HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacket 08-16-2005 RegularMY OF
CAPE CANAVERAL
City of Cape Canaveral
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
CITY HALL ANNEX
111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida
TUESDAY
August 16, 2005
7:00 PM
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
ROLL CALL:
PRESENTATIONS: Brevard Tomorrow, Geo Ropert, Director
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of July 19, 2005.
2. Resolution No. 2005-22; Appointing Shannon Roberts as an Alternate
Member to the Business and Cultural Development Board.
3. School Resource Officer Agreement with the City of Cocoa Beach.
ORDINANCES: First Public Hearing:
4. Motion to Approve: Ordinance No. 09-2005; A Large Scale Comprehensive
Plan Text Amendment Amending the Future Land Use Element to Allow for
Mixed Use Development, at First Reading.
5. Motion to Approve: Ordinance No. 14-2005; Responding to a Recent U.S.
Supreme Court Decision of Kelo v. City of New London, Providing for
105 Polk Avenue • Post Office Box 326 • Cape Canaveral, FL 32920-0326
Telephone: (321) 868-1220 • SUNCOM: 982-1220 • FAX: (321) 868-1248
www.myflorida.com/cape • e-mail: ccapecanaveral@cfl.rr.com
ape Canaveral, Florida
ncil Regular Meeting
6, 2005
,f 2
Limitations on City Councils Authority to Exercise Eminent Domain Power
Solely for Economic Development Purposes, at First Reading.
CONSIDERATIONS:
6. Motion to Approve: Request for Satisfaction or Release of Code
Enforcement Lien Magma Trading Corporation, Applicant.
7. Motion to Approve: A Replat for Sea Shell Cay Townhomes.
8. Motion to Approve: A Replat for Beachside Townhomes, 1St Addition.
9. Motion to Approve: Florida Power and Light Engineering Deposit for
Underground Service for Thurm Blvd. and West Central Blvd.
10. Motion to Approve: Center Street Landscaping and Paving Plan with Benko
Construction.
REPORTS:
1. City Manager
2. Staff
3. City Council
AUDIENCE TO BE HEARD:
Comments to be heard on items that do not appear on the agenda of this meeting.
Citizens will limit their comments to five (5) minutes. The City Council will not
take any action under the "Audience To Be Heard" section of the agenda. The
Council may schedule such items as regular agenda items and act upon them in
the future.
ADJOURNMENT:
Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Florida Statutes, the City hereby advises the public that: If a person
decides to appeal any decision made by the City Council with respect to any matter considered at
this meeting, that person will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose that person
may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the
testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. This notice does not constitute
consent by the City for the introduction or admission into evidence of otherwise inadmissible or
irrelevant evidence, nor does it authorize challenges or appeals not otherwise allowed by law.
Persons with disabilities needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact
the City Clerk's office (868-1221) 48 hours in advance of the meeting.
Meeting Type: Regular
Meeting Date: 08-16-05
AGENDA
Heading
Presentation
Item
No.
AGENDA REPORT
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL
SUBJECT: PRESENTATION: BREVARD TOMORROW
DEPUDIVISION: LEGISLATIVE
Requested Action:
Mayor Randels requested that Geo Ropert, Director of Brevard Tomorrow, explain their plans for the upcoming
year.
Summary Explanation & Background:
See attached.
Exhibits Attached:
Brevard Tomorrow Letter Dated 06-29-05
City Mana r'?; Qffice Department LEGISLATIVE
cape-m\myd uteeiii in\council\meeting\2005\08-16-OS\brevardtomorrow.doc
June 29, 2005
Mr. Bennett Boucher
City Manager
105 Polk Ave.
Cape Canaveral, FL 32920
Dear Mr. Boucher:
Thank you for City of Cape Canaveral's investment commitment of $1,536 to
Brevard Tomorrow. Your help is most important to this effort and we appreciate your
generosity as we strive to continue to lay the foundation for what Brevard County wi11
become — a visionary community with a vibrant economy and an unparalleled quality of
life.
Our eomrnunity has a bright future, thanks to financial commitments like yours to
the Brevard Tomorrow vision. Your investment is important because our success is
contingent on the participation of many, many individuals who, like yourself, give of
their time, talent and financial resources.
t '
Through the diligent efforts of the five project teams, we have seen progress in
the areas of Civic Ir rastructure, Economy, Education and workforce, Governance apd
Land Use and Growth. We will continue to see many successes throughout the yjars an
are pleased that you are continuing with us on this community journey.
