Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03-20-2007 RegularCITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY MALL ANNEX I 'I I Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida TUESDAY March 20, 2007 7:00 PIS MINUTES CALL TO ORDER The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL: Council Members Present: Mayor Pro Tern Council Member Council Member Mayor Council Member Others Present: City Manager City Attorney City Clerk Building Official Stormwater Administrator PRESENTATIONS: Bob Hoog Leo Nicholas Buzz Petsos Rocky Randefs Shannon Roberts Bennett Boucher Anthony Garganese Susan Stills Todd Morley Jeff Ratliff Marguerita Engel of the 5t, John's River later Management District to Present a Grant Check to the City in the Amount of $116,000. Mayor Randels called on Nis. Marguerita Engel to present a check from the St. John's River Water Management District to the City in the amount of $115,000 for the south portion of the Central Blvd. Ditch project. She presented the check to Mr. Jeff Ratliff, Stormwater Administrator and announced April as the 9th Annual Water Conservation Month. Ms. Engel referred to an article in Florida Today and noted how mater saving bathroom devices was the latest trend. She also quoted Francis King -Cross in a Newsweek article that requested policies prepare for a hotter, drier climate. Ms. Engel stressed the importance economically and environmentally of water conservation and efficient use of water inside and outside of the home. She presented a bucket and a spigot as visual aids for water use noting that carrying water in a bucket City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting March 20, 2007 Page 2 was labor intensive; however, and the spigot led to excessive water use. Ms. Engel p ointed out how people could conserve water through plumbing maintenance and proper er watering techniques such as shorter shower times and watering lawns only two day per week. She asked all in attendance to view the St. John's web site at sjrwmd.corn and stressed that Florida water was worth saving. Mr. Ratliff explained that the funding would be used for the south portion of the Central Blvd. Ditch project. He explained further how these funds would help to change the water quality flooring into the Banana River. Mayor Randels stated the total cost of i $495,000 for the drainage ditch project. He said that Mr. Ratliff obtained $288,044 n grant funding from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection [DEPT and City residents would pay $94,004 through their $3 Storrnwater Maintenance fee. Mayor Randels explained that the DEP mould pay 58 percent of the project, and the St. John's p River Water Management District would pay 23 percent, and City residents would pay 19 pe rcent of the project cost. The project would cover from Central Blvd. to the United Space Alliance building. Mayor Randels commended Mrr. Ratliff on his success in seeking grant funds. Mayor Randels also thanked Ms. Engel for her efforts through the St. John s n assisting the City to treat its storrnwaterr. Mr. Ratliff informed that another project from St. John's was th the upcoming Mangrove Project on Saturday, March 24 . Mr. Petsos informed that the pro ro . ect would begin at the Public Works facility at 9 A.M. with a picnic afterwards. Presentation to Council Member Shannon Roberts Institute of Elected Municipal officials - Certificate of Completion Mayor Randels recognized that Council Member Shannon Roberts went to Gainesville, Florida from January 19 -- 21, to attend the Institute of Elected Municipal Officials. Mayor Randels presented Ms. Roberts with her Certificate of Completion. Ms. Roberts Y . thanked the C� for her opportunity to attend and she stated that this was a wonderful �Y opportunity ortun� to meet fellow elected officials throughout the state. Ms. Roberts explained how the attendees discussed issues of common concern such as finance, planning as well as issues from an ethical perspective. Ms. Roberts explained how municipal officials would continue their education upon returning to their respective cities to talk about new ideas, best practices and lessons learned. In closing, Ms. Roberts encourag elected municipal officials to attend the Institute and she again thanked the City and the Council for her opportunity to attend. CONSENT AGENDA: City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 6, 2007 2. Resolution No. 2007" - 00; Appointing an Alternate Member of the Business and Cultural Development Board, Lt. Hugh Evans. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City council Regular Meeting March 20, 2007 Page 3 3. outdoor Entertainment Permit for the American Legion Picnic; Joe Locicero, Applicant. 4. Proclamation Recognizing the Month of April as Nabonal Fair Housing Month. Mayor Randels asked if any member of Council, staff or interested parties desired to remove any of the Consent Agenda Items for discussion. No request was made to remove any item for discussion. A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tern Hoog and seconded by Mr. Petsos to Approve Consent Agenda Items No. I through 4. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tern Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For and Ms. Roberts, For. CONSIDERATIONS: 5. Motion to Approve: Request for Reduction of Lien — Per city Code Section 2- 280(e) for Pravin & Jyostna Patel, 8050 N. Atlantic Avenue, Mayor Randels explained that the violation in discussion occurred due to window signs that blocked the visibility in the store front and impeded safety and law enforcement intervention during sales transactions. Mayor Randels stated that the Board order was imposed on May 17, 2001. Mayor Randels read from the code Enforcement minutes that required Mr. Pravin Patel to remove the signage in order not to obstruct more than 25 percent of the window visibility. Mr. Pravin Patel was ordered to notify the Board of compliance and if he failed to comply by June 26, 2001, there would be a fine of $50 for the first day of non - compliance and $25 per day thereafter. Mayor Randels stated that the City's provision in code Section 2-260 required that the Lien Holder provide for a Satisfaction or Request a Reduction Lien. Mayor Randels stated that the Code Enforcement Board reviewed the six criteria: 1) the gravity of the violation, 2} the time that it took the violator to come into compliance, 3) the �Y accrued amount of the code Enforcement Fine or Lien, 4) any previous or subsequent Code violation, 5) any financial hardship, or 0] mitigating circumstances. Mayor Randels stated the council's three options as: 1) to approve the request, 2} to approve with conditions, or 3) to deny the request. May or Randels stated that the case began in the year 2001 and also he stated that Mr. Patel signed for the Notice of Violation. Mayor Randels said that a considerable amount was owed by way of fine. Mayor Randels clarified that the tenant informed the property owner of the violation and the Mayor then restated the Council's three options. Mr. Nicholas asked for clarification that the amount of the lien was $75,070 and he asked the Chair if the Petitioner was seeking a full reduction. Mayor Randels informed that the Code City of cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting March 20, 2007 Page 4 Enforcement Board recommended a reduction of the Lien to $21 ,000 plus legal fees and the amount of foreclosure; however, their Petitioner's legal counsel offered to pay $5,000. