Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcocc_council_mtg_packet_20201215CAPE CANAVERAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING City Hall Council Chambers 100 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920 For viewing/participating in the Meeting remotely via GoToWebinar: Register at: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/8326673436796124688 Listen at: +1 415-655-0060; Attendee Access Code: 215-206-613 AGENDA December 15, 2020 6:00 P.M. COVID-19 PANDEMIC ADVISORY: Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic Emergency, this meeting will be held both in -person and virtually by communications media technology (CMT). Instructions for the public to attend and provide public comments during this meeting are accessible at www.cityofcapecanaveral.org/instructions as well as attached to this agenda. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Any member of the public may address any items that do not appear on the agenda and any agenda item that is listed on the agenda for final official action by the City Council excluding public hearing items which are heard at the public hearing portion of the meeting, ministerial items (e.g. approval of agenda, minutes, informational items), and quasi-judicial or emergency items. Citizens will limit their comments to three (3) minutes. The City Council will not take any action under the "Public Participation" section of the agenda. The Council may schedule items not on the agenda as regular items and act upon them in the future. PRESENTATIONS/INTERVIEWS 6:15 p.m. — 6:20 p.m. Presentation to the Financial Services Department of The Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting Fiscal Year ending September 30, 2019. CONSENT AGENDA 6:20 p.m. — 6:25 p.m. 1. Approve Minutes for November 17, 2020 Regular Meeting. 2. Reappoint City Planner Brenda Defoe-Surprenant as the City's Representative on the Space Coast Transportation Planning Organization (SCTPO) Technical Advisory Committee and City resident Arlyn DeBlauw as the North Beaches Coalition Alternate on the SCTPO Citizens' Advisory Committee. 3. Authorize removal of two (2) Specimen Trees at 309 Madison Avenue (Lot 3) at a mitigation ratio of one-to-one. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Meeting December 15, 2020 Page 2 of 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS 6:25 p.m. — 6:35 p.m. 4. Ordinance No. 06-2020; establishing alternative parking surfaces, sustainable green parking lot alternatives and bicycle parking requirements by amending Chapter 110 Zoning, Article IX, Division 2. — Off -Street Parking of the City Code; providing for the repeal of prior inconsistent ordinances and resolutions, incorporation into the Code, severability and an effective date, second reading. 5. Ordinance No. 08-2020; amending Chapter 94 - Signs; providing for amendments to electronic messaging signs; providing for amendments to Section 94-100 and Table 94-96-1 to include sign requirements specifically for the Public/Recreation (PUB/REC) zoning district; providing for the repeal of prior inconsistent ordinances and resolutions, incorporation into the Code, severability and an effective date, second reading. ITEM FOR ACTION 6:35 p.m. — 6:40 p.m. 6. Appoint a Voting Delegate/Director and Alternate to the Space Coast League of Cities. ITEM FOR DISCUSSION 6:40 p.m. — 6:50 p.m. 7. Discussion on the City Ordinances Section 110-475 regarding required sidewalks. (Submitted by Council Member Morrison) REPORTS 6:50 p.m. — 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Florida Statutes, the City hereby advises the public that: If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Council with respect to any matter considered at this meeting, that person will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose that person may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. This notice does not constitute consent by the City for the introduction or admission into evidence of otherwise inadmissible or irrelevant evidence, nor does it authorize challenges or appeals not otherwise allowed by law. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act: all interested parties may attend this Public Meeting. The facility is accessible to the physically handicapped. Persons with disabilities needing assistance to participate in the proceedings should contact the City Clerk's office [(321) 868-1220 x207 or x206] 48 hours in advance of the meeting. CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL ATTENTION: TEMPORARY VIRTUAL PUBLIC MEETING AND COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS IN LIGHT OF COVID-19 EMERGENCY Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic Emergency, attendance at City Hall public meetings is limited in an effort to comply with Federal and State public health and safety directives to keep our citizens, City officials and employees safe. Under these conditions, the City of Cape Canaveral is committed to providing alternative platforms for citizens to virtually attend scheduled public meetings and have an opportunity to submit public comments in an efficient, orderly and safe manner. As a result, the City of Cape Canaveral is temporarily utilizing virtual Communications Media Technology (CMT) for City Council and other board meetings. INSTRUCTIONS FOR VIRTUAL MEETING ATTENDANCE AND AGENDA ACCESS The City of Cape Canaveral's temporary CMT meeting platform is GoToWebinar. Videoconferencing and teleconferencing will be used to virtually connect the following meeting participants: City Staff, City Attorney, City Consultants and Applicant(s), if any, for purposes of conducting public meetings. With the expiration of the Governor's Executive Order No. 20-69, a physical quorum is again required as of November 1, 2020. Provided a physical quorum is present, some City Council Members and/or Board Members may participate virtually, in accordance with §120.54(5)(b)(2), F.S. The public may virtually attend the meeting live by viewing and listening to the meeting by accessing the meeting at an Internet address and/or phone number/access code listed at the top of each respective meeting agenda and on the City website's Community Events Calendar available at: cityofcapecanaveral.org/calendar.php. To obtain a copy of the Council or board meeting agenda, interested persons should go to the City's online Public Records/Laserfiche WebLink and search for the specific board and agenda package at: cityofcapecanaveral.org/publicrecords PARTICIPATION OPPORTUNITIES DURING MEETINGS VIA GOTOWEBINAR (GTW) PLATFORM There will be appropriate times during GoToWebinar hosted meetings when the chairperson or designee of the meeting will invite live public comment during the public participation portion of the meeting and for specific agenda items. You must be properly logged into the live GoToWebinar meeting on your computer or electronic device and have a functioning microphone to participate live. When these invitations are announced by the chairperson or designee at the meeting, citizens may virtually raise their hand (see the green arrow) to speak by pressing the hand feature on the GoToWebinar screen in timely manner so as to be recognized by the GTW Meeting Organizer. File View Audio Sound Check _uI C) Computer audio 0 Phone call y MUTED Microphone (HD Webcam C510) Speakers (High Definition Aud.. When the speaker is recognized by the GTW Meeting Organizer, their audio microphone will be unmuted to address the Council or Board Members. Speakers must clearly state their names and residence for the record and then provide comments within three (3) minutes. Public comments must be relevant to the agenda item being considered at that time. Irrelevant and repetitive comments will be deemed out -of -order and will not be heard. At the conclusion of a citizen's public comment opportunity, the audio will be muted so the Council or Board may continue conducting the meeting. City of Cape Canaveral - Virtual Meeting Instructions — Revised December 7, 2020 Page 1 of 2 Public comments are limited to three (3) minutes. The comments will be heard at the meeting and summarized into the record. Public comments are subject to City meeting rules of decorum. The speaker's activated audio may be muted by the City for violating the time limit or rules of decorum. Please also note that the time allocated to each person for public comment is subject to the discretion of the Council or Board and may be reduced from three (3) minutes based on the number of speakers or comments received or previous comments made by the speaker. PUBLIC COMMENT AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INSTRUCTIONS Public comments in the form of email or written correspondence (either mailed or hand -delivered) will be accepted no later than 24 hours ahead of a scheduled Workshop or Regular Meeting. Public comments in the form of email or written correspondence will be accepted within a reasonable amount of time prior to Special City Council Meetings. Emails and correspondence will not be read into the record at the public meetings. However, emails and correspondence will be forwarded to the City Council and/or Advisory Board Members prior to 12 Noon the day of the scheduled meeting for their review. §286.0114, F.S. affords the public a reasonable opportunity to be heard during public City Council and Advisory Board Meetings. In light of challenges posed to hosting traditional public gatherings due to the COVID-19 Pandemic Emergency, Staff is continually working to develop efficient methods to ensure an accessible range of opportunities for public participation. We appreciate your patience as we work to implement these improvements, and ask that any questions or concerns regarding Public Participation and Public Comments be directed to the City Clerk's Office at cityclerk@cityofcapecanaveral.org or by phone at (321) 868-1220. ACCESSIBILITY STATEMENT The City broadcasts all City Meetings via it's website through a third -party provider that enables live captioning. However, in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, persons needing additional special accommodation to participate in this meeting may contact the City Clerk's Office at (321) 868-1220 no later than one (1) business day prior to the meeting. MISCELLANEOUS The rules established herein are intended to provide a general framework for the conduct of public CMT meetings as authorized pursuant to the Governor's Executive Order No. 20-52. The City of Cape Canaveral reserves the right to modify, amend, or discontinue these temporary procedures for public comments, with or without notice, in order to ensure compliance with applicable laws, rules and regulations; to overcome technical or logistical difficulties or practical challenges in implementing public meetings via CMT; or to ensure the public health, safety and welfare of the public. Thank you for your patience and understanding during this very challenging time. For more information about these temporary procedures or public meetings, please contact the City Clerk. Rev. 12/07/2020 City of Cape Canaveral - Virtual Meeting Instructions — Revised December 7, 2020 Page 2 of 2 City of Cape Canaveral City Council Meeting - December 15, 2020 Agenda Item Summary Presentations/Interviews Subject: Presentation to the Financial Services Department of The Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting Fiscal Year ending September 30, 2019. Department: Administrative/Financial Services Summary: The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) has recognized the Financial Services Department for excellence in Financial Reporting by awarding "The Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting" for its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in the area of governmental accounting and financial reporting, and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by a government and its management. The CAFR was judged by an impartial panel to meet the highest standards of the program including demonstrating a constructive "spirit of full disclosure" to clearly communicate its financial story and motivate potential users and user groups to read the CAFR. The GFOA is a nonprofit professional association serving approximately 17,500 government finance professionals. This is the 25th consecutive year that the City of Cape Canaveral's Financial Services Department has received this prestigious award for excellence in financial reporting. The award exemplifies the dedication, knowledge and professionalism of the Financial Services Department Staff. Submitting Department Director: John DeLeo Date: 11/24/2020 Attachment: GFOA News Release Financial Impact: Staff time and effort to prepare Agenda Item. Reviewed by Administrative/Financial Services Director: John DeLeo '' Date: 11/23/2020 The City Manager recommends the City Council take the following action: Recognize the Financial Services Department with The Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. Approved by City Manager: Todd Morley Date: 11/23/2020 GFOA GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION NEWS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 11/18/2020 For more information contact; Michele Mark Levine, DIrector/TSC Phone: (312) 977-9700 Fax: (312) 977-4896 Email: mlevine@gfoa.org (Chicago. Illinois) --Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) has awarded the Certificate of Achiezetnent for Excellence in Financial Repotting to City of Cape Canaveral for its comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019. The CAFR has been judged by an impartial panel to meet the high standards of the program, which includes demonstrating a constructive "spirit of full disclosure" to clearly communicate its financial story and motivate potential users and user groups to read the CAFR. The Certificate of Achievement is the highest fonn of recognition in the area of governmental accounting and financial reporting, and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by a government and its management. Government Finance Officers Association (GFa4) advances excellence in government finance big providing best practices, professional development, re -sources. and practical research for more than 21,000 members and the communities rhev serve. 203 NORTH LASALLE STREET, SUITE 2700, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60601-1210 Item No. 1 DRAFT CAPE CANAVERAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING City Hall Council Chambers 100 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920 Hybrid Meeting via GoToWebinar Tuesday November 17, 2020 6:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER: The Chair called the Meeting to Order at 6:00 P.M. Mayor Pro Tem Brown led the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Hoog read a statement regarding virtual participation. ROLL CALL: Council Members Present: Mayor Pro Tem Mike Brown Mayor Bob Hoog Council Member Mickie Kellum Council Member Wes Morrison Council Member Angela Raymond Others Present: City Manager City Attorney City Clerk Administrative/Financial Services Director Capital Projects Director Community and Economic Development Director Cultural and Community Affairs Director Leisure Services Director Public Works Services Director Public Works Services Deputy Director Community Affairs Manager Deputy City Clerk Brevard County Sheriff's Office Commander Brevard County Sheriff's Office Lieutenant Canaveral Fire Rescue Chief Todd Morley Anthony Garganese Mia Goforth John DeLeo Jeff Ratliff David Dickey Molly Thomas Gustavo Vergara Jim Moore Tim Carlisle Stephanie Johnson Daniel LeFever Andrew Walters Joanna Seigel Dave Sargeant OATHS OF OFFICE: Royce M. Morrison, Jr. administered the Oath of Office to Wes Morrison and City Attorney Garganese administered the Oath of Office to Angela Raymond. SELECTION OF MAYOR PRO TEM: Mayor Hoog opened the floor to nominations. Mayor Pro Tem Brown nominated Council Member Raymond. Council Member Raymond accepted. Council Member Kellum nominated Council Member Morrison. There being no other nominations, discussion ensued and included how to proceed. Mayor Hoog called for a vote on the nomination of Council Member Raymond. City Clerk Goforth recorded the vote 3-2, with Council Members Kellum and Morrison voting against. City Attorney Garganese called for a formal motion on the nomination. A motion was made by Mayor Hoog, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Brown, to accept the nomination and selection of Angela Raymond as Mayor Pro Tem. The motion carried 3-2, with Council Members Kellum and Morrison voting against. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida DRAFT City Council Meeting — Hybrid November 17, 2020 Page 2 of 6 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: The following individuals provided comments remotely via the webinar. Patrick Campbell, resident, expressed concern regarding the Council Code of Conduct Item from the October 20, 2020 City Council Meeting and requested the Item be brought back to the Council to allow public comment and closure of the Item. Andrew Dodge, resident, expressed concerns related to the Council Code of Conduct, the conduct of Mayor Hoog and requested a response. Mayor Hoog opened discussion up to the City Council. There being none, Public Participation was closed. INTERVIEWS/PRESENTATIONS: Anti -Hate Proclamation: Mayor Pro Tem Raymond read aloud the City of Cape Canaveral Stands Against Hate Proclamation as presented at the June 16, 2020 City Council Meeting. Andrea Shea King, resident, addressed the Council with inquiries and opinions regarding hate speech, freedom of speech, the Proclamation and read aloud portions of the Council Code of Conduct. Discussion ensued. Mayor Hoog indicated the City Council agrees with the spirit of the Proclamation. Interview Applicant for appointment to the Planning and Zoning Board. (Susan Denny): City Attorney Garganese confirmed the information contained in Ms. Denny's application to be true and correct. Ms. Denny provided background information and reasons for her desire to serve. The Council thanked Ms. Denny. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Hoog asked if any Items needed to be removed for discussion. Council Member Kellum removed Items 3 and 6. 1. Approve Minutes for October 20, 2020 Regular Meeting. 