For you convenience and financial records, an invoice has been enclos I
you again for your support.
Sincerely, n i
Geo Ropert �1LQl1i��OL. � ��. �QL
Director r
Brevard Tomorrow R�
cc:
Rocky Randels
'207
Jw.com
,rrow com
Brevard, Ir
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
CITY HALL ANNEX
111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida
TUESDAY
August 2, 2005
7:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
ROLL CALL:
Council Members Present:
Council Member
Mayor Pro Tem
Council Member
Council Member
Mayor
Others Present:
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
Building Official
MINUTES
Burt Bruns
Bob Hoog
Jim Morgan
Buzz Petsos
Rocky Randels
Bennett Boucher
Anthony Garganese
Susan Stills
Todd Morley
Mayor Randels called for a moment of silence to acknowledge the passing of City
employee, Carl Akery. Carl was employed with the City for 39 years.
PRESENTATION:
Summer Commercial Beautification Award, Century 21, 7100 North Atlantic Ave.
Ms. Mary Jo Laws extended thanks to Century 21 and Ms. Donna Linden, Broker, for their
beautification efforts in the City.
Quarterly Business Recognition Award — AJT and Associates.
Ms. Beth Foy, of the Business and Cultural Development Board, presented the
Quarterly Business Recognition Award to Mr. Richard Wood of AJT who thanked the
City for the recognition. Mayor Randels noted that the company has grown from its
inception in Merritt Island and Port Canaveral. Mr. Wood informed that the company has
City of Cape Canaveral, Florida
City Council Regular Meeting
August 2, 2005
Page 2 of 8
created a system to treat wastewater to derive potable water. He explained how this
wastewater treatment system was demonstrated for use in mobile homes. The
company also developed an ozone disinfectant system with a 99.99 percent bacterial
kill. He replied to Mr. Morgan that the mobile unit could treat up to 500 gallons per day.
BOARD INTERVIEW:
Shannon Roberts, Business & Cultural Development Board
Ms. Roberts affirmed for Attorney Garganese that the information on her application was
true and correct to the best of her knowledge. Ms. Roberts thanked the Council and Board
for the opportunity to take an interest in community involvement. She responded that
through her 30 year background in the private industry and volunteering capacity at the
State and Local level, she hoped to bring the experience to the Board. She hoped to
categorize the City's business in order to strengthen partnerships. She also expressed the
desire to work with the Board to celebrate the city's heritage and to showcase some of the
inherent talents already present in the City. Mayor Randels reviewed Ms. Roberts
extensive education and high level work experience to include Associate Director of Space
Transportation at NASA. Mayor Randels related that a Resolution to appoint her to the
Board would be placed on the next City Council Meeting Regular Agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of July 19, 2005.
2. Resolution No. 2005-20; Appointing One Regular Member to the
Community Appearance Board. (Andrea Schaffner).
3. Fire Service Automatic Aid Agreement.
Mayor Randels asked if any Council member, staff or interested party desired to remove
any of the Consent Agenda items for discussion.
A motion was made by Mr. Petsos and seconded by Mr. Bruns to Approve
Consent Agenda Item No. 1 through 3. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with
voting as follows: Mr. Bruns, For; Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Morgan, For; Mr.
Petsos, For and Mayor Randels, For.
CONSIDERATION:
4. Motion to Approve: Proposal from Brown and Caldwell to Conduct a
Wastewater Rate Study in the amount of $20,000.
Mayor Randels noted that the $15,000 cost estimate was based on a previous study. Mr.
Marco (Mike) Rocca, Senior Consultant for Brown and Caldwell, stated that the scope of
City of Cape Canaveral, Florida
City Council Regular Meeting
August 2, 2005
Page 3 of 8
the study is to identify current system usage and rates and to project future rates while
keeping the City fiscally sound. Mr. Morgan expressed his thought to delay the study for
one year. Mr. Boucher affirmed that the City still anticipates units to come on line;
however, the Public Works Director has embarked on a project to analyze plant facilities
and ascertain upgrading needs. If the Council chose to wait, the City Manager requested
to put the study in the 2005/ 2006 Budget. Council members agreed by majority to identify
needs prior to analyzing rates.
No action was taken on this item.