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog requested to know the total of the City's Attorney fees and costs. Attorney Garganese stated $4,300 in fees and costs. Mayor Pro Tern Hoog asked if that included the Board's time. Attorney Garganese replied that it did not. Todd Morley, Building official, informed of how the Board arrived at the $21,000 amount; however, the Board recalculated the amount to include to the Attorney's fees and costs for a total of $25,300. Mr. Nicholas stated that it had been the City's position over the years not to use the Code Enforcement Board as a fund raising source but to correct violations. Mr. Nicholas stated that what was galling about the violation was that it continued over a five- year period. Mayor Randels recounted the number of times that the Petitioner was sought to correct the violation. Mayor Randels stated that the violation was a safety issue, not an aesthetic issue. Mr. Nicholas stated how this Code was not indiscriminately adopted, but established to protect both the public and law enforcement personnel. Attorney Garganese stated that the Council should hear from the Applicant. Attorney Andrew W. Menyhart stated that he was the representative for the property owner, Mr. Pravin Patel. He explained that Mr. Patel,, the tenant, was not the owner of the property. Mayor Randels interjected that Mr. Patel, the tenant, signed the Notice of Violation as a part owner of the business. Attorney Menyhart stated that the City's current Code Enforcement officer planned to provide certified copies of the previously delivered notices to ascertain if the property owner was notified. Attorney Menyhart explained that the tenant told the property owner many times that the violation was resolved. Attorney Menyhart expressed that the property owner contention came about due to an accrued fine in 2004, not the property foreclosure suit that carne to his attention in 2007. Attorney Menyhart stated in summary that the Petitioner was seeking a fine of no more than $10,000. Attorney Menyhart said that it appeared that the property owner, Mr. Patel, was present at one of the Code Enforcement meetings. Attorney Menyhart related that the property owner sought to resolve the situation immediately and there was no blatant disregard on his part to rectify the violation. He stated that without the proper documentation the matter becomes no more than a verbal accusation between two parties. Mayor Randels reviewed that the last notice of service was June 14, 2005, and he noted how something as simple as removing the signs was ignored. Attorney Menyhart replied that the question remained; however, without all of the documentation, the matter was left to a verbal exchange between two parties. Mayor Randels stated that he did not see any attempt at willing compliance until the City proceeded to foreclosure. Mr. Morley informed that Ms. Alexander did offer to search the archived records to find the Certified Return Receipts for the original Notice of Violation. Mayor Randels referred to some of the Notices of Violation back to the year 2001. Mayor Randels informed that in August 0, 2001, Mr. Patel sent a letter to the city stating that he was aware of the circumstances. Attorney Menyhart responded that the communication breakdown was the one mitigating factor and he added that there was no egregious action toward the City on his client's part. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting March 24, 2007 Page 5 He asked for the Council to take that into consideration. He stated further that his client was willing to pay the fines of several thousand dollars. Mayor Randels stated that the $1 0,000 was inadequate for the amount of the accrued expenses. Attorney Menyhart replied that the Board recommended amount seemed high by his calculation. Mayor Randels sought the Council's consensus. Attorney Menyhart reminded that his clients were in the litigation process and in the Council's recommendation his clients would have the option to resolve the issue or to Continue in the litigation. Therefore, he and his clients were seeking the City's best offer at this time. Mayor Randels sought a response from the City Attorney. Attorney Carganese explained that the Code Enforcement Board authorized the foreclosure action and the foreclosure action was then filed. The Applicant has come to the Council with an Application seeking a reduction in the current Lien on a longstanding violation. If the Council agreed with the reduction and the Lien was satisfied, then the current foreclosure action was eliminated. Attorney Carganese explained further that the City Could recover the full amount of the Lien if it was believed that the City acted with due ,, ' . However, if the City proceeded and it was found that the City did not act with complete due (Jilinencte process, then there was a level of risk exposure to the City in collecting nothing, or part of the Lien, along with Attorney's Fees from the Applicant as well as its own legal counsel expenses. Attorney Carganese explained that the property owner believed that the tenant would resolve the violation; however, the tenant did not and the violation and subsequent lien continued. Mayor Randels read from the Code Enforcement Board Minutes of February 22 2007, that the property owner testifed, "the tenant notified him of the sign violation in 2001." Mayor Randels concluded that he had no sympathy for the property owner due to lack of action. He stated that he saw no circumstances that would Cause him to believe that the property owner did not know what was asked of him. Mayor Randels sought a second to his motion to Refuse the Release of the Lien. Mayor Pro Tern Hoag informed that he was present during the Code Enforcement Board meetings. He stated that this began prior to 2001, perhaps in November or December of the year 2000. Mayor Pro Tern Hoog stated that he personally felt strongly about the safety issue that was related from Law Enforcement. Mayor Pro Tern H oog stated that the City sought compliance, not the money; however, the cost for the staff time involved was valuable. He stated that he would concur with the Council for some form of action but also stated that the City was not seeking money but compliance. Mr. Petsos stated that he too followed the violation and the violation related to the safety of the employees as well as that of Law Enforcement. He said that he was not in favor of the full $75,000 but he was in favor of the Board's recommendation for the $25,300. Ms. Roberts reminded that this was the second case that the Council heard since she became a member. She expressed her concern for the lack of compliance on behalf of the community when something posed a threat to customers, employees, and law enforcement personnel. Ms. Roberts stated that she stated that she understood the Mayor and the Council's compromise approach to allow a business owner to stay in business; however, we also needed to relate the City's message that this was serious. City of cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting March 20, 2007 Page 6 Attorney Menyhart referred to Mr. Nicholas' statement in the motion that staff reviewed the time expended on this case and now the legal fees were established; however, his client was willing to pay $15,000. Attorney Garganese asked Attorney Menyhart if he had placed on the table