2. Resolution No. 2020-29; appointing a member to the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Cape Canaveral; providing for the repeal of prior inconsistent resolutions, severability and an effective date. (Susan Denny) 3. Approve the proposed 2021 City Council Regular and Budget Meeting Schedule. 4. Approve Project Agreement with Florida Inland Navigation District to obtain funding in the amount of $327,400 for construction of improvements to the City -owned estuary property located at the western end of Long Point Road and authorize City Manager to execute same. 5. Approve Amendment No. 1 to Purchase Order No. 19005 to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. in the amount of $72,423.46 for Construction Phase Engineering Services as part of the Headworks and Filter Improvements Project at the Water Reclamation Facility and authorize City Manager to execute same. 6. Authorize removal of one (1) Specimen Tree at 309 Madison Avenue at a mitigation ratio of one-to-one. A motion was made by Council Member Morrison, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Raymond, to pass Consent Agenda Items 1, 2, 4 and 5. The motion carried 5-0. 3. Discussion ensued and included the desire to start Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRA) meetings at 5:00 p.m. A motion was made by Council Member Kellum, seconded by Council Member Morrison, to start all CRA Board Meetings at 5:00 p.m. The motion carried 5-0. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida DRAFT City Council Meeting — Hybrid November 17, 2020 Page 3 of 6 6. Discussion ensued and included possibly tabling the Item, Cape Canaveral being a Tree City that is losing trees, revising the Code of Ordinances related to Specimen Trees, no fee for tree permit removal application versus Staff time involved and the Applicant not being present. Community and Economic Development Director Dickey indicated the Applicant was not interested in tabling the Item and stating his intention was to submit two applications for Lot 3 and 4; however, the Applicant's final submittal did not include Lot 3 in the Application for Removal. Mr. Dickey suggested bringing a revised Agenda Item back to the December City Council Meeting. Discussion continued regarding the purpose for removal of two specimen trees on Lot 3, a Code change could take three months, approval of the Item as is, construction application not submitted yet, summarization of the Specimen Tree removal process, tree bank mitigation related to landscape plans, the State's legislative preemption of the City to regulate any residential trees other than Specimen trees with a diameter greater than 24 inches, calling for a motion to pass the Item as written and a suggestion to poll Council to get consensus for Staff to bring back a draft tree ordinance. A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Raymond, seconded by Council Member Morrison, to authorize removal of one (1) Specimen Tree at 309 Madison Avenue. The motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7. Ordinance No. 05-2020; generally related to land use and zoning requirements; authorizing the operation of "Mobile Food Dispensing Vehicles" as a temporary accessory use in certain limited zoning districts in furtherance of Section 509.102(2), Florida Statutes and at special events and other locations authorized by the City; providing general standards for operating Mobile Food Dispensing Vehicles; providing for the repeal of prior inconsistent ordinances and resolutions; incorporation into the Code; severability; and an effective date, second reading: City Attorney Garganese read the title into the record and reviewed the Item. Discussion ensued and included direction for modifications from Council during the first public hearing of the Ordinance, additional changes, the State preemption on municipalities and the pros and cons of lifting some restrictions on food trucks in the City. During discussion about the Ordinance, the City Council reached consensus to authorize the City Attorney to make five (5) additional revisions to the Ordinance on Second Reading prior to execution of the Ordinance by the Mayor as follows: (1) change the word "paved" to "approved parking surface;" (2) remove the 600 square foot maximum sales area provision; (3) remove the provision prohibiting generator use in residential areas; (4) limit the hours of operation requirement to residential areas only; and (5) add language permitting the City Council to authorize the operation of multiple Mobile Food Dispensing Vehicles on a property. The Public Hearing was opened. There being no comments, Public Hearing was closed. A motion was made by Council Member Kellum, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Raymond, to adopt Ordinance No. 05-2020, with the five (5) changes at second reading. The Motion carried 5-0. 8. Ordinance No. 07-2020; adopting amendments to the Annual General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, Agency Fund, Capital Project Funds, Enterprise Funds and Enterprise Capital Fund Budgets for the Fiscal Year beginning October 1, 2019, and ending September 30, 2020; providing for the repeal of prior inconsistent ordinances and resolutions and an effective date, second reading: City Attorney Garganese read the title into the record. Discussion ensued. The Public Hearing was opened. There being no comments, Public Hearing was closed. A motion was City of Cape Canaveral, Florida DRAFT City Council Meeting — Hybrid November 17, 2020 Page 4 of 6 made by Council Member Brown, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Raymond, to adopt Ordinance No. 07-2020, at second reading. The Motion carried 5-0. 9. Ordinance No. 08-2020; amending Chapter 94 - Signs; providing for amendments to electronic messaging signs; providing for amendments to Section 94-100 and Table 94-96-1 to include sign requirements specifically for the Public/Recreation (PUB/REC) zoning district; providing for the repeal of prior inconsistent ordinances and resolutions, incorporation into the Code, severability and an effective date, first reading: City Attorney Garganese read the title into the record and summarized provisions of the Ordinance. City Manager Morley explained the Planning and Zoning Board recommended the Ordinance by unanimous approval. Discussion ensued and included adding specific zoning districts where electronic signs are permitted into the Ordinance, the hierarchy of streets in transportation planning, the popularity of electronic signs and where they are currently allowed, the intent to focus electronic signs in commercial districts and not impact residential areas. City Attorney Garganese advised significant changes to the Zoning Map could be made due to the Zoning Project underway. Discussion continued regarding the difficulty in getting everyone to agree on signs, the height requirement, graphics, moving animation, Federal standards and compliance, giving direction to Staff to bring back revisions and research regarding limited animation at second reading, content neutral messaging, the potential changes to the character of the City, purpose of signage, lighting issues and previous Community Appearance Board Item related to LED lighting on N. Atlantic Avenue. Council reached consensus, as suggested by City Manager Morley, for a motion to approve the Ordinance as written with two changes: (1) change the language regarding "major public thoroughfares or other high capacity public roadways" to "C1, C2 and M1 Zoning districts", and (2) remove the 10-foot height limitation. The Public Hearing was opened. There being no comments, the Public Hearing was closed. A motion was made by Council Member Brown, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Raymond, to approve Ordinance No. 08-2020, as written with (2) revisions, at first reading. The Motion carried 5-0. ITEM FOR ACTION: 10. Appoint a Council Member as the 2021 Alternate Voting Delegate to the Space Coast Transportation Planning Organization Governing Board, representing the North Beaches Coalition: Mayor Hoog opened the floor to nominations. Discussion ensued. A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Raymond, seconded by Council Member Brown, to reappoint Council Member Kellum as the Alternate Voting Delegate to the Space Coast TPO, representing the North Beaches. Council Member Kellum accepted, stating it would be an honor to serve. The Motion carried 5-0. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: 11. Dogs on the Beach (Submitted by Council Member Raymond): Mayor Pro Tem Raymond explained the Item. Discussion ensued and included resident complaints, enforcement of the prohibition of animals on the beach, current laws and signage at all public entrances regarding the Ordinance except for private condominiums, emotional support animals and how best to monitor dogs on the beach. Commander Walters clarified the Brevard County Sheriff's Office patrol and documentation of activities on the beach, service dogs do not require jackets indicating their status and service animals must be leashed and encouraged City Council members to tell City of Cape Canaveral, Florida DRAFT City Council Meeting — Hybrid November 17, 2020 Page 5 of 6 citizens to direct complaints to the Canaveral Precinct. Rhonda Breininger, property and business owner, suggested the City post signage indicating emotional support dogs be leashed and called for 5-foot-wide sidewalks throughout the City. Commander Walters provided State statute information regarding golf carts and cautioned allowing widespread use of such vehicles. 12. Motorized Bikes, Scooters, Golf Carts on City Sidewalks (Submitted by Council Member Raymond): Mayor Pro Tem Raymond explained the Item and shared information regarding an accident involving a pedestrian in February 2020. Discussion ensued and included the danger and speed of motorized vehicles, difficulties in getting people to use the pedway or abide by traffic laws, motorized skateboards, bikes on sidewalks, posting signage and possible leeway for municipalities to enforce laws. City Manager Morley indicated the language is broad but appears State law gives municipalities some authority to restrict bicycles from sidewalks which Staff can research if Council desires. Commander Walters advised all of these motorized vehicles fall under the definition of a bicycle, whether motorized or not, and are not mandated to be registered, licensed or to hold insurance. Discussion continued regarding regulating all motorized and non - motorized vehicles on sidewalks and the beach and revising City Code language to fit with State statute. City Attorney Garganese provided information regarding the law, effective July 1, 2020, regarding classifications of motorized vehicles and opportunities to improve the City Code of Ordinances. Rhonda Breininger suggested Council consider putting a group together to provide and post uniform rules regarding vacation rental homes. Discussion ensued and included the need to bring the Item to close before moving on, disabled Veterans and handicapped persons use of motorized vehicles, budgeting for safer sidewalks, the City's Comprehensive Plan regarding future use of golf carts, golf carts vs. low -speed vehicles, governing where and how golf carts are used and direction of Staff to review the policy for sustainability purposes. City Manager Morley stated Staff follows the marching orders of Council. Discussion continued. A motion was made by Council Member Morrison, seconded by Council Member Kellum, directing Staff research and return with options on regulating all motorized vehicles on sidewalks, as described in Item 12. Motion carried 5-0. Discussion ensued and included the need to ensure these vehicles are not used as a way to get around DUI convictions or by underage and unlicensed persons. REPORTS: Council Member Morrison thanked his family, Council and Staff for the last three years and looks forward to serving the next three years on Council. Mayor Pro Tem Raymond discussed Space Coast League of Cities cancellation of in -person meetings from the months of April through December 2020, the League decision to try a socially distanced meeting in January 2021, hosted by the City of Palm Bay, and encouraged interested individuals apply for the 2021 SCLOC Scholarship available soon; attending Florida League of Cities Transportation and Intergovernmental Affairs Committee meetings and announced affordable housing is a first priority this year; encourage citizens to apply for the CARES Act funds for rent and mortgage payments; participated in Florida League of Cities virtual Veterans Day celebration, the City's Trunk or Treat Halloween event and thanked residents for supporting her and encouraged citizens to contact her directly. Council Member Brown attended the Space Coast Area Transit event, adding two new Beach Trolleys to Route 9, between Cape Canaveral and Cocoa Beach, and encouraged citizens to try it. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida DRAFT City Council Meeting — Hybrid November 17, 2020 Page 6 of 6 Council Member Kellum requested clarification on whether Council reached consensus to bring back an Item addressing Specimen Tree diameter and fee for removal. City Manager Morley stated Staff can bring it back next month. Council Member Kellum discussed attending the Veterans Day and Trunk or Treat events and thanked Staff for working hard. City Manager Morley thanked Staff, Brevard County Sheriff's Office and Canaveral Fire Rescue; and thanks to Brevard County for giving the City foggers obtained through the CARES Act; and expressed appreciation to City Council for their support. ADJOURNMENT: The Meeting was adjourned at 9:56 P.M. Bob Hoog, Mayor Mia Goforth, City Clerk City of Cape Canaveral City Council Meeting - December 15, 2020 Agenda Item Summary Item No. 2 Subject: Reappoint City Planner Brenda Defoe-Surprenant as the City's Representative on the Space Coast Transportation Planning Organization (SCTPO) Technical Advisory Committee and City resident Arlyn DeBlauw as the North Beaches Coalition Alternate on the SCTPO Citizens' Advisory Committee. Department: City Clerk's Office Summary: The Space Coast Transportation Planning Organization (SCTPO) is a metropolitan planning organization established under §339.175, Florida Statutes, to coordinate transportation planning and finance throughout Brevard County. 2020 City representatives on the SCTPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Citizens' Advisory Committee (CAC) are City Planner Brenda Defoe-Surprenant and City resident Arlyn DeBlauw, respectively. Mrs. Defoe-Surprenant and Mr. DeBlauw have each expressed interest in continuing to serve. Through an agreement with Cocoa Beach, representation on the CAC is shared between the two cities as the North Beaches Coalition (NBC). For 2021, Cocoa Beach's appointee will be the Delegate on the CAC, with Cape Canaveral's appointee serving as the Alternate. It is now incumbent upon City Council to appoint a City employee as the TAC Member and a City resident as the NBC Alternate CAC Member. Submitting Department Director: Mia Goforth ADate: 11/30/2020 Attachments: None. Financial Impact: Staff time and effort to prepare this agenda item. Reviewed by Administrative/Financial Services Director: John DeLeo Date: 11/23/2020 The City Manager recommends the City Council take the following actions: Reappoint City Planner Brenda Defoe-Surprenant as the City's Representative on the SCTPO TAC and City resident Arlyn DeBlauw as the NBC Alternate on the SCTPO CAC. Approved by City Manager: Todd Morley Date: 11/23/2020 City of Cape Canaveral City Council Meeting - December 15, 2020 Agenda Item Summary Item No. 3 Subject: Authorize removal of two (2) Specimen Trees at 309 Madison Avenue (Lot 3) at a mitigation ratio of one-to-one. Department: Community and Economic Development Summary: At its November 17, 2020 Regular Meeting, the Council approved the removal of one (1) Specimen Tree at 309 Madison Avenue (Lot 4) for the construction of a single-family home. In order to construct a second home on the adjacent lot (Lot 3), the Council is being asked to consider an application for the removal of two (2) Specimen Trees. City Code Sec. 102-41 requires that Specimen trees shall be preserved or relocated on site to the greatest extent feasible. However, when City Council is presented with a request to consider the removal of a Specimen Tree, the following criteria must be considered: 1. Whether the site design, as determined by a pre land -clearing inspection, are feasible to allow the use permitted, as established by the applicable zoning district regulations. Streets, rights -of -way, easements, utilities, lake perimeters and lot lines shall be shifted whenever possible to preserve trees. 2. Whether the specimen tree is located within the footprint of the proposed structure or if more than one-third of the specimen tree canopy would be required to be removed in order to accommodate the proposed structure, and whether or not it is feasible to relocate the structure. 3. Whether the location of the specimen tree prevents any access to the property from a publicly dedicated and maintained roadway, or whether the tree constitutes a hazard to pedestrian or vehicular traffic that cannot be mitigated without removing the tree. 4. Whether the location of the specimen tree interferes with or prevents the construction of utility lines, drainage facilities, roadways or required vehicular use area which cannot be practically relocated or rerouted. 