ORDINANCES: Second Reading:
5. Motion to Adopt: Ordinance No. 13-2005; Amending Chapter 50; Regulating
Sleeping and Camping upon Public Streets and Sidewalks, Beach End
Streets, Beach Dune Crossovers, Beaches and Parks, at second reading.
Mayor Randels read Ordinance No. 13-2005 by title.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA,
REGULATING SLEEPING AND CAMPING UPON PUBLIC STREETS AND
SIDEWALKS, BEACH END STREETS, BEACH DUNE CROSSOVERS, BEACHES
AND PARKS, PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES
AND RESOLUTIONS, INCORPORATION INTO THE CODE, SEVERABILITY AND
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mayor Randels noted the amendments that Council Member Petsos previously
requested. First, the language relating to the City's dependency on tourism was
removed. Second, the language in Item B reflecting the City dependency on tourism
was also removed. Lastly, a new Section 7 was added to address sleeping or
trespassing on private beaches or dwellings. Attorney Garganese stated that there was
also a change to subparagraph (f) at the request of the Sheriff's Office to reflect the
laws referring to situations caused by trespassing on private property would be handled
by law enforcement. Mayor Randels clarified that if any person declares that they have
no place for relocation, then the Sheriffs Office has the duty to transport the person to
the nearest facility or would transport them with assistance to a facility in another
jurisdiction.
There was no public comment.
A motion was made by Mr. Petsos and seconded by Mr. Morgan to Adopt
Ordinance No. 13-2005 at second reading. The vote on the motion carried 5-0
with voting as follows: Mr. Bruns, For; Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Morgan, For;
Mr. Petsos, For and Mayor Randels, For.
City of Cape Canaveral, Florida
City Council Regular Meeting
August 2, 2005
Page 4 of 8
SITE PLANS:
6. Motion to Approve: Revised Site Plan: Residence Inn — Allen Engineering,
Applicant.
Mr. John Allen of Allen Engineering was introduced to make amendments to the site
plan. Mr. Todd Morley, Building Official, stated that 800 feet was added to the building
in order to accommodate laundry chutes. Mr. Allen stated that the request reflects all
changes to include the square footage. Mayor Randels read some of the incorporated
changes as: pavement striping, valves and a change to the service connection in the
pump room. Mr. Allen noted that a change was made to the gravity sewer line to
eliminate the need for a pumping station. Mayor Randels stated that the City
Engineers, the Fire Department and the Building Official reviewed the changes and the
Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the plans on July 13tH
Mayor Pro Tem Hoog spoke on the excessive speeds of the oncoming traffic from the
overpass bridge. Mayor Randels explained that the Port Manager agreed to relocate
the 45 mile per hour speed limit to a point prior to the incoming city limits. Mr. Allen
replied to Mr. Wood that a deceleration lane and a left turn lane would be installed. He
informed that roadway resurfacing would occur.
Mr. Petsos expressed it is the Council's duty to develop the City in the safest way
possible. Mayor Randels clarified that the developer had obtained the Florida
Department of Transportation [FDOT] approval for the road cuts. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog
expressed the difficulty in obtaining authorization from the FDOT for hazardous road
mitigation Attorney Garganese explained that the FDOT did not choose to approve road
planning on a case-by-case basis. However, some cities have developed an Access
Management Plan to address and identify road hazard in a more comprehensive
approach.
A motion was made by Mr. Morgan and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Hoog to
Approve the Revised Site Plan: Residence Inn, Allen Engineering,
Applicant. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Mr. Bruns,
For; Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Morgan, For; Mr. Petsos, For and Mayor
Randels, For.
REPORTS:
1. City Manager
• Mr. Boucher reported back to the Council from the previous Facilities Plan Meeting
on July 28th. Attorney Garganese drafted a Real Property Due Diligence
Agreement. The parties recognize that the owner has 3.5 acres in which the City
has an interest. The City would have 90 -days to conduct due diligence research in
order to make a decision. This would afford the City an opportunity to make a
physical inspection of the property. The City could examine the title of the property
City of Cape Canaveral, Florida
City Council Regular Meeting
August 2, 2005
Page 5 of 8
and review for possible encumbrances. The City could obtain an appraisal from the
Property Appraiser's Office. The property owner would also agree to not sell,
convey, lease, assign or transfer the property during the 90 -day period. If the City
finds the property favorable, then the City would proceed to seek a sale and
purchase contract under terms deemed feasible.