some assurances that the City would be authorized to remove the paper from the window in order to provide adequate protection in the interest of the tenants, the customers and law enforcement. Attorney Menyhart replied that his clients could give further assurances and also to stipulate what fine would be entered should the violation occur again and therefore a judgment would already be entered. Ms. Roberts asked for clarification if what the City Attorney had advised by way of stipulation could be inserted into the main motion. Attorney Garganese stated his point that in order to expedite compliance in the event that the violation re- occurs that the City has a written understanding. Mr. Boucher reminded that such an action was done with the Miliken case. Mayor Randels clarified the main motion and an amended motion of an amount of $25,300. Ms. Roberts stated that she did not agree and said that the City was substantially decreasing the original Lien and she found that generous on the City's behalf considering the length of time for resolution. A motion was made by Mr. Nicholas and seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Hoog to amend the Main Motion to Take the Recommendation of the code Enforcement Board and to Reduce the Amount of the Lien to $25,300, which includes Attorney's Fees and costs. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tern Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For and Ms. Roberts, For. Mayor Randels clarified that any Stipulations would be added to the main motion. Attorney Garganese explained that the City could draft language to assure that action could be taken to remedy any future violation. He concurred with the City Manager that such an action was done in the Miliken case. Attorney Garganese asked the Council to keep in mind that if the Applicant agreed to the $25,300; under the Code, once the Council made a decision regarding the Reduction, then the Applicant had 30 days in which to accept it. if not, then the City would proceed to the foreclosure proceeding. Attorney Garganese concluded that the Council could make the further assurances through an amendment to the main motion. Attorney Garganese replied to Mr. Nicholas that any future violations would give the City consent to allow visibility. Council members disagreed with the City removing the paper from the window in any future violation. Attorney Garganese replied to Mayor Randels that the City could not re- impose an old fine. Attorney Garganese suggested the monetary amount of $100 per day, which the Code Enforcement Board imposed, on the amended Order. Discussion concluded that this was the existing fine. Mayor Randels explained that the Council was attempting to find a viable way to resolve any future violations. Ms. Roberts asked if in the event that the violation occurred again, could the Council seek foreclosure aeon. Attorney Garganese replied that if there were City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting March 20, 2007 Page 7 another Lien that was imposed and unpaid, then the City could institute a foreclosure action. Ms. Roberts asked if there were a threshold dollar amount, so if it began again the City could seek foreclosure. Attorney Garganese replied that the remedy was three months from the date of the recorded Lien if the city followed the procedure in Chapter 162, Code Enforcement Board Procedure. Ms. Roberts stated that if it happened again, the Council's patience might not be as tolerant, and immediate action would be taken. Attorney oarganese advised that if the Applicant violated again, then the City would prosecute a new Code Enforcement case as a repeat violator with a higher fine of up to $500 per day. Attomey oarganese concluded to allow the Code Enforcement Board to handle it. A motion was made by Mayor Randels and seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Hogg for a Request for Reduction of Lien for Pravin & Jyostna Patel at 8050 N. Atlantic Avenue, in the Amount $25,300 as a settlement for satisfaction and Release of the Code Enforcement Lien as Recommended by the code Enforcement Board to include Attorney's Fees and Costs. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tom Hoog, For; Mr, Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For and Ms. Roberts, For. 6. Motion to Approve: Change order Number (1) for the Public Works Maintenance Building in the Amount of $27,929., Ed Gardulski, Public Works Director, informed that he requested a second opinion from Miller, Legg and Associates and they concurred with a waffle slab foundation. Mr. Petsos stated that his initial question was not answered on why Brown and Caldwell, Inc. did not take soil samples prior to submitting the bid documents. Mr. Gardulski responded that the soil sampling was part of the bid documents that the Design Builders was responsible for taking soil samples. Ms. Roberts asked if they would take responsibility for the change order. Mr. Gardulski explained that the bid recipient had the option to take the soil samples to confirm if the original slab was sufficient. Mayor Randels stated that this would indicate that the City was agreeing to pay for the soil samples according to the bid documents. Mr. Gardulski responded to Mr. Nicholas that Brown and Caldwell prepared the bid documents. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog expressed his disfavor with a Change order prior to beginning construction and he also questioned the difference in cost especially when there were other buildings on the land. He re-- stated his disfavor with the change order and said that the City should not have to pay, nor should the contractor. Mayor Pro Tens Hoog stated that the change order expense was the responsibility of the engineers. Mr. Gardulski informed that the building was a design build and soil sampling was part of the bid documents for the contractor. Mr. Gardulski explained how the result of the soil sample required the change to the foundation. Mayor Randels then questioned the clarity of the bid document language and he queried if the engineer who developed the bid document performed to the City's expectations. Mayor Randels concluded that any contractor building six -feet from the water would want soil samples. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting March 20, 2007 Page 8 Mr. Boucher recommended that if the council chose to take action against Brown and Caldwell, Inc., the city Attorney's office could proceed; however, the project needed to continue and a waffle slab was needed according to two engineers. Mr. Boucher explained that in his understanding Brawn and Caldwell specified a floating slab; however, before construction could occur, the bid recipient had to take soil samples to verify soil conditions. Butler construction did the soil samples, verified them, and said then that they could not begin construction as specified by Brown and Caldwell. Mr. Petsos stated that Brown and Caldwell made a recommendation on a slab without a soil sample. Mr. Gardulski responded that if the soil samples were performed before the bid documents were published, the design builder might not want to rely on those samples, but would want to perform their own testing. Ms. Roberts referred to the letter from John Butler and said that there was additional overhead that the city would not have had if Brown and Caldwell had done the soil samples. Ms. Roberts expressed concern about the