Exemption:
** Additional
$0
so
$0
Homestead:
Other
$0
$0
$0
Exemptions:
https://www.brevardl)ropertyappraiser,con-i/asp/Show_parcel.asp?acct=2430848&geii=T&t... 2/28/2012
® Brevard County Property Appraiser-- Online Real Estate Property Card Page 2 of 3
*** Taxable
Value Non- 1$4,100,0001$3,335,0001$2,850,
** Taxable 1$4,100,0001$3,335,0001$2,850,00
Value School:
* This is the value established for ad valorem purposes in accordance with s.193.011(1) and (8), Florida Statutes. This
value does not represent anticipated selling price for the property.
** Exemptions as reflected on the Value Summary table are applicable for the year shown and may or may not be
applicable if an owner change has occurred.
*** The additional exemption does not apply when calculating taxable value for school districts pursuant to amendment
Sales Information
Official
Use
Sale
Deed
*** Sales
*** Sales
Physical
Vacant/Improved
Records
Sale Date
Amount
Type
Screening
Screening
Change
Code
Book/Page
Code
Type
Mater.
Code
Source
Code
Bonus
6228/0746
6/28/2010
$3,649,800
QC
11
13
11
I
3623/2263
11/30/1996
$546,000
WD
13
03, OS
03 08
V
1134/0066
7/28/1969
$100,000
PT
0
0
0
0
* * * Sales Screening Codes and Sources are from analysis by the Property
Appraiser's staff. They have no bearing on the prior or potential marketability of
the property.
u,.;l.l;nn Tnfnrmntinn Ruildino Photos Drawines
PDC
Use
Year
Story
Frame
Exterior
Interior
Roof
Roof
Floors
Ceiling
#
Code
Built
Height
Code
Code
Code
Type
Mater.
Code
Code
14100
Bonus
1997
20
05
07
91,93
13
11
02, 03
O1, 03
2
1800
1998
13
03, OS
03 08
03
13
11
03
03
Building Area Information
Rytra Fpatnre Information
Extra Feature Description
Units
PAVING
44196
LIGHT POLES
6
FENCE
86
PAVING
3055
FENCE
150
INSULATION
PDC
Base
Garage
Open
Car
Screened
Utility
Enclosed
Basements
Attics
Bonus
RV
RV
#
Area
Area
Porches
Port
Porches
Rooms
Porch
Rooms
Carport
Gar
1
7962
0
129
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21355521
0
190
0
0
208
0
0
0
01
0
Rytra Fpatnre Information
Extra Feature Description
Units
PAVING
44196
LIGHT POLES
6
FENCE
86
PAVING
3055
FENCE
150
INSULATION
7280
INSULATION
7440
ELEVATOR
1
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.com/asp/Show_parcel. asp?acct=2430848&gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
Brevard Comity Property Appraiser - Photos
Page I of I
8910 Astronaut Blvd LLC; C/O Stancorp Mtg Investors Llc
Multiple Addresses
P j'O: 24-37-15-00-756 Tco lj-): 2430848
littp:llmap.bi-evardpropertyappraiser.com/Map2/Pliotos.aspx?ta�Acct=243,0848 2/28/2012
MLinicode Page 1 of I
(a) Appeals from board of adjustment or community appearance board.
(1) Any party aggrieved by any final decision of the board of adjustment or the community appearance
board made under any chapter of this Code shall have the right to appeal the final decision to the city
council.
(2) Any such appeal shall be filed with the city manager within ten calendar days of the date of the final
decision. The city manager shall schedule the city council's consideration of the appeal for the next
available regular city council meeting and shall provide the party seeking appellate review with written
notice of the date, time and location of said meeting.
13) The city council's consideration of the final decision being appealed shall be de novo. The city council
shall hear and consider the evidence and testimony of any interested party and shall either affirm or
reverse, wholly or in part, the decision of the board of ad ustmert or mmunity appearance board.
However, with respect to administrative al M :"the city council's de novo review
shall be of the record transmitted to the board of adjustment by the building official. A concurring
majority vote of the city council shall be required for any decision made by the city council under this
section.
(4) Failure of any aggrieved party to appeal to the city council pursuant to this section shall be deemed a
waiver of that party's right to judicial review.
(b) Appeals from city council. Any party aggrieved by any final decision of the city council made under this section
shall have the right to file an appropriate action in a court of competent jurisdiction,
(a) Any final administrative decision regarding the enforcement or interpretation of this chapter, where it is
alleged there is an error by an administrative official, can, be appealed as set forth in this section. Any of
the following may seek review of an administrative decision pursuant to this section:
(1) City council;
(2) Planning and zoning board;
(3) Any person aggrieved or affected by any decision of the building official in the interpretation of
any portion of this chapter.
(b) Appeals shall be taken within 3O days after such administrative decision is made by filing a written
notice of appeal with the building official and the board of adjustment stating the name of the decision
maker, date of the decision, applicable code provisions and the specific grounds for appeal. Upon
receipt of the notice of appeal, the building official shall schedule the appeal before the board of
adjustment and transmit all documents, plans, papers or other materials constituting the record upon
which the action appealed from was taken.
(c) The board of adjustment shall be required to review alll administrative appeals and prepare written
findings constituting its final decision on the administrative appeal based on the criteria set forth in this
section.
(d) Review of administrative decisions shall be based on the following criteria:
(1) Whether the applicant was properly afforded procedural due process;
(2), Whether the decision Linder review is supported by competent, substantial evidence; and
(3) Whether the decision under review complied with applicable law, including a proper interpretation
of any provision under this chapter.
(e) An administrative appeal filed pursuant to this section stays all proceedings in furtherance of the action
appealed from, unless the building official from whom the appeal is taken certifies in writing to the board
of adjustment after the notice of appeal is filed that, because of facts stated in the certificate, a stay
would, in the building official's opinion, cause imminent peril to life and property. In such case where the
building official makes such certification, proceedings shall not be stayed other than by an injunction,
which may be granted by the board of adjustment or issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(0 The board of adjustment shall have the right to reverse or affirm, wholly or in part, or may modify the
order, requirement, decision or determination as ought to be made, and to that end, shall have all the
powers of the officers from whom the appeal is taken. The concurring majority vote of the board of
adjustment shall be necessary for any decision made pursuant to this section.
Secs. '110-41---110-85. - Reserved.
N
SHOILVA313
Z LOZ `E L 42aeW - L# 8A14euaaljV $e3S 1U'TfMVMn 3410
)GndWO:) 3AVMH:)V38