Mr. John Jansen, of AJT and Associates, stated that he found the Agreement
acceptable. He stated that it is industry standard that when a property is removed
from the market, a deposit is placed on the property. He noted that an Escrow
Account could be opened with Mr. John Kabbord, the company's Settlement
Attorney. Mr. Jansen stated that a 3 to 5 percent in escrow of the $3.7 million
asking price would be acceptable, although $100,000 was sufficient.
Mayor Pro Tem Hoog asked about the statute in discussion at the previous meeting
on design build projects. Attorney Garganese replied that the City is working from a
vacant piece of property. He stated that there are two statutes in discussion: 1)
Competitive Bidding for any projects over $200,000 and 2) the Contractors
Competitive Negotiations Act that also requires competitive bidding for public
projects under $200,000.
Attorney Garganese stated that if the building existed, the City would obtain the
requisite number of appraisals and then purchase the building. Mr. Morgan
questioned the statutory compliance to purchase the land and constructed building
as a package. Mayor Randels clarified the concern of purchasing the land with a
set of plans without seeking competitive bidding on the plans. Attorney Garganese
stated further that competitive bidding would also apply to the contractor used in the
actual construction.
Mr. Jansen suggested that the Council consider each of the Options during the Due
Diligence Agreement time period. He stated that the $8 million option of selecting
both Options would require a higher deposit. Mr. Boucher clarified that the 3.5
acres to include the State Road A1A frontage is under the Due Diligence
Agreement. However, the building plan is for the one -acre parcel. Mayor Randels
summarized that the Council is discussing three separate options: 1) Option A, 3.5
acres, 2) Option B, one -acre with a building and 3) Option C, both Options A and B.
Mr. Jansen stated that none of AJT's Options included construction on the 3.5- acre
parcel. He replied to Mayor Pro Tem Hoog that purchasing the one -acre parcel
with a building required a one-year completion time. Discussion continued on
Statutory compliance in buying a complete building package. Attorney Garganese
stated that he is reviewing two strict public bidding processes that apply to
municipalities. He explained that municipalities are required to give 14 -days public
notice for their own staff to engage in construction projects.
City of Cape Canaveral, Florida
City Council Regular Meeting
August 2, 2005
Page 6 of 8
Mr. Jansen clarified that the project is not a design -build project it. It is already
designed with construction to follow. Attorney Garganese stated that there are two
different statutes, a design -build statute and a public construction statute. Mr.
Morgan suggested that the City phase in its construction using the new land
purchase. Mayor Randels expressed that he was not in favor of purchasing land
with no plans for building construction. Discussion followed from a majority of
the Council members that purchasing the land is a good investment and in
the best interest of the City. After deliberation, Mayor Randels concurred that
the property purchase was in the best interest of the City. Council's decision
concluded unanimously to purchase the 3.5 acres of AJT property.
• Mr. Boucher returned with a cost of $450,000 from Florida Power and Light to
install the utility lines underground on Thurm Blvd. He stated that he could
foresee to gain underground utilities was to implement the tariff system.
• Mr. Boucher, Mr. Petsos and Representative Bob Allen met to discuss the gaming
ship sewage dumping issue. Representative Allen will address this as a
statewide issue.
• Mr. Boucher stated that Mermaid Key, the mixed-use development, is scheduled
for the August 16th City Council Regular Meeting Agenda.
• Mr. Boucher informed that he and the City's Stormwater Coordinator, Jeff Ratliff
met with County Commissioner Pritchard and his Stormwater Coordinator
Ron Jones in order to coordinate efforts on cleaning baffle boxes, street sweeping
and sharing resources for project maintenance. He also met with him on road
restoration. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog commented on the state of disrepair on roads
such a Brown Circle and Commerce Street.
• Mr. Boucher expressed his sentiments on City Employee, Carl Akery.
2. Staff
Public Works Director
• Mr. Gardulski informed that the Department is working on the decorative street
lighting.
• He replied to Mayor Pro Tem Hoog that the speed bump would be repaired.
Building Official
• Mr. Morley informed that Bayside Development was working on its final site plan.
City Clerk
• Ms. Stills reported that school opens on August 8th and the School Crossing
Guards are prepared to return to their posts. There will be four guards this year
with two guards posted at Washington and Rosalind Avenue.