amount, the process, and the end result and she said that she did not think the city should accept the amount until the city gained clarity from Brown and Caldwell on how this transpired. She stated that she would prefer to see a cost sharing with Brown and Caldwell. Mr. Boucher stated that the city would hold the project up for Butler construction over Brown and Caldwell's error in the bid documents. Mr. Boucher stated further that the dry season was at hand and the materials were ready. He said that the city could call Brown and Caldwell to task and maybe have them cost share some of the charges. Mr. Boucher replied to Ms. Roberts that the other bidders were significantly higher. Mayor Randels clarified that even if another bidder was the award recipient, the soil samples were still required. Mr. Petsos stated that Ms. Roberts' comments were to the point and if there were any recoverable costs from Brown and Caldwell, then they should be directed to pay those costs. council members agreed that Brown and Caldwell should address this situation. Mr. Bob Baugher, General Manager of the Radisson Resort stated that a waffle slab was in fact a floating slab only of thicker proportion. He stated and Mayor Pro Tem Hoog agreed that the waffle slab was a labor - intensive installation. Mayor Pro Tern Hoog stated that there were 66 yards of extra concrete in the slab over the original slab. Mr. Gardulski replied that he could not find another engineer that could approve the change order. Council members agreed to accept the First change order for the Public Works Maintenance Building and for Brown and Caldwell to answer to its necessity. Ms. Roberts expressed her concern that it appeared that a waffle slab was the same as a floating slab; however, city was charged. She expressed to see a cost sharing with Brown and Caldwell and she expressed that the city was underrepresented in the proposal. Ms. Roberts stated that the city should recoup some of its costs. A motion was made by Mayor Pro Teal Hoog and seconded by Mr. Petsos to Approve change order Dumber one for the Public Works Maintenance Building in the Amount of $27,929. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows: City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting March 20, 2007 Page 9 Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For and Ms. Roberts, For. 7. Motion to Approve: Perlas Del Mar Easement Vacation. Mayor Randels explained how Cevesco Properties gave the City easements throughout the City for vacant land. He noted that the City was attempting to vacate the easements on which some buildings exist. Mayor Randels informed that the Planning and Zoning Board recommended the Easement Vacation on March 10. Mr. Nicholas stated that construction occurred on the City's easement. Mayor Randels referred to a letter dated February 2005 from Allen Engineering that the City would vacate the easement. Mayor Randels stated that they should have been vacated More the City approved the building plan and made note for Staff to add easements to the site development checklist. Mayor Randels directed the Staff to Record the Easements. A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tens Hoog and seconded by Ms. Roberts to Approve the Pedas Del Mar Easement Vacation. The vote on t1he motion carved 5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mfr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For and Ms. Roberts, For. RESOLUTIONS: 81 Motion to Adopt: Resolution No, 2007 -08; Approving the Preliminary Replat of Beach Breen: Townhornes. Mayor Randels explained that these townhomes were located at 8323 Ridgewood Avenue across from Cherie Down Park and Ms. Stacie Shoemaker desired to re-plat the lot into two lots. Nis. Shoemaker explained that her desire was merely to re -plat the lot and the indication of townhorne construction was a misnomer. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Board approved the request on January 20. Mayor Randels informed that the lot, .coned in R--2, had a maximum potential of nine units. Nis. Shoemaker concluded that with a re-plat the maximum potential would be a total of four, with her single family residence on one side and three units on the other, which was under the construction limit. A motion was made by Mr. Petsos and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Hoog to Adopt Resolution No. 2007 -08. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For and Ms. Roberts, For. g. Motion to Adopt: Resolution No, 2007-08; Supporting Florida House Bill 57 and Florida Senate Bill 44 , the Clean ocean Act. Mayor Randels explained that under this Act all Wessels that routinely carry or were certified to carry more than 100 passengers for periods of more than two hours to register with the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection and require Ports to establish and collect fees. Mr. Petsos provided history on the Bill saying that both the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting March 20, 2007 Page 10 House and Senate Environmental Committees would hear it on the i llowin � Y day. M r. i Petsos i nformed that he had the privilege of authoring the Bill and i nformed that Cocoa Beach had already adopted it. Mr. Petsos encouraged the Bill's support by Council and the audience and also encouraged them to call their state Legislators. Mayor Randels explained that Mr. Petsos was influential in initiating the Bill. In conclusion Mayor Randels summarized, the vessels would pay for the pump out facility services and waste would not get dumped within the three --mile limit. Mr. Petsos affirmed that this Bill would affect the State. Mayor Randels thanked Mr. Petsos on the Bill's benefit to Florida's coast. A motion was made by Mr. Petsos and seconded by Ms. Roberts to Adopt Resolution No. 2007 -09, Supporting Florida House Bill 57 and Florida senate Bill 444; the clean ocean Act. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with votin g as follows. Mayor Pro Tom Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For and Nis. Roberts, For. 10. Motion to Adopt: Resolution No. 2007 - 10; Endorsing the Acquisition and Protection of the Carver cove Property as a Riverfront Park and Communi Center. Mayor Randels explained that the Resolution endorsed the Acquisition and Protection of the Carver Cove Property and directed staff to work with the Trust for Public Land PL and the Florida communities Trust [FC11. Mayor Randels explained that TPL would purchase the land in their Trust Fund and the city would apply for the grant for the 4.2- acre property arrest of state Road A'I A and south of Wachovia Bank. Mayor Randels informed that the owner contacted the City regarding the purchase. The land would be used for a community center and recreation facilities. Mayor Randels explained that if the City could fund 50 percent of the cost, then there was an opportunity to secure more points toward securing the grant. Mr. Boucher explained how the TPL outlined in their letter that only 24 out of 110 grant applications were funded and only 3 of those 24 did not provide a ,Hatch. Mr. Boucher stated that funding without a ,Hatch was all but obsolete. Mayor Randels informed he had worked on securing the property since 2004. Mr. Boucher replied to Mr. Osborne q uestions regarding that his questi . g historical and archeological aspects, tree identification and environmental concerns would be answered during the application process. Mayor Randels concluded that the TPL was available to assist the Ca with the �Y rant 0 process and encouraged the City to match the funding in order to gain points. The application was due on May a with feedback in ea Se Mayor or Randels p Y explained that the TPL would take the lead in preparing the application and would look to the City for help with exhibits and identification. The TPL desired to know that if they purchase the property, would the City be willing to negotiate 25, or up to 50 percent match in order to gain the extra points. Mayor Randels informed that the likelihood of fundin was early August when the Florida communities Trust staff provides the Prelimina Report. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting March 20, 2007 Page 11 Mr. Boucher clarified that Mr. Bob Guido, of the TP L, was in favor of the City seeking the grant funding; however, if the property was removed from the market, the City would need to seek grant funding in the subsequent year if the grant were not obtained during this funding year. Mr. Petsos questioned the City Manager on his planned source to secure the match funding. Mr. Boucher replied that the City would either use Reserves or secure a Note. fills. Roberts stated that she imagined that this was part of the City's main design for acquiring green space. she expressed her appreciation for Mr. Petsos's question on the sources of funding. Ms. Roberts brought out the point of the City acquiring property on a larger scale this coming year. Mr. Nicholas commented that when the City sought property in the past purchases were limited. Mayor Randels informed that the property was 172 feet north /south along the road and Boo -feet eastl'west. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog questioned this project in light of the facilities planning for City Hall and the Sheriffs facility acquisition. Ms. Roberts stated that the point to keep in mind was that historically the City has been conservative paying incrementally and has benefited to some extent. However, this was an opportunity to secure property before any further development. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog expressed his concern and sought the Council's certainty on the purchase in light of other property acquisitions. Mayor Randels expressed that he envisioned an opportunity for a Community Center or Recreation Complex at the location and perhaps the Sheriff's Department could move into the existing Recreation building. He informed that the Florida Inland Navigation would install a canoe launch and the County Commission was receptive to discussing a Community Center in that location. Mr. Nicholas agreed that the potential exists and he suggested combining acquisition funds into one package. Mr. Nicholas commended the City for its conservative financial approach and said that the City was in good financial standing in the community to acquire a bond issue or a loan. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog concluded with a final caution on paying for the proposed projects in fight of the plateau in the construction market. A motion was made by Mr. Nicholas and seconded by Ms. Roberts to Adopt Resolution No. 2017 -09, Endorsing the Acquisition and Protection of the Carver Cove Property as a Riverfront Park and Community Center. The vote on the motion carried " with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. P'etsos, For; Mayor Randels, For and Ms. Roberts, For. Motion to Adopt: Resolution No. 2007.11; Approving the Preliminary Replat of Caribbean vistas Townhomes. Mayor Randels noted the location as 8002 Poinsetta and Madison Avenue. He explained the proposal to re -plat the property into four lots. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog asked why the verbiage was different on the dedication of easement between this and the previous re-- platting for Beach Breeze. Attorney Garganese replied that there was no specific language with regard to re --plat documents. A third party prepared these documents. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting March 20, 2007 Page 12 Mr. Daniel Coons replied to Mr. Osborne that the house was built in 1957. Ms. Roberts made note for the Council to consider a photograph prior to destroying the original building in order to document the City's history. She said that her request did not need to become part of the motion. Mr. Ray Osborne replied to Mayor Randels that he could take the photo. Ms. Roberts said that this discussion point was an opportunity to focus on the City's history. Mayor Randels added the thought of taking a photo before building demolition. Mr. Morley informed that he would be glad to place any photo in the City's file as part of the construction record. A motion was made by Mr. Petsos and seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Hong to Adopt Resolution No. 2007 -11. Approving the Preliminary Replat of Caribbean Vistas Townhomes. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as f+vllows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoag, For; Mr. Nicholas, For, Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For and Ms. Roberts, For. DISCUSSION: 12. Purchase of a Fiberglass Manatee for our Suer City of Vila Do Bispo, Portugal. Mayor Randels explained that this item was to purchase .a Fiberglass Manatee for Cape Canaveral's Sister City of Vila Do Bispo at a cost of $2,130 and he questioned if anyone has asked Vila Do Bispo if they desired to receive the manatee. Mr. Nicholas replied that the Sister City representatives from Vila Do Bispo received Cape Canaveral's Mayor and his guests well and they also named a park in Vila Do Bispo after Cape Canaveral. Mr. Nicholas noted that the 0 1dea of a manatee was initiated because of the days of early exploration and the Portuguese mariners. In light of this, the Beautification Board came up with that suggestion; however, the Board felt that the City did not think the manatee was a preferable gift and a City seal was suggested gift. Mr. Nicholas summarized that the Beautification Board would like some resolution on a gilt. Ms. Judy Hale, Beautif ration Board Chairperson agreed with 1'lllr. Nicholas. Mayor Randels affirmed that a street was dedicated in the City's honor in a photographed ceremony and he informed that the City has a photo CD of the visit. Mr. Nicholas requested to view the photos. !Mayor Randels suggested an olive tree for landscaping purposes. Mr. Boucher noted that asking them would remove the element of surprise for the recipient. Mr. Boucher then informed that the City had $799 in donations that would reduce the cost. Mayor Pro Tern Hoog inquired about the cost to send the manatee. Mr. Nicholas related that at one point Ms. Cathy Hardy, former Beautification Board Secretary, had obtained the shipping cost. Mayor Pro Tern Hoog reminded that the City should obtain the actual cost. Ms. Roberts stated that the Beautification Board had discussed a bronze seal, a manatee and also something space related such as a small shuttle, or rocket replica. She stated that perhaps the Council could discuss two or three options, including the shipping and make a decision based on total costs. Mayor Randels replied to Mr. Marry Pearson City of cape Canaveral, Florida City council Regular Meeting March 20, 2007 Page 13 that Vila do Bispo was in the Algarve southern coast of Portugal. Mr. Nicholas inquired about the Portuguese gentlemen a businessman in Merritt Island. Mr. Boucher informed that his name is Carlos Caldas. Ms. Roberts stated that there was also a woman at the Space center who was also active in working with the Portuguese delegation. Ms. Roberts asked if the Council planned to review the suggestions and come up with three options; however the only suggestion she has heard was the manatee. Mr. Boucher recommended showing the photo CD at the next Beautification Board meeting in order for the Board to get some ideas. Ms. Hale related on staffs difficulty in acquiring a space shuttle for the City Hall lawn and she did not see a shuttle as a viable gift. Mr. Ray Osborne inquired about the history of the Sister City program with Vila do Bispo. Mr. Boucher concluded that the information could be found on the Sister cities International web site. Discussion concluded that the photo CD would be shown at the next Beautification Board meeting. 