5. Whether the specimen tree is diseased, weakened by age, storm, fire or other injury so as to pose a danger to persons, property, site improvements or other trees. In this particular case, the subject specimen trees qualify for removal under Paragraph #2, above. On September 29, 2020, the City Arborist conducted a site inspection and verified the trees proposed to be removed are Specimen Live Oak trees. A complete Application for Tree Removal was submitted by Turnkey Construction on November 16, 2020 (Attachment 1). The City Arborist submitted a Tree Hazard Evaluation Form for each of the trees (Attachment 2). The Evaluation Forms indicate the following: Tree #1: a diameter at breast height (dbh) of twenty-four (24) inches, approximately forty-five (45) feet in height and has a twenty-five (25) foot canopy spread Tree #2: a diameter at breast height (dbh) of twenty-four (24) inches, approximately forty-five (45) feet in height and has a fifty (50) foot canopy spread The Arborist's report indicated, at the time of inspection, the trees were in good health. City of Cape Canaveral City Council Meeting — December 15, 2020 Agenda Item No. _3 Page 2 of 2 Sec. 102-41(b) of the City's Code indicates: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this division, specimen trees shall not be removed except for extraordinary circumstances and hardships and only by final permit approved by the city council. As a condition of removal of any specimen tree, the city council shall have the right to require that replacement trees be planted or a contribution to the tree bank be made [...]" As indicated on the attached Site Plan/Survey (Attachment 3), the Specimen Trees are located in the footprint of the proposed home, which necessitates their removal. Therefore, mitigation is required per Sec. 102-41(b). Staff recommends City Council authorize removal of the Specimen Trees, with the required mitigation completed by the time of issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed home. Staff recommends removal of the trees be mitigated at a ratio of one-to-one which can be in the form of a contribution to the City's Tree Bank or planting of replacement trees. The Applicant has indicated on the application that he does not wish to plant any more trees onsite, therefore, he will be required to pay into the tree bank. Please note that under Sec. 102-39 (g), a permit for the removal of a Specimen Tree shall expire 90 days from the date of issuance for a single-family project and should the tree not be removed during the life of the permit, a new permit is required. As the Specimen Trees are healthy and do not pose a danger to persons or property, it is not subject to 163.04, F.S. "Tree pruning, trimming, or removal on residential property." Thus, the City has authority to grant, deny or require mitigation for authorization for removal of the trees. Submitting Department Director: David Dickey Date: 12/04/2020 Attachments: 1 — Tree Removal Application 2 — Tree Hazard Evaluation Forms - Photos 3 — Site Plan/Survey (Lot 3) Financial Impact: Staff time and effort to complete this agenda item. Reviewed by Administrative/Financial Services Director: John DeLeo Date: 12/03/2020 The City Manager recommends the City Council take the following action: Authorize removal of two (2) Specimen Trees located at 309 Madison Avenue (Lot 3) at a mitigation ratio of one-to- one. Approved by City Manager: Todd Morley Date: 12/03/2020 Attachment 1 CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL 100 POLK AVENUE CAPE CANAVERAL, FL 32920 (321) 868-1220 phone (321) 868-1247 fax b.palmer@cityofcapecnaveral.org Application Date: APPLI CATION FOR TREE REMOVAL City of Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances Section 102-39 (a) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address: Street City Zip Owner's Name: Gallee llc Last First Telephone Number Owner's Address: Street City Zip 309 Madison Ave Cape Canaveral 32920 Street City Zip 400 Harbor Dr Cape Canaveral 32920 CONTRACTOR'S INFORMATION (APPLICANT) Qualifier Name: Gressani. Chad Last First Owner/Builder License # CGCO61042 Company Name: Turnkey Construction Address: # Street City Zip 3995 Harlock Rd Melbourne FL 32920 Fax #: N/A Phone #: 321-403-3263 E-Mail: Cocoabeach123@aol.com XSingle Family Residence ❑Townhome ❑Apartment ❑ Other PROJECT INFORMATION Please clarify the reason tree(s) must be removed: Tree removal Trees are located in the footprint where the new house wil! be going. See Survey Do you plan to replant? Please Describe: No. A bunch of trees will still be on the lot How many trees do you plan to replant: N/A Notes: d.b.h is diameter at breast height (4 1/2 feet above grade) Caliper is the measurement of a tree 12 inches from the soil level. A Specimen Tree is one with a 24" or greater caliper measurement. City Council shall have final approval authority for the removal of Specimen Trees. *The property owner may select to hire their own certified arborist or Florida licensed landscape architect and obtain documentation that the tree presents a danger to persons or property, without first applying for or obtaining a permit from the city. *If the property owner or contractor would like to utilize the City Arborist, the City Arborist must complete his tree report prior to any tree removal. *ALL trees to be removed must be marked prior to the City Arborists inspection. Intl. FORM DATE: 7/30/2019 PAGE 1 of 2 FORM: APPL. APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT Application is hereby made to obtain a permit to do the tree removal and replacement work as indicated. I certify that no work or installation has commenced prior to the issuance eta permit and that all work will be performed to meet the standards of all laws regulating tree removal in this jurisdiction. A copy of the permit shalt be posted on -site until all tree removal activiities are complete. By signing, applicant affirms that all above is true and correct and that he/she is an authorized agent of the Contractor and/or the Owner and has the authority to apply for this permit. Signature: Contractor/Applicant Date: 10/12/20 State of Florida County of Brevard Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12 day of October, 2020, personally appeared Chad gresson I who is personally known to me or produced --------- as identification, and who did,did not take an oath. Notary Public Signature Seal Notary Public State of Florida Brandy Torres My Commission GG 186918 Expires 02/18/2022 DISCLAIMER: CS/HB 1159 (1) A local government may not require a notice, application, approval, permit, fee, or mitigation for the pruning, trimming, or removal of a tree on residential properly if the property owner obtains documentation from an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture or a Florida licensed landscape architect that the tree presents a danger to persons or property. FORM DATE: 7/30/2019 PAGE 2 of 2FORM: APPL [Photo of Tree - dated Sep 3, 2020] [Photo of Tree - dated Sep 3, 2020] Attachment 2 A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas TREE HAZARD EVALUATION FORM 2nd Edition Site/Address: 309 Madison ave. Lot 3&4 Map/Location: Owner: public private X unknown other Date: 8/24/20 Inspector: City of Cape Canaveral - Tim Davis Date of last inspection: Unknown HAZARD RATING: 1 + 3 + Failure + Size + Potential of part 4 8 Target = Hazard Rating Rating Immediate action needed Needs further inspection Dead tree TREE CHARACTERISTICS Tree #: 1 Species: Quercus virginana " Live Oak " DBH: 24 in. # of trunks: 1 Height: 45 ft. Spread: 25 ft. Form: ❑✓ generally symmetric ❑minor asymmetry ❑ major asymmetry ❑stump sprout ❑stag -headed Crown class: ✓❑ dominant ❑ co -dominant ❑ intermediate ❑suppressed Live crown ratio: 100 % Age class: ❑ young ❑ semi -mature ✓❑ mature Dover-mature/senescent Pruning history: ❑ crown cleaned ❑ excessively thinned ❑ topped ❑crown raised ❑pollarded ❑ crown reduced ❑flush cuts ❑cabled/braced ❑ none ✓❑ multiple pruning events Approx. dates: Unknown. Special Value: ✓❑specimen ❑ heritage/historic ❑wildlife ❑ unusual ❑ street tree ❑screen ❑shade ❑ indigenous ❑ protected by gov_ agency TREE HEALTH Foliage color ID normal chlorotic ❑necrotic Epicormics? YONO Foliage density: 0 normal ❑ sparse Leaf size: ✓❑ normal ❑ small Annual shoot growth: ❑ excellent 0 average ❑ poor Twig Dieback? YON© Woundwood development: ❑excellent ❑average ❑poor 'Inane Vigor class: ❑excel lent 0 average ❑fair ❑ poor Major pests/diseases: None at the time of my inspection. Growth obstructions: ▪ stakes wire/ties ❑signs ❑cables ❑ curb/pavement ❑guards 0 other None. SITE CONDITIONS Site Character ✓❑residence ❑commercial ❑industrial ❑park ❑open space ❑natural ❑woodlandlforest Landscape type: ❑ parkway raised bed ❑ container ❑ mound ❑lawn ❑ shrub border ❑ wind break Irrigation: X ❑ none adequate ❑ inadequate ❑excessive ❑trunk wettled Recent site disturbance? YON® ❑construction ❑soil disturbance ❑grade change ❑line clearing ❑site clearing % dripline paved: 0°I00 10-25%❑25-50%❑50-75%❑75-100% 0 Pavement lifted? YON Q % dripline w/fill soil: 0%0 10-25%❑25-50%❑50-75GA 75-100% 0 % dripline grade Towered: 0%0 10-25%❑25-50%050-75%❑75-100% 0 Soil problems: ❑drainage❑shallow ❑compacted❑✓ droughty saline ❑✓ alkaline Dacidic ❑small volume ❑disease center history of fail clay expansive ❑slope ° aspect: Obstructions: lights ❑signage ❑line -of -sight ❑view ❑overhead lines underground utilities ❑traffic ❑adjacentveg. X ❑ None. Exposure to wind: ✓❑ single tree ❑ below canopy X ❑ above canopy ❑ recently exposed ❑ windward, canopy edge ❑area prone to windthrow Prevailing wind direction: East Occurrence of snow/ice storms X ❑never ❑seldom ❑regularly TARGET Use Under Tree: ❑building parking ❑ traffic ❑pedestrian ❑recreation ❑landscape ❑hardscape ❑small features ❑utility lines Can target be moved? YONO Can use be restricted? YONO Occupancy: ❑occasional use ❑intermittent use frequent use ❑✓ constant use The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form. TREE DEFECTS ROOT DEFECTS: Suspect root rot: YON O Mushroom/conk/bracket present: YON O ID: Exposed roots: ✓❑ severe ❑ moderate ❑ low Undermined: ❑ severe ❑ moderate ❑✓ low Root pruned: 0 ft. distance from trunk Root area affected: 0 Buttress wounded: YONO When: Restricted root area: ❑severe ❑ moderate ✓❑ low Potential for root failure: ❑severe ✓❑moderate ❑ low LEAN: deg from vertical ✓❑natural ❑unnatural ❑self -corrected Soil heaving: YONO Decay in plane of lean: YONO Roots broken MONO Soil cracking: YONO Compounding factors: None. Lean severity: ❑severe moderate ✓❑low CROWN DEFECTS: Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s = severe, m = moderate, 1= low) DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poor taper L L L L Bow, sweep L L L L Codominants/forks L L L L Multiple attachments L L L L Included bark L L L L Excessive end weight N/A L L L Cracks/splits L L L L Hangers N/A L L L Girdling L L L L Wounds/seam L L L L Decay L L L L Cavity L L L L Conks/mushrooms/bracket L L L L Bleeding/sap flow L L L L Loose/cracked bark L L L L Nesting hole/bee hive L L L L Deadwood/stubs L L L L Borers/termites/ants L L L L Cankers/galls/burls L L L L Previous failure L L L L HAZARD RATING Tree part most likely to fail: Healthy oak. Failure potential: 1 - low; 2 - medium; 3 - high; 4 - severe Inspection period: annual biannual other 1 time. Size of part: 1 - <6" (15 cm): 2 - 6-18" (15-45 cm); 3- 18-30" (45-75 cm); 4 - >30" (75 cm) Target rating: 1 - occasional use; 2 intermittent use; 3 - frequent use; 4 - constant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: ❑remove defective part ❑reduce end weight ❑crown clean ❑thin ❑raise canopy crown reduce ❑restructure ❑shape Inspect further: ❑root crown ❑decay ❑ aerial ❑ monitor Failure Potential + Size of Part + Target Rating = Hazard Rating 1 + 3 + 4 = 8 Cable/Brace: Remove tree: YONO Replace? YONO Move target: YONO Other: Effect on adjacent trees: ✓❑ none evaluate Notification: Xowner ❑✓ manager ✓❑governing agency Date: 8/24/20 COMMENTS The tree i inspected today was a Specimen Live Oak. At the time of my inspection, this Specimen Live Oak was in good health with no hazards. If you have any questions, please call or e-mail me. Thank you, Tim Davis FLO509A [Photo of Tree - dated Sep 3, 2020] A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas TREE HAZARD EVALUATION FORM 2nd Edition Site/Address: 309 Madison ave. Map/Location: Owner: public private X unknown other Date: 9/29/20 Inspector: City of Cape Canaveral - Tim Davis Date of last inspection: Unknown HAZARD RATING: 1 + 3 + 4=8 Failure + Size + Potential of part Target = Hazard Rating Rating Immediate action needed Needs further inspection Dead tree TREE CHARACTERISTICS Tree #: 1 Species: DBH: 24 in. # of trunks: 1 Height: 45 ft. Spread: 50 ft. Form: ❑✓ generally symmetric ❑minor asymmetry ❑ major asymmetry ❑stump sprout ❑stag -headed Crown class: ✓❑ dominant ❑ co -dominant ❑ intermediate ❑suppressed Live crown ratio: 100 % Age class: ❑ young ❑ semi -mature ✓❑ mature Dover-mature/senescent Pruning history: crown cleaned excessively thinned topped ❑crown raised ❑pollarded❑crown reduced❑flush cuts ❑cabled/braced ❑ none ✓❑ multiple pruning events Approx. dates: Unknown Special Value: ✓❑specimen ❑ heritage/historic ❑wildlife ❑ unusual ❑ street tree ❑screen ❑shade ❑ indigenous ❑ protected by gov.agency TREE HEALTH Foliage color O normal chlorotic ❑necrotic Epicormics? YONO Foliage density: 0 normal ❑ sparse Leaf size: Dnormal ❑ small Annual shoot growth: ❑ excellent 0 average ❑ poor Twig Dieback? YON® Woundwood development: ❑excellent ❑average ❑poor none Vigor class: ❑excellent 0 average ❑fair ❑ poor Major pests/diseases: None at the time of my inspection. Growth obstructions: ▪ stakes wire/ties ❑signs ❑cables ❑ curb/pavement ❑guards X other None SITE CONDITIONS Site Character ✓❑residence ❑commercial ❑industrial ❑park ❑open space ❑natural ❑woodland/forest Landscape type: ❑ parkway raised bed ❑ container ❑ mound X❑lawn ❑ shrub border ❑ wind break Irrigation: X ❑ none adequate ❑ inadequate ❑excessive ❑trunk wettled Recent site disturbance? YONO ❑construction ❑soil disturbance ❑grade change ❑line clearing ❑site clearing % dripline paved: 0% ❑ 10-25% 25-50%=X 50-75% 75-100% 0 Pavement lifted? YONO % dripline w/fill soil: 0% X 10-25%❑ 25-50%❑ 50-75% 75-100% 0 % dripline grade Towered: 0%0 10-25% X 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% 0 Soil problems: ❑drainage❑shallow ❑compacted❑✓ droughty saline ❑✓ alkaline Dacidic ❑small volume ❑disease center history of fail clay expansive ❑slope ° aspect: Obstructions: Plights ❑signage ❑line -of -sight ❑view ❑overhead lines underground utilties ❑traffic ❑adjacent veg. X❑ None. Exposure to wind: ✓❑ single tree ❑ below canopy ❑ above canopy ❑ recently exposed ❑ windward, canopy edge ❑area prone to windthrow Prevailing wind direction: East Occurrence of snow/ice storms X ❑never ❑seldom ❑regularly TARGET Use Under Tree: ❑building parking ❑traffic ❑pedestrian ❑recreation El landscape ❑hardscape ❑small features ❑utility lines Can target be moved? Y©NO Can use be restricted? YONO Occupancy: ❑occasional use ❑intermittent use frequent use ❑✓ constant use The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form. TREE DEFECTS ROOT DEFECTS: Suspect root rot: YONO Mushroom/conk/bracket present: YONO ID: Exposed roots: ❑ severe ❑ moderate ✓❑ low Undermined: ❑ severe ❑ moderate X-low Root pruned: 0 ft. distance from trunk Root area affected: 0% Buttress wounded: Y©NO When: Restricted root area: ❑severe ❑ moderate ✓❑ low Potential for root failure: ❑severe ❑moderate ✓❑ low LEAN: - deg from vertical ✓❑natural ❑unnatural ❑self -corrected Soil heaving: YONO Decay in plane of lean: YONO Roots broken Y©NO Soil cracking: YONO Compounding factors: Specimen Tree. Lean severity: ❑severe moderate ✓❑low CROWN DEFECTS: Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s = severe, m = moderate, I = low) Dow DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poor taper L L L L Bow, sweep L L L L Codominantsit orks N/A L L L Multiple attachments L L L L Included bark L L L L Excessive end weight N/A L L L Cracks/splits L L L L Hangers N/A L L L Girdling L L L L Wounds/seam L L L L Decay L L L L Cavity L L L L Conks/mushrooms/bracket L L L L Bleeding/sap flow L L L L Loose/cracked bark L L L L Nesting hole/bee hive L L L L Deadwood/stubs L L L L Borers/termites/ants L L L L Cankers/galls/burls L L L L Previous failure L L L L HAZARD RATING Tree part most likely to fail: Healthy tree. Inspection period: annual biannual other 1 time Failure Potential + Size of Part + Target Rating = Hazard Rating 1 + 3 + 4 = 8 Failure potential: 1 - low; 2 - medium; 3 - high; 4 - severe Size of part: 1 - <6" (15 cm): 2 - 6-18" (15-45 cm); 3- 18-30" (45-75 cm); 4 - >30" (75 cm) Target rating: 1 - occasional use; 2 intermittent use; 3 - frequent use: 4 - constant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: ❑remove defective part ❑reduce end weight ❑crown clean ❑thin ❑raise canopy crown reduce ❑restructure ❑shape Inspect further: ❑root crown ❑decay ❑ aerial ❑ monitor Cable/Brace: Remove tree: YONO Replace? YONO Move target: YONO Other: Effect on adjacent trees: ✓❑ none ❑evaluate Notification: owner ❑✓ manager ✓❑governing agency Date: 9/29/20 COMMENTS The tree i inspected today was a Specimen Oak. At the time of my inspection, this was in good health with no hazards. Thank you, Tim Davis FLO509A [Photo of Tree - dated Sep 3, 2020] DAVID A. BLOCK SURVEYING & MAPPING BOUNDARY SURVEY OF: LOT 3 BLOCK 21 AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF AVON BY THE SEA AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3 PAGE 7 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF $REVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. MADISON AVE {48' PUBLIC RIGHT —OF --WAY) 4ry ;6,EEKISTNC r CONG Lammy a` CORNER TO BE SET 6' C.LF. {0.S11){0.Y11) LOT 2 BLOCK 21 NOTE: ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ore NGV0102B DATUM - LEGEND {AKA) L.B.. C•LF. CAL CDR. COVv (0) FD ID I.P. r.R. LB {Mna (P)m PC PT PL P.S.M. FRC P,u.vv. RJW {PEP-) 24' OAK is' PAW 17' P t2' PAL 5' PAW 17 TREE CORNER TO BE SET 6' LOT 10 BLOCK 21 ALSO KNOVN AS CENTERLINE CONCRETE BLOCK CONCRETE eLOCK STRUCTURE CHAIN LINK FENCE CLEAR CONCRETE MONUMENT CONCRETE CORNER COVERED DELTA DEED FWND IDENTVICATON IRON PIPE IRON ROD LENGTH LICENSE EUSNESS LICENSE SURVErOR 1IEASURED NAIL & DISK PLATTED POINT OF CURVATURE. POINT OF TANGENCY PROPERTY UNE PROFESSIONAL SuRV[YGR & YAPPER POINT OF REVERSE CURVE PUBLIC UTIUTT 1 DRAINAGE RADIUS RICHT-OF-WAY TYPICAL HOOD FENCE 1 9 ! IS' FAIN PROPOSED CONE. ORIVRAY 22. PROPOSC0 ON TO BE S. T1ICK 1y, f Apj y->,hs CORNER TO Ak CBE SET ROPOSED 4 :UNC. WALK 8.0' PROPOSED DENCE MADI c •:04,- FINI $e-o ELEVAT ¢77 3' ABQVE L •F ROAD) OAK lj\[ le PALM 95' PA;A1 8.0' PORCH LOT 3 BLOCK 21 TREE 50.00 P) N89'55'45"E 50.00'(C) LOT 11 4. °g BLOCK 21 LOT 4 BLOCK 21 CORNER TO DE SET LOT 12 BLOCK 21 CERTIFIED TO: _TURNKEY CONSTRUCTION SURVEYOR'S NOTES 1) THE BEARING SYSTEM SH0IAN HEREON IS BASED ON A ASSUMED BEARING or N.S0'OD'OD'E., ALONG THE SOUTH RICHT—OF—WAY UNE OF MADISON AVE. 2) AS PER FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP NO.T20D9C 0363 0. INDEX DATED 03-17-2014, THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY LIES IN ZONE 0. 3) THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED FROM TITLE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE SURVEYOR. THERE MAY OE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS OR EASEMENTS THAT AFFECT THE PROPERTY, 4) THIS TRACT CONTAJNS 6.250 SQUARE FEET DR D.14 ACRES OF LAND MORE OR LESS. 5) UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND FOUNDATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN. 6) NOT VAUD VATHQUT SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL RASED SEAL OF A FLORIDA UCENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER. UA9IUTY SHALL N0T E>ICEED THE TOTAL AYOUNT PAID TO THE SURVEYOR BT THE WENT, L1 50.00'(P) N90'00'00-E 50,00'(C) DAVID A. BLOCK FLORIDA P.S.M. 6263 (NOT VAUD UNLE55 SEALED) 1545 BREAM STREET MERRITT ISLAND, FL. 32952 PHONE: 321--452-7048 FAX: 321-452-5109 www.blocksurveying.com dblockf4locksurveying.com SCALE. 1" = 20 GATE: _ 08J27/2020 SHEET: 1 OF 1 PROJECT: 19-029G REVISION: 1 Attachment 3 City of Cape Canaveral City Council Meeting - December 15, 2020 Agenda Item Summary Item No. 4 Subject: Ordinance No. 06-2020; establishing alternative parking surfaces, sustainable green parking lot alternatives and bicycle parking requirements by amending Chapter 110 Zoning, Article IX, Division 2. — Off-street Parking of the City Code; providing for the repeal of prior inconsistent ordinances and resolutions, incorporation into the Code, severability and an effective date, second reading. Department: Community and Economic Development Summary: City Council accepted the City's Vulnerability Assessment at its August 20, 2019, Regular Meeting. Low Impact Development "includes the innovative design of parking lots which are a major source of impervious pavement. Green Parking Lots, with high levels of natural absorbent landscaping are a great mitigation strategy to help reduce stormwater run-off, increases natural filtration, reduces the heat island effect and improves water quality." Furthermore, "To achieve greener parking lots, the City should assess local codes to minimize the land area devoted to parking by reducing parking stall dimensions, promote shared parking and reduce the minimum number of parking spaces required." (emphasis added) At its November 19, 2019 Regular Meeting, the City Council discussed the need to revise the City's off-street parking requirements to provide for more environmentally green and sustainable parking lot facilities. The Minutes of said Meeting reflect Council discussion including "parking regulations related to private and commercial properties, parking on grass in residential and commercial areas, sustainability solutions, impacts on the Indian River Lagoon, harmful nature of minimum parking requirements across the country and moving away from minimum dimensions." As requested by Council, the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board, at its December 4, 2019 Meeting, discussed possible revisions to City Code related to off-street parking, to include: • the size of off-street parking spaces; • the creation of a new category of parking spaces for compact cars; • establishing standards for alternative parking; • providing for administrative parking reductions; and • the use of Alternative Parking Surfaces. After much discussion on the topic, the P&Z Board requested Staff prepare a draft Ordinance. In response, the City Attorney prepared the attached Ordinance reflecting the Board's previous discussion. Highlights of the proposed Ordinance, which represents a significant policy change on how the City manages off-street parking, include: • Reduce the minimum paved area for a parking space from 180 to 162 square feet and reduce the minimum width from 10 to 9 feet. • Create a compact parking space provision with minimum dimensions of eight (8) feet in width and a minimum length of 16 feet. Parking areas of seven or more spaces may include up to 30 percent of the required spaces to be dedicated for compact parking. • Parking areas with 20 or more spaces may substitute up to five (5) spaces or five (5) percent of the required auto parking spaces with motorcycle spaces. • Allow for administrative parking reductions for residential and mixed -use projects up to 15 percent of the required parking. No person shall change a use of land subject to a parking reduction. City of Cape Canaveral City Council Meeting — December 15, 2020 Agenda Item No. 4 Page 2 of 2 • Encourage the use of pervious parking surfaces by reducing the number of required spaces by a maximum of 10 percent. • Require parking spaces, in excess of 110 percent of the required spaces, be improved with a pervious surface. • Allow for the use of Alternative Parking Surfaces that result in a more environmentally green and sustainable parking facility by demonstrating consistency and compliance with a significant combination of the following factors: o Inclusion of facilities for alternative modes of transportation. o Incorporation of o-nsite shared parking facilities. o The aesthetic and environmentally friendly integration of the parking facility into the surrounding built and natural environment. o Management of water as a resource by promoting increased onsite infiltration and retention. o Minimizing the heat island effect through shading and use of alternative pavement materials. o Conservation of energy usage; encourage the use of sustainable energy infrastructure such as solar lighting. o Elimination of excess lighting. o Creation of community focal points. o Providing a sustainable growing environment for generous planting and tree rooting areas. • Establish minimum maintenance standards for Alternative Parking Surfaces. At its September 24, 2020 Meeting, the City's Land Planning Agency (P&Z Board) unanimously recommended approval of Ordinance No. 06-2020. The City Attorney has revised the Ordinance based on Council input from the October 20, 2020 Regular Meeting. Notably, the installation of a pervious surface shall be in accordance with the manufacturer's guidelines as approved by the City Engineer. Additionally, Staff has included a requirement that where a pervious pavement incentive is utilized, it shall result in additional on -site stormwater storage capacity beyond that which would have otherwise been required. The Notice of Hearing was placed for advertisement in Florida Today on December 3, 2020 and the Ordinance is now presented for second reading and final adoption. Submitting Department Director: David Dickey Date: 12/08/2020 Attachment: Ordinance No. 06-2020 Financial Impact: Cost of advertisement and codification; Staff time and effort to prepare this agenda item. Reviewed by Administrative/Financial Services Director: John DeLeo Date: 12/08/2020 City Manager recommends City Council take the following action: Adopt Ordinance No. 06-2020, second reading. Approved by City Manager: Todd Morley Date: 12/08/2020 1 ORDINANCE NO. 06-2020 2 3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, BREVARD COUNTY 4 FLORIDA; ESTABLISHING ALTERNATIVE PARKING SURFACES, SUSTAINABLE 5 GREEN PARKING LOT ALTERNATIVES AND BICYCLE PARKING 6 REQUIREMENTS BY AMENDING CHAPTER 110 ZONING, ARTICLE IX, 7 DIVISION 2. — OFF-STREET PARKING OF THE CITY CODE; PROVIDING FOR THE 8 REPEAL OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS, 9 INCORPORATION INTO THE CODE, SERVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 10 11 WHEREAS, the City is granted the authority, under Section 2(b), Article VIII, of the State 12 Constitution, to exercise any power for municipal purposes, except when expressly prohibited by 13 law; and 14 15 WHEREAS, on August 20 2019, the City Council accepted the Resilient Cape Canaveral 16 Report which promotes the implementation of innovative designs of parking lots including 17 reducing the size of spaces, lots and pervious surfaces, as well as promoting natural absorbent 18 landscaping, for purposes of improving natural infiltration of rainfall and water quality, reducing 19 stormwater runoff to the Banana River Lagoon and reducing heat island effects caused by pervious 20 paved parking lots; and 21 22 WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that the environmental sustainability efforts set 23 forth in this Ordinance serve a legitimate governmental purpose for the overall betterment of the 24 community; and 25 26 WHEREAS, the City's Land Planning Agency reviewed and recommended approval of the 27 Ordinance at its September 24, 2020 meeting; and 28 29 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, hereby finds this 30 Ordinance to be in the best interests of the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of 31 Cape Canaveral. 32 33 BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Brevard County, 34 Florida, as follows: 35 36 Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are hereby fully incorporated herein by 37 this reference as legislative findings and the intent and purpose of the City Council of the City of 38 Cape Canaveral. 39 City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 06-2020 Page 1 of 11 1 Section 2. Code Amendment. Chapter 110 — Zoning, Article IX, Division 2. — 2 Offstreet Parking is hereby amended as follows (underlined type indicates additions and strikeout 3 type indicates deletions, while *** indicate deletions from this Ordinance of said Chapter, Article 4 and Division that shall remain unchanged in the City Code): 5 6 Chapter 110 — ZONING 7 8 *** 9 Article IX. Supplementary District Regulations 10 11 *** 12 Division 2. — OFFSTREET PARKING 13 14 15 Sec. 110-491. - Number of spaces required. 16 17 There shall be provided at the time of the erection or change of use of any main building 18 or structure or at the time any main building or structure is enlarged or increased in 19 capacity, by adding dwelling units, guestrooms, floor area or seats, minimum offstreet 20 automobile parking space with adequate provisions for ingress or egress in accordance 21 with the following: 22 23 *** 24 (15) All other uses. To be determined by the city manager or designee building official, 25 who shall use the ratios established in this section as a standard for determining the 26 requirements. 27 28 Sec. 110-492. - Location of spaces. 29 30 (a) Parking spaces for all residential uses shall be located on the same property as the 31 main building, except that one-half the total number of required spaces for multiple -family 32 dwellings, townhouses and mobile homes may be located in a common parking facility 33 not more than 200 feet distant from the nearest boundary of the main building site. 34 (b) Parking spaces for other uses other than residential shall be provided on the same 35 lot or off -site on an adjacent or different property not more than 500 feet distant distance 36 measured from the nearest point of public entrance to the building to the nearest point 37 of the off -site parking area. The availability of off -site parking shall be marked with City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 06-2020 Page 2 of 11 1 2 directional signage. A convenient pedestrian connection shall be provided between the properties. 3 (c) Parking requirements for two or more uses of the same or different types may be 4 satisfied by the allocation of the required number of spaces for each use in a common 5 parking facility. 6 (d) Required offstreet parking areas for seven or more automobiles shall have individual 7 spaces marked and shall be so designed, maintained and regulated that no parking or 8 maneuvering shall be on any landscaped buffer, public street, walk or alley and so that any 9 automobile may be parked and unparked without moving another, allowing, however, a 10 driveway of not more than 24 feet total on any street or alley for ingress or egress to the 11 offstreet parking area. 12 (e) Parking spaces, access drives and aisles, and dumpster areas are permitted within 13 setbacks. 14 (f) Temporary parking on unpaved areas may be approved by the city manager or 15 designee as part of a permitted outdoor entertainment event or city special event. Such 16 approval shall apply only to properly licensed, operable motor vehicles for a specified 17 limited duration. 18 (g) Whenever a property owner or owners desire to propose a shared or off -site parking 19 arrangement on an adjacent or different property, the property owner(s) shall submit a 20 written explanation to the community development director explaining how the shared or 21 off -site parking arrangement will function in a safe and efficient manner consistent with 22 the requirements of the City Code. If the community development director and city 23 engineer determine that the arrangement will function sufficiently, the arrangement may 24 be approved by the City subject to the property owner(s) submitting a written cross access 25 and parking easement to the community development director for consideration and 26 approval by the City. If approved, the easement shall be recorded in the Official Records 27 of Brevard County, Florida prior to the shared or off -site parking arrangement becoming 28 effective and shall run with the land of the affected properties. If any party to the 29 easement withdraws, the affected property owners shall be required to satisfy the parking 30 requirements on -site in accordance with the provisions of the City Code. 31 *** 32 Sec. 110-494. — Dimensions. 33 34 (a) Offstreet parking spaces shall consist of a minimum paved area of 180 162 35 square feet for parking an automobile, exclusive of access drives or aisles thereto. 36 The minimum width of each space shall be 10 9 feet and minimum length shall be 37 18 feet. City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 06-2020 Page 3 of 11 1 2 (b) Compact Parking Spaces. In parking areas for seven or more automobiles, 3 up to 30% of the total required parking spaces may be compact. The minimum 4 width of each space shall be 8 feet and minimum length shall be 16 feet. All 5 Compact spaces shall be prominently marked, posted and oriented to discourage 6 use by non -compact vehicles. 7 8 Sec. 110-495. — Alternative Sustainable Green Parking Lots. 9 10 (a) The city manager or designee may approve alternative parking 11 requirements and plans for commercial, industrial, multi -family, and mixed- 12 use developments in lieu of the standard parking requirements set forth in 13 the City Code as an incentive to encourage the construction of sustainable 14 green parking lots. Alternative parking requirements and plans may be 15 approved upon a finding that the alternative parking requirements and 16 plans will not only provide adequate parking for the affected land uses on 17 the subject property, but will also result in a more environmentally green 18 and sustainable parking lot by demonstrating consistency with the intent 19 and purpose of this section and compliance with a significant combination 20 of the following factors: 21 22 (i) The inclusion of facilities for alternative modes of transportation and 23 vehicles such as bicycles, motorcycles and compact vehicles; 24 25 (ii) The incorporation of long term shared parking facilities and 26 arrangements with affected on -site land uses with varying parking 27 demands or adjacent properties that reduce the number of required 28 parking spaces. Shared parking facilities and off -site parking 29 arrangements with adjacent or different properties shall be subject to the 30 requirements set forth in Section 110-492 of the City Code; 31 32 (iii) The aesthetic and environmentally friendly integration of the parking 33 facility into the surrounding built and natural environment; 34 35 (iv) Management of water as a resource by promoting infiltration and 36 natural water retention systems; 37 38 (v) Minimizing the heat island effect through effective and generous 39 shading, reduced parking spaces and alternative pavement materials; 40 City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 06-2020 Page 4 of 11 1 (vi) Conservation of energy usage by encouraging the placement of 2 sustainable energy infrastructure such as solar lighting and low energy 3 usage infrastructure; 4 5 (vii) Eliminating excess lighting that can waste energy, cause light 6 trespass, and diminish dark sky vistas; 7 8 (viii) Creation of focal points that add community character; 9 10 (ix) Providing a suitable growing environment for generous planting and 11 tree rooting areas by implementing safe and healthy planting practices 12 including, but not limited to, planting native high grade plant species, 13 improving soil conditions, incorporating watering and natural moisture 14 delivery and drainage systems to sustain plantings, incorporating 15 bioretention areas, and planting plant materials in groups and large swaths 16 to minimize maintenance and weeding costs. 17 18 (b) This section shall be liberally construed to implement sustainable green parking 19 facilities within the City of Cape Canaveral in lieu of traditional, less environmentally 20 friendly parking standards. The design, construction and maintenance of sustainable 21 green parking lot facilities shall be governed by commonly acceptable industry 22 standards for such facilities. The City Manager or designee is hereby authorized to 23 approve such standards to be utilized by the City in considering development permit 24 applications in furtherance of this section. 25 26 Sec. 110-496. — Administrative parking reductions. 27 28 Where two or more adjacent nonresidential uses have distinct and differing 29 peak parking usage periods, the city manager or designee may approve a 30 reduction in the required number of parking spaces provided said 31 reduction is adequately supported by the findings of a parking generation 32 study prepared by a duly qualified traffic engineer, or based on competent 33 substantial evidence of parking ratios adopted and successfully applied by 34 one or more Florida counties or other municipalities for the specific use. 35 The maximum reduction may be up to the number of parking spaces 36 required for the least intensive use. 37 38 (b) Parking areas with more than 20 spaces may substitute up to 5 standard 39 parking spaces or 5 percent of required automobile parking with City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 06-2020 Page 5 of 11 1 motorcycle spaces. The minimum width of each space shall be 4 feet and 2 minimum length shall be 8 feet. 3 4 (c) The city manager or designee may grant a parking reduction for residential 5 and mixed use developments to allow the reduction of at least five parking 6 spaces, with the total reduction not to exceed 15 percent of the required 7 parking. The city manager or designee may grant a parking reduction 8 exceeding 15 percent for those uses that comply with the requirements of 9 subparagraph (b). Parking reductions are approved based on the operating 10 characteristics of a specific use. No person shall change a use of land that 11 is subject to a parking reduction except in compliance with the provisions 12 of this section. 