City Attorney
0 No report.
City of Cape Canaveral, Florida
City Council Regular Meeting
August 2, 2005
Page 7 of 8
AUDIENCE TO BE HEARD:
• Mr. Leo Nicholas asked about the plans for the model shuttle. Mr. Boucher
informed that the cost ranged from $20 to 80,000 in materials ranging from acrylic
to concrete. Ms. Shannon Roberts explained that the model design was ready;
however, additional funds were needed. She informed that much volunteer effort
was expended on the project so far. Mr. Dennis Jenkins performed the design.
• Ms. Shannon Roberts asked about the progress on North Atlantic Avenue
project. Mr. Gardulski replied that Bell South was awaiting materials; once
received, there is a two week completion time.
• Ms. Roberts inquired about return of tax dollars from the County. Mr. Petsos
would make this part of his report.
• Ms. Roberts also asked about the covered bus stops for the residents. Mayor
Randels replied that the City had a company called 20/20 who was willing to deliver
the stops; however, the stops were required to be located on the Florida
Department of Transportation right-of-way. Location became a concern.
• Ms. Roberts asked if a Homeland Security approach would gain more security in
the jetty area. She explained that the nearness to the Port might gain support from
Law Enforcement.
• Mr. Nicholas replied that the Beautification Board had addressed a covered bus
stop. Mayor Randels informed that the City of Cape Canaveral has the highest
ridership in the beach area. He explained how the buses were reluctant to move
out of traffic due to the difficulty to return to traffic and remain on schedule.
3. City Council
Mr. Bruns
No report.
Mr. Petsos
Mr. Petsos requested a breakdown of how the City's tax funding used in the
County.
Mr. Petsos asked how many citations were issued for fireworks. Mr. Boucher
replied that he would investigate results. He reported from the Fireworks Work
Group that increased public education was a benefit. He informed that both the
State and County are working in this issue. However, possession of fireworks is not
illegal.
Mr. Petsos inquired about the status on the Brevard Metropolitan Planning
Organization seat. Mr. Boucher asked for input to develop a letter.
Mr. Morgan
• Mr. Morgan expressed to see reclaimed water overflow discharged at the storm
water park on Ridgewood Avenue and not dumped into the river. Mr. Gardulski
replied to Mr. Petsos that the reclaimed water, if available, is on at times for 24
hours.
City of Cape Canaveral, Florida
City Council Regular Meeting
August 2, 2005
Page 8 of 8
Mayor Pro Tem Hoog
• Mayor Pro Tem Hoog emphasized the need for a seat on the Brevard
Metropolitan Planning Organization.
• Mayor Pro Tem Hoog asked about the Stormwater cleaning efforts with the
County. Mr. Boucher planned to review the Joint Projects that would apply with the
County.
• Mayor Pro Tem Hoog asked about the new solid waste collection method and
dumpster fumigation. He stated that more should be done to disinfect the
dumpsters.
Mayor Randels
• Mayor Randels reported on finding homes for 100 baby pelicans housed at the
Florida Wildlife Hospital.
• Mayor Randels reported on a letter from Occupational Safety and Health
Administration commending Todd Morley, Building Official for his interest in
health and safety practices subsequent to a City employee falling through an
unsecured skylight.
• Mayor Randels reported favorably on the sidewalk installation on Poinsetta
Avenue.
• Mayor Randels informed that through the efforts of Congressmen Dave Weldon
the Water Resource Bill passed. The goal of the bill was for the Federal
government to pay the full $15 million cost to repair beach erosion caused by Port
Canaveral jetties. Mayor explained how the Port implements a trap system to keep
sand out of the channel.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 9:58 P.M.
Rocky Randels, MAYOR
Susan Stills, CITY CLERK
Meeting Type: Regular
Meeting Date: 08-16-05
AGENDA
Heading
Consent
Item
2
No.
Exhibits Attached:
AGENDA REPORT
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL
SUBJECT: CONSENT: RESOLUTION NO. 2005-22, APPOINTING AN ALTERNATE MEMBER
TO THE BUSINESS AND CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD
DEPT/DIVISION: LEGISLATIVE
Requested Action:
City Council consider the adoption of Resolution No. 2005-22, appointing Shannon Roberts as a first alternate
member to the Business and Cultural Development Board, as recommended by the board.
Summary Explanation & Background:
City Council interviewed Mrs. Roberts on 08-02-05. Her term will expire on 06-01-08.
I recommend approval.