13. Resort Dwelling units. Mr. Boucher explained that at the last workshop meeting Council desired to review two options. Mr. Boucher asked the City Planner to prepare a reap of the number of non - homestead versus homestead parcels in order for the Council to gain a visual perspective. Mr. Peetz informed that Property Appraiser's Office provided the information. This. Roberts asked how Mr. Peetz had determined which units in a multi - family building were predominately homestead properties. Mr. Peetz replied that if the Property Appraiser used a larger condominium, then they were not coded as homestead property. Mr. Peetz replied to Ms. Roberts that the City Manager gave the directive to focus on the single- - family, duplexes, tri-plexes and quad units. Ms. Roberts expressed her concern over Mr. Peetz's depiction in that it did not appear to be a realistic portrayal of the number of homestead owners in the City. Mr. Peetz affirmed that the parcels are consistent with units when speaking of a single - family unit, but for a duplex, triplex or quad he would think of them as single family in the R -1 zoning. He informed that since the single - family houses were sharing parcels, the Property Appraiser actually ceded those as multi- family. Mr. Peetz reiterated that the information came from the Property Appraiser's mice and he re-stated that the City Manager's directive was to focus on single-family, duplexes, tri- plexes and quad units. Ms. Roberts said that she raised the question because Resort Condominiums were added during the workshop and she expressed concern that what the ,nap depicted shed a different light on the discussion. Mr. Boucher clarified that the map was not being used to highlight that point. Mr. Peetz explained to the audience that the hash -- marked pattern properties were homesteaded. Mr. Peetz explained further that yellow indicated single - family; orange, which were few, indicated duplexes; blue indicated triplexes, dark blue indicated quads} - plexes and red indicated five units or more. Mr. Peetz responded to a question from the audience that the indication marked existing uses as of July 2005 from the Property Appraiser's Office. Mr. Peetz replied to an audience question that purple indicated commercial, non - residential, and industrial land and green indicated parks. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting March 20, 2007 Page '14 Mr. Peetz informed that the ratio was three to one for homestead single- family property over single family, non- homestead property. He also informed that for duplexes the percentage was 60 percent homestead to 40 percent non - homestead. Mr. Peetz stated that there were only four homestead triplexes and 16, non - homestead triplexes. He also stated that there were five homestead quads and 32 non - homestead quads. Mr. Peetz concluded that there were many multi family and multi family residential that were listed as homestead and non - homestead. However, as Ms. Roberts mentioned, there were probably many units being omitted because there was no indication of homestead property in the Solana Lakes and Solana Shores area. Mr. Peetz pointed out purple [lavender] was predominately the C -1 corridor. He informed that C-1 residential properties such as Ocean Gardens and oak Lane were C -1 zoned with homestead property. Mr. Peetz stated that there was no C -1 zoning along the ocean or the Banana River. Mr. Peetz indicated the C -2 zoning pointing out Solana -on- the -River and the lAP building. Mr. Boucher explained that the purpose of the map was to indicate the quad- plexes to single - family in order to gain a perspective of where the parcels were located and to note the area of impact due to regulations. Mr. Peetz replied to an audience question that the Property Appraiser's mice data for multi- family that was not predominately homesteaded was not indicated. if the City wanted to make condo lots part of this study, he would need to look at each parcel and check for homestead identification of each unit. Mayor Randels clarified that the City's research was based on a focus on four -units or less since the City had no authority to regulate five units or more. Ms. Roberts stated that the resort condominium language in one of the draft ordinances was confusing. Attorney Carganese replied that the language was inserted for illustrative purposes and could be removed. He stated that the previous Workshop brought out that resort dwellings were not Ming treated the same as resort condominiums and if the Council wanted to treat them the same, one of the draft ordinances was an example of how that language would appear. Attorney Carganese explained that there was a definition of Resort Condominiums, a subcategory of Public Lodging Establishments in Chapter 509 that has a similar regulation which states, "if you rent a condominium unit more than three times in a calendar year for less than 30 days you are considered a Resort Condominium and you must meet all the provision licensing requirements under Chapter 509." Attorney Carganese re- stated that if the Council chose to treat resort condominiums and resort dwellings the same this was how the ordinance would appear. Mr. Petsos stated his preference to return to discussion of four units or less. Ms. Roberts said when the Council begins to look at the whole of the City in relation to rental property then the discussion becomes confusing. Attorney Carganese responded that the Council could discuss resort dwellings separately from resort condominiums. Ms. Roberts expressed that some of the community would like for the Council to address the whole City; however, she recommended addressing the whole City at the Visioning Session. Attorney Carganese responded with his opinion that the State did not pre -empt the City's zoning authority to decide where these types of uses would be located. The State, however, did pre- -erupt the City's rights on Public Lodging Establishments with respect to City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting March 20, 2007 Page '15 licensing requirements. Attorney oarganese summarized that the ordinance related to zoning and the City had the right to make that decision. Todd Morley, Building official, explained that under the Building Code; an R -1 use meant a transient residential use, R -2 use was a permanent residential for more than 30 days and multi - family, R -3 use was permanent residential more than 30 days and one or two family, and R-4 use was residential care, assisted