13 14 (d) The city manager or designee may determine the minimum parking 15 requirements for a use which is not specifically referenced in section 110- 16 491 or for which an applicant has provided evidence that a specific use is 17 of such a unique nature that the applicable minimum parking ratio listed 18 should not be applied. The determination must be adequately supported 19 by the findings of a parking generation study prepared by a duly qualified 20 traffic engineer, or be based on competent substantial evidence of parking 21 ratios adopted and successfully applied by one or more Florida counties or 22 municipalities for the specific use. 23 24 (e) All off-street parking shall meet the following standards: 25 26 (i) The use of pervious all-weather hard surface is encouraged and can 27 reduce the minimum parking spaces required by this Section by a 28 maximum of ten (10) percent, provided ten (10) percent or more of the 29 required parking spaces utilize a pervious hard surface approved by the 30 City Engineer as an industry acceptable parking standard. In no instance 31 shall this reduction be combined with any other allowable reduction 32 that results in more than a ten (10) percent total reduction of the 33 minimum required parking spaces. The installation of a pervious all- 34 weather surface shall be installed according to manufacturer's 35 installation guidelines and good engineering practices as approved by 36 the City Engineer. In any case where a pervious pavement incentive 37 authorized in this section is utilized, it shall result in additional on -site, 38 storage capacity beyond that which would otherwise be required. 39 Example: Minimum required number of spaces = 100 40 Spaces paved with pervious surface = 10 (10% of required) City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 06-2020 Page 6 of 11 1 Reduced total number of required spaces = 90 (10 of which are 2 pervious) 3 4 (ii) Parking spaces provided in excess of one hundred ten (110) percent of 5 the minimum required by this Section shall utilize a pervious hard 6 surface or an alternative parking surface material provided the spaces 7 comply with the requirements identified herein and such surface is 8 approved by the City Engineer as an industry acceptable parking 9 standard. 10 11 (iii) Alternative parking surface materials. 12 13 (1) Gravel parking surfaces may be utilized only if all of the following 14 criteria are met (items a—h): 15 16 a. The parking area is used for any of the following: 17 18 i. The number of parking spaces required is eight (8) or less; 19 or 20 ii. The use generates less than forty (40) Average Annual Daily 21 Trips (AADT) per day; or 22 iii. The parking space(s) are designated for employee parking only. 23 24 b. Gravel is to be washed stone size #57 (three -fourths (3/4) inch 25 or larger). 26 c. Gravel parking spaces requires the installation of an 27 appropriate sub -grade and drainage plans approved by the 28 engineering services manager. 29 d. Gravel parking lots shall be designed and constructed such 30 that siltation resulting from stormwater run-off does not 31 enter adjacent properties or public rights -of -way. The lots 32 must be designed so as to prevent loose aggregate or other 33 materials from leaving the lot. 34 e. A concrete apron, constructed as per City standards, shall be 35 installed from the edge of the pavement to the property line 36 for all entrances and exits to the parking area. 37 f. All drive aisles shall be concrete, asphalt, or a pervious all- 38 weather hard surface, as per City standards. 39 g. The area surrounding the gravel lot shall have a minimum of 40 a six (6) inch band of concrete or asphalt, a curb, or an City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 06-2020 Page 7 of 11 1 elevated landscaped area so as to contain the gravel in the 2 parking lot. 3 h. Any required handicapped parking space shall be paved. 4 5 (2) Pervious parking surfaces, including gravel, turf or other similar 6 surface may be permitted with the written approval of the City 7 Manager or designee upon favorable recommendation of the City 8 Engineer in any of the following circumstances: 9 10 a. Uses with intermittent parking such as churches and other 11 similar establishments. All required handicapped parking 12 spaces shall be paved. 13 b. Parking spaces and vehicle driving surfaces for parking areas 14 which are designed as temporary parking, overflow or 15 storage lots, or generate less than forty (40) average daily 16 trips. 17 i. A temporary parking lot is any property, located within any 18 zoning district which allows parking lots, that provides 19 interim parking until permanent parking for a use is 20 provided or the site can be developed. 21 ii. Overflow parking for this section shall mean an area of land 22 that is either a part of a development site or not more than 23 six hundred sixty (660) feet distant, as measured along the 24 nearest pedestrian walkway, that provides in excess of one 25 hundred ten (110) percent of the minimum number of 26 parking spaces required by this Section. 27 iii. Storage lots are used to park vehicles that are not moved 28 on a daily basis (e.g. car dealerships, cruise parking, vehicle 29 rental companies, or similar uses). 30 iv. Drive aisles may be required to be paved with asphalt, 31 concrete, paver bricks or another durable material approved 32 by the City Engineer. 33 34 However, the subject lot shall meet all drainage standards required 35 by this Code or other regulatory authority. In addition, a scaled 36 plan shall be submitted clearly indicating the property owner, entity 37 responsible for the vehicles parked on the property, ingress/egress, 38 parking space layout, drive aisles, adjacent uses, any 39 landscaping/buffer requirements, and a maintenance plan which 40 includes provisions for trash or debris removal, erosion control, and City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 06-2020 Page 8 of 11 1 landscape management. The temporary, overflow, or storage lot 2 shall conform to the plan and this section. 3 4 (3) Alternative impervious surfaces such as compacted shell or other 5 similar surface may be permitted with the approval of the City 6 Manager or designee upon favorable recommendation of the City 7 Engineer in the following circumstances. 8 9 a. Parking spaces and vehicle driving surfaces for parking areas 10 which are designed as temporary or storage lots, or 11 employee only designated parking areas. Employee only 12 parking areas must be clearly identified by appropriate 13 signage. 14 b. Alternative impervious surfaces must provide stormwater 15 attenuation and treatment in compliance with stormwater 16 permitting approvals by the City and other regulatory 17 agencies. 18 19 (f) Maintenance of alternative parking surfaces. 20 21 (i) Off-street parking areas approved for gravel surfaces shall be 22 properly maintained to prevent the growth of grass and weeds, 23 potholes and ruts, uneven gravel surface and gravel spreading 24 outside of the designated parking lot area. 25 26 (ii) Off-street parking spaces approved for turf surfaces shall be 27 maintained and the turf kept in good condition and not allowed to 28 be overgrown or taken over by weeds. In the event the frequency 29 of parking or the length of time parked vehicles use turf surfaces 30 causes the turf to be damaged or destroyed to the extent the grass 31 ceases to grow, the City may require the turf to be replaced with 32 durable pervious material such as turf grid, gravel, porous asphalt, 33 pervious concrete, or open joint pavers. 34 35 (iii) Evidence of a violation of this subsection includes, but is not limited 36 to: 37 38 a. The settlement or alteration of the alternative parking 39 surface such that drainage patterns are redirected onto off - City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 06-2020 Page 9 of 11 1 site properties rather than the intended stormwater 2 management facilities. 3 b. The absence or failed condition of the approved alternative 4 parking surface. 5 c. Introduction of sediment, material or debris from the 6 alternative parking surface onto city rights -of -way, 7 easements or neighboring properties. 8 9 (iv) Without limiting any other remedies the City may legally have to 10 remedy a maintenance violation under this subsection, the City may 11 also require the area to be paved or require the installation of 12 pervious hard surfaces such as pervious concrete, porous asphalt, 13 or open joint pavers to remedy any violation of this subsection. If 14 paving is deemed necessary by the City, the property owner will be 15 required to demonstrate compliance with all drainage standards 16 required by this Code or other regulatory agency. 17 18 19 Sec. 110-497. — Bicycle Parking. 20 21 Bicycle parking shall be located in a highly -visible, active, well -lighted area near a 22 building's principal entrance and shall not interfere with pedestrian movements. 23 24 25 Sec. 110-4958-110-505. — Reserved. 26 27 Section 3. Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Ordinances and Resolutions. All prior 28 inconsistent ordinances and resolutions adopted by the City Council, or parts of prior ordinances 29 and resolutions in conflict herewith, are hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict. 30 31 Section 4. Incorporation into Code. This Ordinance shall be incorporated into the 32 Cape Canaveral City Code and any section or paragraph, number or letter and any heading may 33 be changed or modified as necessary to effectuate the foregoing. Grammatical, typographical and 34 like errors may be corrected and additions, alterations, and omissions, not affecting the 35 construction or meaning of this Ordinance and the City Code may be freely made. 36 37 Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word or 38 provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of 39 competent jurisdiction, whether for substantive, procedural or any other reason, such portion shall City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 06-2020 Page 10 of 11 1 be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the 2 validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. 3 4 ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, this 15th day of 5 December, 2020. 6 7 8 Bob Hoog, Mayor 9 10 ATTEST: For Against 11 12 Mike Brown 13 14 Mia Goforth, CMC Robert Hoog 15 City Clerk 16 Micki Kellum 17 18 Wes Morrison 19 20 Angela Raymond 21 22 23 Approved as to legal form and sufficiency 24 for the City of Cape Canaveral only by: 25 26 27 28 Anthony A. Garganese, City Attorney 29 30 31 First Reading: October 20, 2020 32 Advertisement: December 3, 2020 33 Second Reading: December 15, 2020 City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 06-2020 Page 11 of 11 City of Cape Canaveral City Council Meeting - December 15, 2020 Agenda Item Summary Item No. 5 Subject: Ordinance No. 08-2020; Amending Chapter 94 - Signs; providing for amendments to electronic messaging signs; providing for amendments to Section 94-100 and Table 94-96-1 to include sign requirements specifically for the Public/Recreation (PUB/REC) zoning district; providing for the repeal of prior inconsistent ordinances and resolutions; incorporation into the Code, severability; and an effective date, second reading. Department: Community and Economic Development Summary: From time -to -time, the City has updated its sign regulations to recognize current industry best practices, regulatory needs of the City, as well as provide for the health, safety and welfare of its residents. The most recent substantive change occurred in 2014, with the passage of Ordinance No. 08-2014, which specifically provided for electronic signage. The proposed Ordinance amends regulations related to electronic signage as well as creates standards for signage erected in the Public/Recreation (PUB/REC) zoning district. Currently, the City Code limits an electronic sign to a maximum size of 32 square feet and it must be incorporated into a monument or pylon sign. In addition, an electronic sign is limited to the static display of alphanumeric characters, which must have a minimum display time of four (4) seconds. No transition between screens or moving displays of non -alphanumeric characters is allowed. The proposed ordinance will expand allowed content to include the display of static graphics (pictures) and images at intervals of no less than 8 seconds. In addition, electronic signs shall not be installed within 100 feet of a residential property line. In September of 2019, the Council established the PUB/REC zoning district to "provide for public facilities and active recreation while preserving open space for enjoyment of nature." As part of the City's administrative rezoning project currently underway, public facilities such as City Hall, the City Wastewater Plant, Cherie Down Park, and the Cape Canaveral Public Library will be rezoned to PUB/REC and any signage associated with these facilities will be subject to the proposed sign regulations. The proposed ordinance establishes sign standards for properties designated PUB/REC, such as number of signs allowed, height, and maximum area (see Table 94-96-1). Similar to other zoning districts in the City, wall murals are prohibited in the PUB/REC district unless approved by the Community Appearance Board. At its August 28, 2020 Meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the subject Ordinance. On November 17, 2020 City Council held a First Reading of this Ordinance and two changes were authorized by City Council: 1. Section 94-78(g). Change "major public thoroughfares or other high capacity public roadways" to "C1, C2 and M1 zoning districts". 2. Section 94-78(b). Strike the 10-foot height requirement related to electronic signage. City of Cape Canaveral City Council Meeting — December 15, 2020 Agenda Item No.5 Page 2 of 2 Additionally, at the November 17, 2020 Regular Meeting, the Council discussed its interest in allowing limited animation in conjunction with electronic signage. Subsequent to the City Council meeting, Staff performed additional research. The attached industry memo (White Paper) indicates there are four general levels of animation or message transition. The most restrictive (Level 1) only allows the use of static displays with no transitioning between messages. This is the level that best describes our current code. Level 2 includes the use of static displays with "fade" or "dissolve" transitions, but do not have the appearance of moving text or images. Level 3 includes static displays with "travel" or "scrolling" transitions. Level 4 allows full animation to include flashing and video. "Limited animation" is not described in the white paper. Subsequent to the November 17, 2020 City Council meeting, Staff met with a local sign industry professional to review the proposed ordinance and discuss how limited animation might be regulated. During discussion, she indicated that animation is rarely authorized due to the challenge of enforcing animation regulations. For example, an animation may be considered "flashing" or "scintillating" to one person and not to another. Also, this may introduce a signage type that could lead to excessive competition among sign displays in the demand for public attention. As a result of Staffs additional research, it is Staff's recommendation that no animation be allowed (remain at Level 1). It should be noted that the prohibition and/or limitation of animation should not be construed as limiting speech or regulating content. The Notice of Hearing was placed for advertisement in Florida Today on December 3, 2020 and the Ordinance is now presented for second reading and final adoption. Submitting Department Director: David Dickey Date: 12/08/2020 Attachments: 1 - Ordinance No. 08-2020 2 — United States Sign Council — Electronic Sign Zoning Information Financial Impact: Cost of advertisement and codification; Staff time and effort to prepare this agenda item. Reviewed by Administrative/Financial Services Director: John DeLeo Date: 12/08/2020 The City Manager recommends the City Council take the following action: Adopt Ordinance No. 08-2020, second reading. Approved by City Manager: Todd Morley Date: 12/08/2020 Attachment 1 1 ORDINANCE NO. 08-2020 2 3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE 4 CANAVERAL, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING 5 CHAPTER 94 - SIGNS; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO 6 ELECTRONIC MESSAGING SIGNS; PROVIDING FOR 7 AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 94-100 AND TABLE 94-96-1 TO 8 INCLUDE SIGN REQUIREMENTS SPECIFICALLY FOR THE 9 PUBLIC/RECREATION (PUB/REC) ZONING DISTRICT; 10 PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT 11 ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS, INCORPORATION INTO THE 12 CODE, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 13 14 WHEREAS, the City is granted the authority, under Section 2(b), Article VIII, of the State 15 Constitution, to exercise any power for municipal purposes, except when expressly prohibited by 16 law; and 17 WHEREAS, the City Council desires to modify the existing sign regulations limiting the 18 displays on electronic messaging signs to alphanumeric characters to additionally allow for the 19 display of graphics and images in accordance with the terms and conditions stated herein; and 20 WHEREAS, the City Council recently adopted a new zoning designation for Public/ 21 Recreation (Pub/Rec) property and desires to establish specific sign requirements to correspond 22 to the new zoning district in a manner similar to other existing zoning designations; and 23 WHEREAS, the City's Land Planning Agency has reviewed and made a recommendation 24 to the City Council regarding this Ordinance; and 25 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, hereby finds this 26 Ordinance to be in the best interests of the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of 27 Cape Canaveral. 