Exhibits Attached:
Resolution No. 2005-22; Application
City MansAffice
Department LEGISLATIVE
ca im\myd cum& in\counci Sting\2005\08-16-05\2005-22.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, BREVARD COUNTY,
FLORIDA; APPOINTING AN ALTERNATE MEMBER TO THE BUSINESS AND
CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL,
FLORIDA; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, has established by
Code Section 22-27, the Business and Cultural Development Board; and
WHEREAS, it is now incumbent upon the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral to
appoint an Alternate Member to said Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cape
Canaveral, Florida, as follows:
SECTION 1. Shannon Roberts is hereby appointed as First Alternate member of the
Business & Cultural Development Board of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, with a term to
expire on June 1, 2008.
SECTION 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, this 16th day of
August, 2005.
Rocky Randels, MAYOR
ATTEST: FOR AGAINST
Burt Bruns
Susan Stills, CITY CLERK Bob Hoog
Jim Morgan
Buzz Petsos
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Rocky Randels
Anthony Garganese, CITY ATTORNEY
K:\CityClk\Resolutions\BOARDS\Appointments\2005\B&CDB Alt_Roberts.doc
City of Cape Canaveral
CITY OF
CAFE CANAVERAL
Date: July 22, 2005
O To: Bennett Boucher, City Manager
Susan Stills, City Clerk
From: Ed Lawson, Business and Cultural Development Board Secretary
Re: Recommendation to the City Council Regarding Perspective Business and
Cultural Development Board Member, Shannon Roberts
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 20, 2005, The Business and Cultural Development Board interviewed Shannon
Roberts and recommended that City Council appoint the applicant as First Alternate to
the Business and Cultural Development Board.
105 Polk Avenue - Post Office Box 326 - Cape Canaveral, FL 32920-0326
Telephone: (321) 868-1220 - SUNCOM: 982-1220 - FAX: (321) 868-1248
www.myflorida.com/cape - e-mail: ccapecanaveral@cfl.rr.com
703 Solana Shores Drive, #501
Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920
July 12, 2005
Ms. Beth Foy
Chairperson
Business and Cultural Development Board
City of Cape Canaveral
105 Polk Avenue
Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920-0326
Dear Chairperson Foy:
The purpose of this letter is to express my interest in becoming a member or alternate of
the Cape Canaveral Business and Cultural Development Board. I have been a resident
of the City of Cape Canaveral and a registered voter in Brevard County since 1997.
If selected to serve, it would be my honor to offer knowledge and insights gained from
over 30 years of work experience in Federal, State and local government; the private
sector; and, professional and non-profit organizations. In serving on the Board, I would
propose to focus on:
• Listening and being responsive to the business and cultural development needs
and interests of the citizens of the City of Cape Canaveral;
• Continuing the responsible business and cultural development of the community;
• Honoring and celebrating the rich heritage of the City of Cape Canaveral;
• Strategic planning and partnership -building with others such as the Space Coast
Economic Development Commission; Federal, State and local government
agencies (e.g., NASA and the Kennedy Space Center and the Canaveral Port
Authority); and, local chambers of commerce to help bring additional resources
and opportunities to support our community's business and cultural development;
and,
• Identifying opportunities to celebrate and showcase the diverse talents of our
citizens and to bring to the community cultural events and learning opportunities
of potential interest to our citizens.
I appreciate the opportunity to express my interest in serving on the Board. If you have
any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 321-784-3334.
Please find enclosed for your reference a resume.