living facilities; however, the last use was outside of the scope of discussion. Mr. Morley explained further under the Building Code that if a change of use was required then a permit was required from the Building Official, with inspections and a final Certificate of occupancy for the new use. Mr. Morley explained how any new applicant, or any one desiring to change since the Code was adopted as of 2005, was required to proceed through -the Florida Building Code. Certain specks were required at this point such as: corridors, ratings of corridors, self - closing doors, fire alarms, and fire sprinkler requirements. The permit application would proceed to the Fire Department for review with the NFPA fire code and the property would require sprinklers and fire alarm systems. Mr. Morley and Mr. Boucher clarified that the language use of the structure, identified a transient use that was a change of occupancy classification. Mr. Morley read from the Florida Building Code: The permanent nature of the R-3 use permanent residence lent itself to safety, whereas with the R -I transient use the property requires a more stringent level of safety. Mr. Money reminded that an occupancy classification change in use from R--3 to R -1 required a permit, which subsequently required review and prompted the need for fire sprinklers, alarms, egress, and inspections from both the Fire and Building Departments, final inspections, and a Certificate of occupancy to use that use lawfully. Mayor Randels replied that historically the manner in which an area was zoned was dictated its use. Mayor Randels questioned if permission for use was required if he rented out the property. Mr. Morley stated that if a State License was issued then the approval should be requisite from the State before issuing the business license. Mayor Randels pointed out for clarification that the occupational license was not in fact authorization for the new use. Mr. Morley affirmed that a business tax receipt was not authorization for use. Mr. Morley stated that the City's ordinance also reads, "if you change the use of a structure, then you must get permit inspections and a new Certificate of occupancy for the new use." Mr. Morley replied that if there were structures that appeared to be used as R -1; however, Certificates for occupancy were issued for R -3, then a Code Enforcement violation existed. Mr. Harry Pearson, Planning and Zoning Board Member, asked what time period related to transient to which Mr. Morley replied less than 30 days. Mayor Randels asked if the same application would apply to a resort condominium as to a resort dwelling. Mr. Morley affirmed that it would. Mayor Randels concluded that it appeared that the City was treating all applicants the same. Mr. Morley stated that at this point the City would need to develop parking standards, for example, one space per room such as applies to the hotel -motel industry. Mr. Nicholas asked if Mr. Morley meant one space per rental unit. Mr. Morley answered that for hotel - -motel service City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City council Regular Meeting March 20, 2007 Page 16 the Code provision related to one space per guest room. He stated that there was no provision for residential transient dwelling units and this would require further discussion. Ms. Roberts clarified that the key was less than 30 days. Mr. Morley informed that the Florida Building Code used a less than 30-day limit to define transient. Mayor Randels clarified that rental for less than 30 days for three times per year was defined under the Florida Building code as a transient use. Mr. Morley clarified that of all four residential categories R -1 was the only transient classification; if you choose to become an R -1 use, a change was required through a permit, with subsequent inspections, and a Certificate of Occupancy for an R -1 use. Mr. Morley replied to Mayor Randels that existin properties would need a transient R -1 use Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Morley replied to Mr. Pearson that he could not address what the State requires; however, the Florida Building code refers to the Florida Fire Prevention Code that requires sprinklers and alarms. Mr. Bjornar Hermansen informed that the permit he received from the State was practical) the same with the exception of parking and trash removal that were local issues. Mr. Morley stated that American with Disabilities Act [ADA] requirements were also a criteria. Mr. Dunn asked if the ADA would require elevators in two -story buildings. Mr. Morley affirmed. Mr. Baugher asked if the change of use was concurrent with the Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Morley affirmed and he stated that if there was evidence of a change of use in violation of the issued CO, then there were grounds for code Enforcement proceeding. A question was raised on seeking the Certificate of Occupancy information if P Y the residence was bunt prior to the CKYs incorporation. Mr. Morley replied that he did not have records predating the City's incorporation. Mr. Boucher replied that such information could be found with the County. A question was raised on the number of times for rental. Mr. Morley replied that the time factor in the Florida Buildin g Code established less than 30 days as the identification of transient use. Mr. Boucher reported that he met with the Fire Chief and his Assistant, and the Building Official to discuss regulations for use. Discussion proceeded to the newer three -story, town homes of 4,600 square feet to include an elevator. Mr. Boucher informed that the occupancy Ioad was 150-square feet per person that would allow for 30 people in the unit. Mr. Boucher stated that the key was the maximum occupancy load. Ms. Roberts stated that such places as the Ron .Eon's cape Car ibe Resort time -share have met those requirements versus a change of use for residences that would have a difficult time meeting the requirement. Attomey Carganese stated that the Council was working with the issue of whether or not to treat R -1, R -2, and R -3 the same as those structures used predominately for short terra leasing. He stated further that from the Building and Fire code standpoint these were considered a different classification and subject to different building and fire Mode regulations. Attorney Oarganese explained that when you look at the North American Industry classification system that identifies all particular types of commercial uses and provides an industry classification, one of the uses was Lessors of residential buildings and dwellings. It was considered a sub- industry for real estate and rental and leasing, City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting March 20, 2007 Page 17 additional evidence that these transient rental type establishments were a different classification. Attorney Garganese concluded that the Council would need to make that decision. Mayor Randels asked the Council if they desired to continue the meeting past the 10:00 P.M. hour to perhaps 10:30 P.M. Council agreed by consensus to continue the meeting to 10:30 P.M* Mr. Bob Baugher stated that for a change of use, there must be an identification of zoning. Mr. Morley prefaced the Building Code related to Residential Group R in that, "Residential Group R includes among other the use of a building or structure thereof for sleeping purposes when not classified as an Institutional Group I," and