28 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE 29 CANAVERAL, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: 30 Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are hereby incorporated herein by this reference as 31 legislative findings and the intent and purpose of the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral. 32 Section 2. Chapter 94 Code Amendments — Electronic Signs. Chapter 94 of the Code of 33 Ordinances, City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, is hereby amended as follows: (underlined type 34 indicates additions to the City Code and strikeout type indicates deletions, while asterisks (* * *) 35 indicate a deletion from the Ordinance of text existing in Chapter 94. It is intended that the text City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 08-2020 Page 1 of 7 1 in Chapter 94 denoted by the asterisks and set forth in this Ordinance shall remain unchanged 2 from the language existing prior to adoption of this Ordinance): 3 CHAPTER 94--SIGNS 4 ARTICLE I.-IN GENERAL 5 *** 6 Sec. 94-1. — Definitions. 7 Electronic messaging signs shall mean a sign on which the copy changes automatically without 8 moving parts by computer or other electronic means. These signs use intermittent light or lights 9 including incandescent lamps, light emitting diodes, liquid crystal displays and plasma displays. 10 11 *** 12 Sec. 94-6. — Prohibited signs and features. 13 The following signs and features are strictly prohibited: 14 *** 15 (ff) Electronic signs except for as authorized by Section 94-78. 16 *** 17 18 ARTICLE III. — SIZE, LOCATION AND CONSTRUCTION 19 *** 20 Division 2. — TYPES OF SIGNS 21 *** 22 Sec. 94-78. - Electronic signs. 23 Electronic signs may be approved under this chapter provided the proposed electronic sign 24 satisfies the following requirements: 25 (a) A maximum of one electronic sign may be incorporated into a monument sign or pylon 26 sign. The electronic sign must be in compliance with all applicable provisions of this 27 chapter. Further, an electronic sign shall not be a portable or stand alone sign and shall 28 be mounted in a permanent cabinet. 29 (b) The size of the electronic sign shall be limited to a maximum size equal to 32 square 30 feet. The maximum area of the sign shall not exceed 120 square feet. The electronic sign 31 shall be fully incorporated within the outer perimeter of the sign. Further, the size of the City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 08-2020 Page 2 of 7 1 electronic sign shall be included in the calculation for the total signage allowed for the 2 property and the overall size limitation for a particular sign. 3 (c) The electronic sign shall be limited to display of alphanumeric characters and static 4 graphic images or displays only. The copy content of an electronic display may change 5 at intervals of no less than eight (8) seconds. The content of the electronic display must 6 remain stable and continuous scrolling, blinking, fading, dissolving or any other effect 7 that gives the appearance of movement is prohibited. Each electronic display shall 8 contain a complete standalone message and the message cannot be broken into 9 segments displayed sequentially on a different display to form a complete message. 10 Moving graphic displays or images of non -alphanumeric characters (such as simulations 11 of fireworks, bouncing hearts, lighthouses, human bodies, and cartoon characters) shall 12 be prohibited. In addition, the image or display content shall not contain effects that are 13 designed to resemble a traffic control device or emergency vehicle strobe lighting. 14 However, nothing herein shall prohibit governmental agencies from using electronic 15 traffic control devices and emergency lighting for official traffic control and emergency 16 public purposes. 17 (d) The sign shall not include any audio message. display time for each message containing 18 alphanumeric characters shall be a minimum time period of four consecutive seconds 19 per display. 20 (e) The electronic sign shall be set to a specific brightness level and shall electronically 21 respond to changing light conditions (e.g., change from day to night or to darkness 22 related to weather). Written certification shall be provided with the sign permit 23 application from the sign manufacturer that the sign has been preset to not to exceed 24 the following light level standard as measured in nits, as follows: 25 (1) Maximum daytime level at 6,000 nits. 26 (2) Maximum nighttime level at 500 nits. 27 Further, the preset light level shall be protected from end user manipulations by 28 password protected software or other acceptable methods. 29 (f) If the electronic sign malfunctions, the message, if displayed, shall be maintained at a 30 maximum light level of 500 nits, or the sign shall be made inactive until the sign is 31 repaired. 32 (g) Electronic signs shall only be permitted for public buildings and facilities located in a 33 Public/Recreation zoning district or businesses operating and located in a commercial 34 or industrial zoning district. However, such signs permitted in a commercial or industrial 35 zoning district shall not be installed within 100 feet of a property line of a residential 36 land development unless the illumination generated from the electronic signage is 37 adequately directed or screened in a manner that the illuminance does not significantly 38 trespass on the property of the residential development to create an annoyance or 39 nuisance. City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 08-2020 Page 3 of 7 1 *** 2 Section 3. Section 94-100 and Table 94-96-1 Amendments. Section 94-100 and Table 94- 3 96-1 set forth in Chapter 94 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, is hereby 4 amended as follows: (underlined type indicates additions to the City Code and strikeout type 5 indicates deletions): 6 7 Sec. 94-100. - Shopping center or multitenant center in any district; Public/Recreation Buildings. 8 Signs are permitted for shopping centers or multitenant centers in any district and Public/Recreation 9 Buildings and facilities as listed in table 94-96-1 10 Table 94-96-1 District Restrictions Type of Sign Temporary On - Premises Sign Temporary Off - Premises Sign R-1 R-2 Per section 94-76 Per section 94-81 Max. area 6 s.f. R-3 C-1, C-2 & M-1 Per section 94-76 Per section 94-76 Per section 94-76 Per section 94-81 6 s.f. Per section 94-81 6 s.f. Max. height 4' 4' 4' Home Occupation Ground Max. no. 1 1 Max area 2 s.f. 2 s.f. Max. Prohibited no. 1 Per section 94-81 32 s.f. 8' 1 1 per street frontage/per access entrance; max. 2 signs 2 s.f. 1-1 per street frontage/per access entrance; max. 2 signs City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 08-2020 Page 4 of 7 2 s.f. Jub Rec Per section 94-76 Per section 94-76 32 s.f. 8' N/A N/A 1 per street frontage/per 1 per street frontage access entrance; max. 2 signs City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 08-2020 Page 4 of 7 Max area 32 s.f. 32 s.f. One s.f. per linear lineal ft. of property frontage up to a max. of 150 s.f. One s.f. per linear ft. of property frontage up to a max. of 150 ft. s.f. Max. height 8' 8' 20' 20' Max. width 25' 25' 25' 25' Max. no. Prohibited 1 1 2 per storefront or structure, provided each structure is a seperate business 2 per structure Wall Max area One s.f. per lineal linear foot of building wall that the sign is on One s.f. per lineal linear foot of building wall that the sign is on Parallel to street, 15% of wall height (x) wall width of wall that sign is located on; max. 160 s.f. Perpendicular to street, 15% of wall height (x) wall width of wall that sign is located on; max. 128 s.f. Parallel to street 15% of wall height (x) wall width of wall that sign is located on; max. 160 s.f. Perpendicular to street 15% of wall height (x) wall width of wall that sign is locatedd on; max.128 s.f. Electronic Signs Max. no. n/a n/a n/a Per section 94-78 Per section 94-78 Max. area n/a n/a n/a 32 sq. ft. 32 sq.ft. City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 08-2020 Page 5 of 7 Wall Mural Prohibited Prohibited unless approved per section 94-6(g) Prohibited unless approved per section 94-6(g) Prohibited unless approved per section 94-6(g) Prohibited unless approved per section 94- 6(g) 1 2 Section 4. Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Ordinances and Resolutions. All prior inconsistent 3 ordinances and resolutions adopted by the City Council, or parts of prior ordinances and 4 resolutions in conflict herewith, are hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict. 5 6 Section 5. Incorporation Into Code. This Ordinance shall be incorporated into the Cape 7 Canaveral City Code and any section or paragraph, number or letter and any heading may be 8 changed or modified as necessary to effectuate the foregoing. Grammatical, typographical and 9 like errors may be corrected and additions, alterations, and omissions, not affecting the 10 construction or meaning of this Ordinance and the City Code may be freely made. 11 12 Section 6. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word or provision 13 of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent 14 jurisdiction, whether for substantive, procedural or any other reason, such portion shall be deemed 15 a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of 16 the remaining portions of this Ordinance. 17 18 Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon 19 adoption. 20 21 ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, this 15`h day of December, 22 2020. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 [Signature Page Follows] 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 08-2020 Page 6 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ATTEST: 8 9 10 11 Mia Goforth, CMC 12 City Clerk 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 First Reading: November 17, 2020 21 Advertisement: December 3, 2020 22 Second Reading: December 15, 2020 23 24 25 Approved as to legal form and sufficiency 26 for the City of Cape Canaveral only by: 27 28 29 Anthony A. Garganese, City Attorney Bob Hoog, Mayor Mike Brown Robert Hoog Mickie Kellum Wes Morrison Angela Raymond City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 08-2020 Page 7 of 7 For Against Attachment 2 USSC Logo UNITED STATES SIGN COUNCIL Electronic Sign Zoning Information Electronic signs and electronic message centers are finding increasing use in On -Premise sign systems. This class of signs, utilizing state of the art computer technology and capable of full color display, provides users with the capability of instantaneous change in the display of graphic images or message content. Because of their unique capabilities, existing local sign regulation is frequently incapable of addressing their use over the full range of their operating characteristics. The following White Paper, entitled Regulation of Electronic Message Display Signs, and produced by the Electronic Display Educational Resource Association (EDERA) is offered by USSC, without additional comment or endorsement, as a means of furthering the informational base necessary to allow for the proper use and functioning of electronic signs in local zoning jurisdictions. REGULATION OF ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY SIGNS Overview We are all very fortunate to live in a society that places a premium value on freedoms, and limits governmental intrusion upon those freedoms. Freedom of speech is one of those essential freedoms, and one that is embodied within the Constitution that molds the rule of law governing this great nation. Many reputable organizations, like the U.S. Small Business Administration and the International Sign Association caution against sign regulations that interfere with the freedom of exercising commercial speech. The following information has been assembled by a coalition of manufacturers of electronic message display signs. We recognize the uncertainty surrounding the legality of certain sign regulations. We also respect the desire by communities to regulate signs, including electronic message display signs, and the need for responsible sign codes. Without engaging in debate over the legality of regulations affecting electronic message displays, the following materials are intended to develop a more sophisticated understanding of the current state of the technology, and to promote regulations that reflect the broad variations in the use of electronic message displays. The History of Changeable Message Signs In the day when signs were primarily painted, changing messages on a sign merely required painting over the existing message. More recently, signs with removable lettering made it possible to manually change the lettering on a sign to display a new message. Electrical changeable message signs followed the invention of the light bulb, and included light bulbs arranged in a pattern where, by lighting some light bulbs and not the others, letters and numerals could be spelled out. With the advent of solid-state circuitry in the early 1970s, electronic changeable message signs became possible. The first of these products were time and temperature displays and simple text message displays using incandescent lamps. These lamps were very inefficient. They used a great deal of power and had short life expectancies. During the energy crunch of the 1980s, it became necessary to find ways to reduce the power consumption of these displays. This need initially spawned a reflective technology. This technology typically consisted of a light -reflective material applied to a mechanical device, sometimes referred to as "flip disk" 1 displays. Electrical impulses were applied to a grid of disks with reflective material on one side of the disk, and a contrasting finish on the other side. The electrical impulses would position each disk within the grid to either reveal or conceal the reflective portion of the device as required, to produce an image or spell out a message. These technologies were energy efficient, but due to the mechanical nature of the product, failures were an issue. Shortly after the introduction of the reflective products, new incandescent lamps emerged. The new "wedge base" Xenon gas -filled lamps featured many positive qualities. Compared to the larger incandescent lamps that had been used for several years, the wedge base lamps were very bright, required less power to operate and had much longer lifetimes. These smaller lamps allowed electronic display manufacturers to build displays that featured tighter resolutions, allowing users to create more ornate graphic images. Next in the evolution of the changeable message sign was the LED. LED (light emitting diode) technology had been used for changeable message displays since the mid 1970s. Originally, LEDs were available in three colors: red, green and amber, but were typically used for indoor systems because the light intensity was insufficient for outdoor applications and the durability of the diodes suffered in the changing temperatures and weather conditions. As technology improved, manufacturers were able to produce displays that had the intensity and long life required for outdoor use, but were limited in the viewing angle from which they could be effectively seen. Recently, breakthroughs in this field have made available high intensity LEDs in red, green, blue and amber. These LEDs have made it possible to produce displays bright enough for outdoor use with viewing angles that are equal to, or better than, other technologies currently available. They are energy -efficient, can be programmed and operated remotely, and require little maintenance. In addition, the computer software has evolved such that a broad range of visual effects can be used to display messages and images. The spacing of the LEDs can be manipulated to achieve near -television resolution. Earlier "flip disk" and incandescent technologies have become nearly obsolete as a result. Types of Changeable Message Signs Changeable message signs can be placed into two basic categories: manually - changed and electronically -changed. The most common form of manually - changed sign involves a background surface with horizontal channels. Letters and numerals are printed on individual plastic cards that are manually fitted into the channels on the sign face. A broad range of letter styles and colors are available. The manually -changed sign is relatively inexpensive and is somewhat versatile. Some discoloration has been experienced in the background surface materials 2 with exposure to weather and the sun. Changing the message on such a sign is accomplished by having an employee or technician remove the existing plastic letter cards and replacing them with cards displaying the new message. Occasionally, such signs have been the subjects of vandals who steal the letters or, as a prank, re -arrange them to spell out undesirable messages. Over time, as letters are replaced with lettering styles that deviate in color or type style from the original set, such signs have had a tendency to take on a mix -and -match appearance. Electronic changeable message signs are generally of two types: light emitting and light reflective. Current light emitting display technologies include LED and incandescent lamp. Light reflective displays typically consist of either a reflective material affixed to a mechanical device (like a "flip disk") or a substance commonly referred to as electronic ink. Many of the above mentioned technologies have the capabilities to display monochromatic (single color) or multiple color images. Monochrome changeable message signs are typically used to display text messages. Multiple color displays are more common in applications where color logos or video is displayed. Operational Capabilities of Electronic Signs Electronic signs have evolved to the point of being capable of a broad range of operational capabilities. They are controlled via electronic communication. Text and graphic information is created on a computer using a software program. This software is typically a proprietary component that is supplied by the display manufacturer. These software programs determine the capabilities of the displays. The software is then loaded onto a computer that operates the sign. The computer may be installed within the sign itself, operated remotely from a nearby building, or even more remotely by a computer located miles away and connected to the sign with a telephone line modem or other remote communication technology. Since most of the software programs are proprietary, one can assume that each software program is slightly different. However, the capabilities that the programs offer are all very similar. Changeable message sign manufacturers provide software that allows the end user to be as creative or as reserved as they like. The sign can be used to display static messages only, static messages changed by a computer -generated transition from one message to the next, moving text, animated graphics and, in some applications, television -quality video. Text messages or graphic images can simply appear and disappear from the display or they can be displayed using creative entry and exit effects and transitions. 