Respectfully,
C. Shannon Roberts
Enclosure
C. Shannon Roberts
703 Solana Shores Drive, #501 Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920 321-784-3334
Work History
1997— 2005 John F. Kennedy Space Center, NASA
(Retired 2105) Associate Director for External Relations
Executive Advisor, KSC Change Leaders Network
Ombudsperson for Strategic Change
Director, Workforce and Diversity Management
Lead, KSC Cultural Development Project
KSC Liaison, Space Coast World Trade Council
KSC Liaison, Central Florida Region
Member, KSC Senior Management Council
1990-1997 NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
Assistant Associate Administrator for Space Flight
Director, External Relations and Benchmarking
Executive Advisor, Employee Leadership Forum
Member, Space Flight Executive Council
1993-1994 National Performance Review
Lead, Outreach Team
Member, National Performance Review Steering Council
Member, Federal Consortium for Culture Change
1980-1990 U.S. Department of Transportation
Deputy Director, Management Planning
Director, Financial Management
Associate Director, Commercial Space Transportation
Department Liaison to the White House, Private Sector Survey on Cost Control
1986-1990 President's Council on Management Improvement
Executive Director and Director, Communications
1985-1986 President's Executive Exchange Program
Director, Quality, Xerox Corporation
1974-1980 U.S. Department of Justice
Assistant Director, Program Review and Budget
Senior Policy Analyst, Office of the Attorney General
Member, Attorney General's Review Commission for Federal Judgeships
1970-1973 North Carolina State Government
Director, Study Release Program, N.C. Department of Corrections
Education
1997 University of Southern California
Doctor of Public Administration
1973 Harvard University
Master of Public Administration
1970 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Bachelor of Arts, Political Science & International Relations
Professional, Non -Profit and Community Experience
Member, Senior Executives Association Board of Directors
Member, Public Employees Roundtable Board of Directors
President, Executive Women in Government
President, President's Executive Exchange Alumni Association
Quality Associate, Federal Quality Institute
Class Liaison, Federal Executive Institute Alumni Association
Member and Chair, Budget Committee, Montgomery County, Maryland Commission on
Juvenile Justice
Volunteer, Greenwich, Connecticut "Help in Crisis" Hot Line
Member, NASA Alumni Association
Member, Cape Canaveral Lighthouse Foundation
Member, NASA/KSC Launch Escort Team
CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL
APPUCATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY ADVISORY BOARD OR COMM TTt__
Pursuant to Section 2-971, Cape Canaveral Cada
City Code requires prospective and existing hard members to fill out an appflcation. City Code
also prohibits a person from, serving on a City Board or Committee if that person has beer',
convicted of a felony, unless their civil right✓ have been restored.
Please complete the follcwing in the space provided:
A. GENERAL
1. Applicant Name: SL6 n rto,,- o&--,y-f'S
2. Home Address: `?03 S4 I4,►-, a. Sl,ofts
501 ,
3. Home Telephone: 3a-/- 7$`f-333*
4. Occupation: NAsA - Pu -f-, r -z ( 2-/0s>
5. Business Telephone:
6. Business Address:
B. ELIGIBILITY
The information provided in this section is for purposes of determining wheti-ter you are eligible
to serve on a City advisory board or committee.
1. Are you duly registered to vote in Brevard County?
(Y) ✓ (N)
2. Have you been a resident of the City of Cape
(Y) V" (N)
Canaveral for 12 months or longer?
3a. Have you ever been convicted or found guilty, regardless
of adjudication, of a felony in any jurisdiction? Any pica
of nolo contendere (no contest) shall be considered a
(Y) {N)
conviction for purposes of this question.
3b. if yes to 3a, have your civil rights been restored?
m (N)
4a. Do yoci presently serve on any other City of Cape
Canaveral advisory board or committee?
4b. ff yes to 4a, please list each:
S. City ordirancs requires that all persons applying for a
City advisory board or committee must voluntarily consent
to a standard crir *t W background check before being ez-�'
appointed to a beard or committee. Do you voluntarily initials
consent to having a standard background check
performed on you by the City of Cape Canaveral? (Y) ✓ (N)
Ea. Are you related to a City of Cape Canaveral Council
mer ber by.. blood, adoption or marriage? (`(} (N} ✓
6b. If yes to Ba, please provide narne(s) of person(s) and relationship to you:
C. 1NTERESTStEXPERiENCE
9. Briefly state your interest in serving on a City advisory board or committee:
<O Caa�fr: ..fie, ro 4e.-rz� �rw 1. �, . .w.JL C••1�,• •� q= d2 a est o� :% a,
2. Briefly state any prior experiences in serving on any governmental board or committee:
3. Please fist any specialized skills and training (e.g., architect, engineer, general
contractor, etc.) that you feel help to qualify you for membership on the desired board or
committee:
4. In numerical sequence (1 = most interested), please rank which advisory board or
committee on which you wish to serve:
a.
Beautification Board
b.
Board of Adjustment'
r* -- ,l
Business and Cultural Development Board
d.
Code Enforcement Board*
e.
Community Appearance Board*
f.
Construction Board of Adjustment and Appeals*
g.
Library Board
h. a,
Planning and Zoning Board'
i.
Recreation Board
j.