the Building Code proceeds to list the four. He stated that Mr. Baugher's hotel was a Group R and the houses and transient residential were also Group R. Mr. Morley clarified that the Building Code classifies hotels as residential; however the City's zoning code classifies hotels a permanent use in the commercial district. Attorney Garganese stated that any industry classification would make a hotel a commercial use in terms of a zoning perspective. Attorney Garganese explained that the industry classification that he mentioned to the Council described establishments primarily engaged acting as Lessors of buildings used as residents or dwelling, such as single - family homes. Attomey Garganese explained further that if you were leasing a single - family home as a transient rental, that home would be included as a commercial use for statistical purposes. Ms. Roberts added public safety purposes as the reason. Mr. Oliver of Country Inns and Suites Informed that when he approached the City to build a hotel the requirements were: in commercial zoning, development of 150 units, and on at least 5 acres. Mr. Oliver stated in light of meeting the requirements to build a hotel at great expense, he viewed it unfair to the hotel industry to treat residences differently if they were operating in the commercial environment. Mayor Randels informed that the City was not aware that a change of use occurred. Mr. Hermansen informed that under the codes in the City of Cocoa Beach, the building code coincides between zoning and use. He stated that many of the people who operated as transient rental property could find themselves out of compliance with Federal and State regulations for life/safety issues. Mr. Hermansen believed that City management had the right to enforce those rules as these rental property licensees might think that the City has given them authorization to conduct business. Ms. Joyce Barry of 504 Tyler /venue reported on a nearby townhome rental. She questioned use of a property if the deed was identified as a residence. Mr. Morley stated that one had the right to obtain a change of use and a deed was a private restriction that was not recognized by the Florida Building Code. Attomey Garganese stated that in terms of the City being informed that the property has become a transient rental would lead to evidence, and then the situation would become a Code Enforcement matter, City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City council Regular Meeting March 20, 2007 Page 18 Mr. John Orandlich of Cape Caribe Resorts requested clarity on the council's direction and if the Council was still seeking to regulate resort dwellings of four units or less. Mr. Petsos replied that he was still seeking to not allow resort dwellings in areas of four -units or less. Mr. Orandlich referred to the two documents option One and Option Two drafted March 15, 2007. The council replied that one of the documents was relative. Mr. Grandlich referred to the Option One Ordinance and noted the definition for resort condominiums on Pages 0 and 9, assuming that time - shares were included; it stated that density shall not exceed 15 dwelling units per acre, and currently the zoning for hotels was 30 units per acres. Mr. Orandlich asked if the Council planned to change zoning. Attorney Garganese clarified that the Council was not seeking to discuss resort condominiums at this time. The Council would review option one without reference to resort condominiums. Ms. Roberts added that at the previous workshop the Council discussed permitted use in the C -1 zone only. Mr. Boucher explained that there were two issues: 1 ] where would the Council want those types of uses, and 2} the existing residential units licensed by the State required a use classification change. Ms. Roberts stated that to permit the use would change the residential zoning. Mayor Randels said that the council was recently informed that the existing units were not properly classified for their use. Mr. Petsos clarified that Council's discussion was to consider transient residential dwellings in C--1 zoning, to allow grandfathering of the existing units, and to set a timefrarne for any one who chose to comply with the standard. Mr. Boucher stated that for any grandfathered property even though they have a State license, they would need to demonstrate compliance with the local permitting authority that they met the criteria for a change of use prior to grandfathering them in. Ms. Roberts expressed the danger of grandfathering these properties in with the potential of unidentified safety related issues. Mr. Hermansen stated that the City was permitting something that was against Federal and State regulations. He suggested separating the commercial use and if any owner decided to seek a commercial operation then they should apply for a change use to the extent that they meet the same code as the commercial area. Attomey Oarganese reminded that the State of Florida licensed seven of these resorts dwellings in the City without any intergovemmental cooperation or coordination with the city. Attorney Oarganese questioned what would be done with these non - conforming dwellings that have not complied with fire safety regulations, would they be grandfathered in or eliminated. He pointed out that they could be given a period of time to come into compliance even though they were in the residential area. They could get licensed by the State but also apply to the City for a change of use and then submit to the fire and building code inspections within a certain period of time, or they would be eliminated. Ms. Alana Whitehead reported that her property was State inspected; however, the state- - licensing agent informed her that she was supposed to get a fire inspection; however since the City would refuse to do it, the state did not require one from the city. Mr. Boucher concluded that communication between the State and the City has been the problem. Mr. Moriey recommended to hear from Fine chief Dave Sargeant. Attorney Oarganese City of Cape Canaveral,Florida City Council Regular Meeting March 20,2007 Page 19 Coe recommended re-drafting Option No. 1 based on what was heard at tonight's meeting leaving the window of time blank and allowing the use in C-1 zoning. Ms. Roberts expressed her concern with the interim of time until for these dwellings meet the standard. Mr. Boucher replied that the Fire Chief would address each dwelling on a case-by-case basis and he would discontinue use until it was found in compliance. Attorney Garganese clarified that his statement was not made to say that the City would not take enforcement and inspection action now; however, there were issues that would be administratively handled The Fire Chief would speak to the opportunity for conformance. Mr. Boucher stated that the properties could be inspected within the next three weeks if the property owners were amenable. Mayor Randels concluded that there were seven identified dwellings that staff would address. 14. Administrative Appeals related to the Zoning Code of Ordinances. This item will be placed on the next City Council Regular Meeting Agenda. REPORTS: Due to the late hour, there were no reports. AUDIENCE TO BE HEARD: There were no comments from the audience. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further biglipess, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 10:30 P.M. Rocky Randeis, MAYOR Susan t' C , CITY CLERK C gS