3 Example: Oftentimes a display operator will choose to have a text message scroll onto the display and then "wipe -off" as if the frame has been turned like the page of a book. If a display has the capabilities to display graphics, logos or even video, it is common for the display operator to add motion to these images. Example: A display operator at a school may wish to create an animation where their school's mascot charges across a football field and runs over the competing school's mascot. Video -capable displays can operate much like a television. These displays can show live video, recorded video, graphics, logos, animations and text. All display capabilities are securely in the hands of the display operators. They are ultimately responsible for what type of, and how, information is displayed on their changeable message sign. Traffic Safety Considerations Electronic message displays (EMDs) are capable of a broad variation of operations, from fully -static to fully -animated. In exterior sign use, they are often placed where they are visible to oncoming traffic. Concerns are often raised as communities change their sign codes to expressly permit such signage about the traffic safety implications for signage with moving messages. These concerns are largely unfounded. EMDs have been in operation for many years. As is typical with many technological advances, the regulatory environment has been slow to respond to advances in the technology itself. In 1978, after many years of the use of electronic signs, Congress first passed legislation dealing with the use of illuminated variable message signs along the interstate and federal aid primary highway system. The Surface Transportation Assistance Act permitted electronic message display signs, subject to state law, provided each message remained fixed on the display surface but "which may be changed at reasonable intervals by electronic process or remote control," and did not include "any flashing, intermittent or moving light or lights." 23 U.S.C. § 131. In 1980, and in response to safety concerns over EMDs along highways, the Federal Highway Administration published a report titled "Safety and Environmental Design Considerations in the Use of Commercial Electronic Variable- 4 Message Signs." This report was an exhaustive analysis of the safety implications of EMDs used along highways. The report highlights the inconclusive nature of safety studies that had occurred to that time, some concluding that roadside signs posed a traffic distraction, and others concluding that roadside signs do not cause traffic accidents. In view of the inevitable use of the technology in signage, the report made some sensible observations about traffic safety considerations for such signs: 1. Longitudinal location. The report recommended that spacing standards be adopted to avoid overloading the driver's information processing capability. Unlike the standard for sign regulations in 1980, most communities today have spacing standards already integrated into their sign codes. 2. Lateral location. Often referred to as "setback," the report initially recommended the common sense requirement that such signs be placed where the risk of colliding into the sign is eliminated. This was a legitimate concern, as such signs were being contemplated for use by highway departments themselves in the right-of-way. Private use of roadside signs is generally limited to locations outside the right-of-way, so this should not be a significant concern. The next issue addressed by the report was visibility. The report advocated the minimum setback feasible, stating that "standards for lateral location should reduce the time that drivers' attention is diverted from road and traffic conditions. Generally this suggests that signs should be located and angled so as to reduce the need for a driver to turn his head to read them as he approaches and passes them." This can best be handled by permitting such signs to be located at the property line, with no setback, and angled for view by oncoming traffic. 3. Operations: Duration of message on -time. The report states that the duration of the message on -time should be related to the length of the message, or in the case of messages displayed sequentially, the message element. For instance, based on state highway agency experience, "comprehension of a message displayed on a panel of three lines having a maximum of 20 characters per line is best when the on -time is 15 seconds. In contrast, the customary practice of signing which merely displays time and temperature is to have shorter on -times of 3 to 4 seconds." Since this 1980 report, state highway agencies have adopted, for use on their own signs, informal standards of considerably shorter "on" time duration, with no apparent adverse effects on traffic safety. Federal legislation affecting billboard use of electronic signs 5 requires only that messages be changed at "reasonable intervals."' Moreover, the U.S. Small Business Administration, in a report on its website reviewing safety information compiled since the 1980 report, has concluded that there is no adverse safety impact from the use of EMD signs. See http://www.sba.gov/starting/signage/safelegal.html. The most recent study was performed in 2003 by Tantala Consulting Engineers, available through the U.S. Sign Council at http://www.ussc.org/publications.html, also concluding based on field studies that EMD signs do not adversely affect traffic safety. Many small businesses using one -line EMD displays are only capable of displaying a few characters at one time on the display, changing frequently, which takes virtually no time for a driver to absorb in short glances. These signs have likewise not proven to be a safety concern, despite many years of use. 4. Operations: Total information cycle. EMD signs can be used to display stand-alone messages, or messages that are broken into segments displayed sequentially to form a complete message. As to the sequential messages, the report recommended a minimum on -time for each message "calculated such that a motorist traveling the affected road at the 85th percentile speed would be able to read not more than one complete nor two partial messages in the time required to approach and pass the sign." 5. Operations: Duration of message change interval and off -time. The report defines the message change interval as the portion of the complete information cycle commencing when message "one" falls below the threshold of legibility and ending when message "two" in a sequence first reaches the threshold of legibility. This is relevant when operations such as "fade off -fade on" are used, when the first message dissolves into the second message, or when the two messages move horizontally (traveling) or vertically (scrolling) to replace the first message with the second. Off -time, on the other hand, is a message change operation that involves the straightforward turning off of the first message, with a period of blank screen, before the second message is instantly turned on. 1 The appropriate interval of message change may be affected by a variety of factors, and one standard does not fit all situations. Imagine, for instance, a bridge that serves two roadways, one with a speed limit of 30 mph and the other a highway with a speed limit of 60 mph. In a situation where the bridge is socked in by fog, an electronic sign on the approach to the bridge may be used to convey the message, "Fog ahead...on bridge...reduce speed...to 15 mph." The driver on each roadway needs to see all the segments to the full message. The rate of changing each segment of the message needs to be different for each roadway. If the change rate were based only on the 60 mph speed, the sign on the slower roadway may appear too active. If the change rate were based only on the 30 mph speed, the result could be fatal to drivers on the highway. 6 The report takes an extremely conservative approach as to message change interval, advising against the use of operations other than nearly instantaneous message changes. If such operations are permitted, the report suggests "that the figure commonly used as a measure of average glance duration, 0.3 second, be used here as a maximum permissible message change time limit." The report further advocates minimizing off -time between messages, where static message changes are used, stating that "[a]s this interval of off -time is lengthened, the difficulty of maintaining the continuity of attention and comprehension is increased." The conservative nature of the authors' position is reflected both in the report, and in over twenty years of practice since the report was issued. The report cites studies indicating that, in some situations, the use of electronic operations had a beneficial effect on traffic safety, by creating a more visually -stimulating environment along an otherwise mind - numbing segment of highway, helping to re -focus and sharpen the driver's attention to his or her surroundings. In over twenty years of experience, with numerous electronic signs nationwide utilizing the various operational capabilities for message change, there has been no significant degradation to highway safety reported. Many electronic signs used by highway departments now use a mode of transition between messages or message segments, such as traveling or scrolling. Drivers are apparently capable of attaching primacy to the visual information most critical to the driving task, with sign messages taking a secondary role. The report further expresses its limited focus upon interstate and federal aid primary highways. Noting the stimulating visual environment created by full -animation signage in places like Times Square, Las Vegas and Toronto's Eaton Centre, the authors of the report agreed that such signs added vitality and dimension to the urban core, but discouraged the use of animation alongside the highway. The report did not deal with the use of such signs, or their operational characteristics, on roadways between the extremes of the interstate highway and the urban core. In addition, animation has now been used on highway -oriented signs in many locations for years, with no reported adverse effect of traffic safety. In sum, the report acknowledged the appropriateness of full -animation electronic signs within the urban core, but recommended that full -animation not be used along interstate and primary highways. It took a conservative position on operations of such signs along highways, advocating static message change sequences only, with no more than 0.3 seconds of message 7 change interval or "off -time" between messages. The message changes on sequential segmented messages should be displayed such that a motorist can see and read the entire chain of message segments in a single pass. Messages should be permitted to change at "reasonable intervals." Such signs should have adequate spacing between signs, but be set back from the right- of-way as little as feasible. Since 1980, no new information has become available supporting a traffic safety concern about EMDs. They have been installed in highway locations, along city streets and in urban core settings, using all forms of operations: static, sequential messaging and full animation. Despite such widespread use, and the presence of environmental organizations generally adverse to sign displays, no credible studies have established a correlation between EMDs and a degradation in traffic safety. An article in the Journal of Public Policy and Marketing in Spring, 1997, arrived at the same conclusion. Professor Taylor, of Villanova University, analyzing this lack of data to support such a correlation, concluded that "there appears to be no reason to believe that changeable message signs represent a safety hazard." From a safety standpoint, and based on the studies and practical experience that has been accumulated since the widespread use of EMDs, some conclusions can be reached: • In an urban core setting, where a sense of visual vitality and excitement is desirable, full -animation EMDs have been shown to be viable without degrading traffic safety. • In an urban setting, such as along arterial streets, EMDs have been used with static messages changed by use of transitions such as traveling, scrolling, fading and dissolving, without any apparent impact on traffic safety. Quite likely, this can be attributed to the primacy of the navigation task, and the secondary nature of roadside signage. • Along interstate and other limited access highways, the only significant traffic safety analysis recommends the use of static messages only, and the federal government permits message changes at "reasonable intervals." Many highway departments change messages on their own signs every 1 -2 seconds. The report further recommends that sequential messages be timed to ensure that the entire sequence of messages be displayed in the time it takes a car to travel from initial legibility to beyond the sign. In practice, and in the 20+ years since publication of this report, the operational characteristics of such signs have been expanded to include 8 fading, dissolving, scrolling and traveling, without any apparent adverse effect on traffic safety. Regulation of Electronic Signs The history of the regulation of electronic signs has been largely marked by polar extremes in regulation. A number of zoning and sign codes have treated such signs as any other sign, with no special regulations. Others have attempted to prohibit their use in the entirety, largely out of concerns for traffic safety, and in some cases in the stated interest of aesthetics. For the reasons stated above, the traffic safety concerns have been largely unfounded. In decades of use and intense scrutiny, no definitive relationship between electronic signs and traffic accidents has been established. In fact, some studies have suggested that animated electronic signs may help keep the driver whose mind has begun to wander re -focused on the visual environment in and around the roadway. No studies support the notion that an electronic sign with a static display has a visual impact, from either a traffic safety or aesthetic impact, different from that of any other illuminated sign. Despite this, the fear of negative impact from potentially distracting signs has in the past motivated some communities to attempt to prohibit electronic signs altogether. Two common approaches have been to prohibit sign "animation" and the "intermittent illumination" of electronic signs. Both approaches have had their limitations. Electronic signs that are computer -controlled often have the capability to be displayed with a multitude of operational characteristics, many of which fall within the typical definition of "animation." However, static display techniques are quite commonplace with electronic signs, and the cost of using electronics in relatively typical sign applications has become more affordable. The programming of an electronic sign to utilize static displays only is simple and straightforward, yet probably overkill in the legal and practical sense. Nonetheless, out of fear that the programming may be changed to animation after a sign is permitted and operational, some local regulators have attempted to take the position that LED and other electronic signs are prohibited altogether. This position is unsound. There is no legal basis to deny a static -display electronic sign, as it is legally indistinguishable from any other illuminated sign. We don't prohibit car usage merely because the cars are designed so that they can exceed the speed limit; we issue a ticket to the driver if they do exceed the speed limit. Likewise, if a sign owner actually violates the zoning or sign code, the remedy is to cite them for the violation, not to presume that they will do so and refuse to issue 9 permits at the outset. Moreover, most communities permit changing messages on signs displaying time and temperature, with no restrictions on timing. To apply a different standard to signs displaying commercial or noncommercial messages would be to regulate on the basis of the content of the sign, in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The code technique of prohibiting "intermittent illumination" has its own limitations as it relates to electronic signs. The term "intermittent" suggests that the sign is illuminated at some times, and not illuminated at others. This is no basis to distinguish between an electronic sign and any other illuminated sign. Virtually all illuminated signs go through a cycle of illumination and non -illumination, as the sign is turned off during the day when illumination is not needed, or during the evening after business hours. If this were the standard, most sign owners would be guilty of a code violation on a daily basis. Other terminology may be used in sign codes, but the fact is that a regulation must be tailored to the evil it is designed to prevent. Community attitudes toward viewing digital images have changed nationwide, with personal computer use and exposure to electronic signs becoming widespread. People are simply accustomed to the exposure to such displays, more so than in years past. In some communities, there remains a concern about the potential that such signs may appear distracting, from a safety or aesthetic standpoint. Yet, static displays do not have this character, and even EMDs with moving text have not proven to have any negative impact. The real focus should be on the operations used for the change in message, and frame effects that accompany the message display. Many of these transition operations and frame effects are quite subtle, or otherwise acceptable from a community standpoint. It is now possible to define these operations, in the code itself, with sufficient specificity to be able to enforce the differences between what is acceptable and what is not. The critical regulatory factors in the display of electronic changeable message signs are: 1) Duration of message display, 2) Message transition, and 3) Frame effects. With the exception of those locations where full animation is acceptable, the safety studies indicate that messages should be permitted to change at "reasonable intervals." Government users of signs have utilized 1-2 seconds on their own signs as a reasonable interval for message changes, and other communities permit very short display times or continuous scrolling on business signs without adverse effect. As a policy matter, some communities have elected to adopt longer duration periods, although to do so limits the potential benefits of using an electronic sign, particularly where messages are broken down into segments displayed sequentially on the sign. The message transitions and frame effects are probably the greater focus, from a sign code standpoint. It is during the message transition or frame effect that the eye is most likely drawn to the sign. What is acceptable is a matter of community 10 attitude. Flashing is a frame effect that is prohibited in many communities, but other more subtle transitions can be accepted. It is relatively easy to define four basic levels of operational modes for message transitions that can be incorporated into a sign code: Level 1 Static Display Only (messages changed with no transition) Level 2 Level 3 Static Display with "Fade" or "Dissolve" transitions, or similar subtle transitions and frame effects that do not have the appearance of moving text or images Static Display with "Travel" or "Scrolling" transitions, or similar transitions and frame effects that have text or animated images that appear to move or change in size, or be revealed sequentially rather than all at once Level 4 Full Animation, Flashing and Video There are, in fact, other operations recognized within the industry. However, in practice they can be equated in visual impact with "fade," "dissolve," "travel" or "scrolling," based on their visual effect, or otherwise be considered full animation. Different transition operations may be acceptable in different locations. For example, communities like Las Vegas accept full animation as a community standard, whereas others accept full animation only in urban core locations where a sense of visual vitality and excitement is desirable. Some communities may desire not to have an area with such visual stimuli, and elect to prohibit animation everywhere. However, in such a community, fade or scrolling may be acceptable forms of message transitions for static displays. In the most conservative communities, static displays with no observable transition between messages may be the only acceptable course. The next decision point for a community seeking to regulate electronic signs is procedural. Some signs may be acceptable always, while the community may determine that others are acceptable only in certain given circumstances. Alternatives to be considered for a sign code are as follows: • Permit electronic signs "as a matter of right" • Permit electronic signs with certain transitions "as a matter of right" • Permit electronic signs, subject to a review procedure 11 • Permit electronic signs, with certain transitions, subject to a review procedure • A hybrid of the above For instance, one community may find it acceptable to permit electronic signs, with full animation, as a matter of right. Other than a straightforward sign permit, no other review is required. In another community, the sign code structure may permit: 1) Static displays with no transitions as a matter of right, 2) static displays using fade or dissolve transitions as a matter of right in certain commercial zoning districts, 3) static displays using travel and scrolling transitions and animations in certain commercial districts, subject to approval of a special use permit, where the approving board can consider compatibility with surrounding land uses and attach conditions on the rate of message changes, and 4) Fully-animated/video displays in the downtown commercial district only, subject to approval of a special use permit. The level of procedure involved should be tailored to the acceptance level of the community, and the resources available should public review be desired. In the following section, we have provided model code language that can be used, for reference, to incorporate into a community's sign code. The model language suggests code scenarios based on each of the four levels of display transitions. It also provides alternative language, for some scenarios, to either incorporate a special review procedure or not. Of course, the model language must be tailored to a particular community's sign code. Variation may be necessary, where, for instance, the special review procedure would be by the local planning commission, city council or design review board. With ease, the model code language can be modified to meet local conditions. © 2004 Electronic Display Manufacturers Association 12 Model Sign Code Provisions for Electronic Signs Level 1-Static Display (Message Changed with no Transition) Definitions ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY — A sign capable of displaying words, symbols, figures or images that can be electronically or mechanically changed by remote or automatic means. Electronic Message Displays may be permitted [with the approval of a use permit] [in the zoning districts] subject to the following requirements: a. Operational Limitations. Such displays shall contain static messages only, and shall not have movement, or the appearance or optical illusion of movement, of any part of the sign structure, design, or pictorial segment of the sign, including the movement or appearance of movement of any illumination or the flashing, scintillating or varying of light intensity. b. Minimum Display Time. Each message on the sign must be displayed for a minimum of (insert reasonable interval) seconds. c. Message Change Sequence. [Alternative 1: The change of messages must be accomplished immediately.] [Alternative 2: A minimum of 0.3 seconds of time with no message displayed shall be provided between each message displayed on the sign.] 13 Model Electronic Sign Code Provisions Level 2-Static Display (Fade/Dissolve Transitions) Definitions ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY — A sign capable of displaying words, symbols, figures or images that can be electronically or mechanically changed by remote or automatic means. DISSOLVE — a mode of message transition on an Electronic Message Display accomplished by varying the light intensity or pattern, where the first message gradually appears to dissipate and lose legibility simultaneously with the gradual appearance and legibility of the second message. FADE — a mode of message transition on an Electronic Message Display accomplished by varying the light intensity, where the first message gradually reduces intensity to the point of not being legible and the subsequent message gradually increases intensity to the point of legibility. FRAME — a complete, static display screen on an Electronic Message Display. FRAME EFFECT — a visual effect on an Electronic Message Display applied to a single frame to attract the attention of viewers. TRANSITION — a visual effect used on an Electronic Message Display to change from one message to another. Electronic Message Displays may be permitted [with the approval of a use permit] [in the zoning districts] subject to the following requirements: a. Operational Limitations. Such displays shall contain static messages only, changed only through dissolve or fade transitions, or with the use of other subtle transitions and frame effects that do not have the appearance of moving text or images, but which may otherwise not have movement, or the appearance or optical illusion of movement, of any part of the sign structure, design, or pictorial segment of the sign, including the movement of any illumination or the flashing, scintillating or varying of light intensity. b. Minimum Display Time. Each message on the sign must be displayed for a minimum of (insert reasonable interval) seconds. 14 Model Electronic Sign Code Provisions Level 3-Static Display (Travel/Scroll Transitions and Animations) Definitions ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY — A sign capable of displaying words, symbols, figures or images that can be electronically or mechanically changed by remote or automatic means. DISSOLVE — a mode of message transition on an Electronic Message Display accomplished by varying the light intensity or pattern, where the first message gradually appears to dissipate and lose legibility simultaneously with the gradual appearance and legibility of the second message. FADE — a mode of message transition on an Electronic Message Display accomplished by varying the light intensity, where the first message gradually reduces intensity to the point of not being legible and the subsequent message gradually increases intensity to the point of legibility. FRAME — a complete, static display screen on an Electronic Message Display. FRAME EFFECT — a visual effect on an Electronic Message Display applied to a single frame to attract the attention of viewers. SCROLL — a mode of message transition on an Electronic Message Display where the message appears to move vertically across the display surface. TRANSITION — a visual effect used on an Electronic Message Display to change from one message to another. TRAVEL — a mode of message transition on an Electronic Message Display where the message appears to move horizontally across the display surface. Electronic Message Displays may be permitted [with the approval of a use permit] [in the zoning districts] subject to the following requirements: a. Operational Limitations. Such displays shall be limited to static displays, messages that appear or disappear from the display through dissolve, fade, travel or scroll modes, or similar transitions and frame effects that have text, animated graphics or images that appear to move or change in size, or be revealed sequentially rather than all at once. b. Minimum Display Time. Each message on the sign must be displayed for a minimum of (insert reasonable interval) seconds. 15 Model Electronic Sign Code Provisions Level 4-Video/Animation Definitions ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY — A sign capable of displaying words, symbols, figures or images that can be electronically or mechanically changed by remote or automatic means, including animated graphics and video. Electronic Message Displays may be permitted [with the approval of a use permit] [in the zoning districts] 16 City of Cape Canaveral City Council Meeting - December 15, 2020 Agenda Item Summary Item No. 6 Subject: Appoint a Voting Delegate/Director and Alternate to the Space Coast League of Cities. Department: City Clerk's Office Summary: Every December, the governing body of each member municipality must appoint a Voting Delegate/Director and an Alternate to the Space Coast League of Cities (SCLOC). Those eligible to be a Voting Delegate/Director and Alternate include the member municipality's Elected Officials, City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk and Department Directors. An eligibility exception exists for Mayor Emeritus Rocky Randels; Mr. Randels has a Lifetime SCLOC Membership through his having served as SCLOC President in 1995 and his current Council -authorized honorary status as a City Ambassador. The person appointed as Voting Delegate serves as both the member municipality's Voting Delegate at membership meetings and as its representative to the Board of Directors. The Voting Delegate and the Director are the same person. The sole function of the Alternate for the Voting Delegate/Director is to vote in the absence of the Voting Delegate/Director. Mayor Pro Tem Angela Raymond is the current Voting Delegate/Director and Mayor Emeritus Rocky Randels is the Alternate. It is now incumbent upon City Council to appoint a Voting Delegate/Director and Alternate to the SCLOC for calendar year 2021. Submitting Department Director: Mia Goforth Date: 11/30/2020 Attachment: None Financial Impact: Staff time and effort to prepare this Agenda Item. Reviewed by Administrative/Financial Services Director: John DeLeo Date: 11/23/2020 The City Manager recommends the City Council take the following action: Appoint a Voting Delegate/Director and Alternate to the SCLOC. Approved by City Manager: Todd Morley Date: 11/23/2020 City of Cape Canaveral City Council Meeting - December 15, 2020 Agenda Item Summary Item No. 7 Subject: Discussion on the City Ordinances Section 110-475 regarding required sidewalks. Department: City Council Summary: The City of Cape Canaveral Ordinances Section 110-475 state that any new construction projects are required to install and finance any new public sidewalks within the City limits. Since sidewalks are for public use it may make sense to finance these projects out of the City budget. Sidewalks are an important infrastructure investment desired by the community according to our vision to be a more pedestrian friendly bikeable and walkable city. Other areas within this section of the City Ordinances regarding the dimension, materials and process for installing sidewalks may need to be discussed for future proposed amendments. Section 110-475 is below: Sec. 110-475. - Sidewalks required. (a) Construction of sidewalks shall be required in conjunction with the construction of any building or development on property abutting any paved street, public and private, within the city limits. (b) Sidewalks shall be no less than five feet wide regardless of zoning district. Sidewalks and concrete aprons will be required across asphalt paved driveways. Sidewalks along State Highway A1A will require a permit from the state department of transportation and shall be no less than five feet wide. (c) Sidewalks being installed on a street within the same block which already has sidewalks or portions of sidewalks installed must transition to the width of the existing sidewalks, but shall be no less than five feet in width. The transition distance between the two different widths of sidewalks will be a minimum of five feet. (d) Sidewalks shall normally abut the property line, but may be installed anywhere within or without the right-of-way to permit alignment with existing sidewalks or to accommodate trees or other objects which are not desired to be moved, altered or removed. (e) Construction of sidewalks shall be completed prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final inspection. Costs of construction shall be borne by the property owner. The construction of the sidewalk shall be in accordance with the provisions of section 98- 92(t) of the Code of Ordinances of the City. (f) Sidewalks contiguous with or a part of the bicycle path system shall provide for a smooth transition between surfaces. (g) Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final inspection for new development or redevelopment, the city may, at its discretion and expense, cause the construction of the sidewalk as would otherwise be required by this section and under the following conditions City of Cape Canaveral City Council Meeting — December 15, 2020 Agenda Item No. 7 Page 2 of 2 (1) Prior to the commencement of construction, the city shall provide all owners of real property abutting the proposed sidewalk with 30 days written notice of the city's intent to construct the sidewalk and to impose a future impact fee on the property owners for the costs of the sidewalk. Said notice shall provide a general description of the project, an estimated cost, and the date, time, and place of the city council meeting at which the proposed project will be authorized. At the meeting, affected property owners will be allowed an opportunity to be heard. (2) Upon completion of the sidewalk by the city, the city manager shall certify in writing to the city council at a public meeting the cost of constructing the sidewalk. The certification shall proportionately allocate the cost of construction to each parcel(s) of real property that has received a special benefit from the sidewalk. At least 15 days' prior notice of the certification hearing shall be provided to those property owners that may be imposed an impact fee. At the hearing, affected property owners will be allowed an opportunity to be heard. (3) The city council shall approve the certification by resolution. The certified amount shall constitute a sidewalk impact fee for each property. The resolution shall be duly recorded in the public records of Brevard County, Florida, and shall run with the land. (4) The sidewalk impact fee shall be paid by the property owner prior to a certificate of occupancy or final inspection being issued by the city for the property. (5) Prior to payment of the sidewalk impact fee, the property owner may petition the city council for a waiver or reduction of the sidewalk impact fee. The amount of any reduction or waiver shall be based on the costs incurred by the property owner to replace or modify the sidewalk caused by implementing a site plan approved by the city. The property owner shall be responsible for repairing, at the owner's expense, any sidewalk which is damaged by construction activities occurring on the property. (6) In the event the property owner fails to pay the sidewalk impact fee pursuant to this section, the city shall have the right to withhold any certificate of occupancy or final inspection for the property. The city shall also have the right to collect the sidewalk impact fee in any manner provided by law and to levy interest at a maximum rate allowed by law and penalties not to exceed 25 percent on past due amounts. (Code 1981, § 641.55; Ord. No. 13-97, § 3, 10-21-97; Ord. No. 08-2003, § 2, 3-18-03; Ord. No. 05- 2015, § 2, 6-16-15) Cross reference— Streets, sidewalks and other public places, ch. 66. Submittin• Council Member: Wes Morrison Date: 12/2/2020 Attachments: None.