Other
',ven,,befs of &ese boards are required to complete and fife with f m Supervisor of EiecJons a
Finar=l Disclosure Foran upon appoinfr *nt to said board and prior to July 1 of each year
foffowhV the infffai appointnhent while sfiA a member of said board.
I
D. STATE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
Section 780.80, Florida Statutes, requires that the City annually submit a report to the Secretary
of State disclosing rare, gender and physical disabilities of board arm commutes members.
Please check the appropriate boxes:
RACE
GENDER
African-American
Male
Asian -American
✓ Female
Hispania -American
Not Knom
Native American
Caucasian
DISABILI TY
Not Known
Physically disabled
YOU HEREBY REPRESENT TO THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, UNDER PENALTIES OF
PERJURY, THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED HEREIN 1S TRUE AND ACCURATE TO
THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, AND THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL HAS THE
RIGHT TO RELY ON THAT INFORMATION.
YOU HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THE E)USTENCE OF THE CODE OF ETHICS FOR PUBLIC
OFFICERS [SECTIONS 192.341-.326, FLORIDA STATUTES] AND THE FLORIDA
"SUNSHINE LAW" [SECTION 236.011, FLORIDA STATUTES], WHICH MAY PERTAIN TO
YOU IF YOU ARE APPOINTED TO A CITY ADVISORY BOARD OR COMMITTEE, AND 1F
APPOINTED, IT IS YOUR SOLE OBLIGATION AND DUTY TO COMPLY WITH SUCH LAWS.
PLEASE NOTE:
• Initial appointment to any City board is subject to City Council approval following a brief
interview before the City Council at a regularly scheduled meeting.
• Your application will remain effective for one year from the date of completion.
• If you should have any questions regarding the completion of this applicaticn, please
ccn ct the City Clerk's Office at (321) 868-9221.
Signature:
Date:
/9 -
Please return to: City of Cape Canaveral
Office of the City Clerk
105 Polk Avenue
Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920
For Off=- Use Only:
Data Appcinted:
Appointed by:
Board Appointed to:
Tenn Expires:
Meeting Type: Regular
Meeting Date: 08-16-05
AGENDA
Heading
Consent
Item
3
No.
I recommend approval.
AGENDA REPORT
CITY COUNCH, OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL
SUBJECT: CONSENT: SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF
COCOA BEACH
DEPT/DIVISION: PUBLIC SAFETY/POLICE
Requested Action:
City Council consider approval of a School Resource Officer Agreement with the City of Cocoa Beach in the
amount of $4,338 to cover Cocoa Beach High School.
Summary Explanation & Background:
This year's cost is $4,338 covering 335 (22.04%) of Cape Canaveral students attending the high school. Last year's
cost was $2,910.
I recommend approval.
Exhibits Attached:
SRO Agreement
City Manager's.Office
Department PUBLIC SAFETY/POLICE
f - / -r ` r
r,
i
� cape im\my admin\coun tyng\2005\08
I6-05\sro.uoc
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, dated this 26nd day of July, 2005, by and between THE CITY of CAPE
CANAVERAL, hereinafter called CAPE CANAVERAL and the CITY of COCOA BEACH,
hereinafter called COCOA BEACH.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Brevard County School Board has implemented the School Resource Officer
Program, and;
WHEREAS, the School Board shares the cost of implementing the program with the
Municipalities of Brevard County, and;
WHEREAS, COCOA BEACH and CAPE CANAVERAL determine that the School Resource
Officer Program is in the best interest of the school system and both communities, and;
WHEREAS, COCOA BEACH and CAPE CANAVERAL desire to share the cost of the
School Resource Officer Program incurred by the municipalities on the campus of Cocoa Beach
Junior/Senior High School; and whereas the program would cover a period of not more than 190 school
year days, and;
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration CAPE CANAVERAL and
COCOA BEACH agree that the following terms, stipulations and covenants as outlined herein and, by
reference, made part hereof, shall govern the responsibilities of each party.
1. The agreement will commence on August 1, 2005 and will terminate on May 30, 2006, unless
further continued by mutual agreement of both parties. By May 16, 2006 CAPE CANAVERAL
and COCOA BEACH will open discussions regarding renewal for the 2006-2007 school year.
2. CAPE CANAVERAL agrees to provide twenty-two and four hundredths percent (22.04%) of the
municipality's share of the School Resource Officer's salary, benefits, equipment, uniforms, and
overtime during the term of this agreement. Per the agreement between COCOA BEACH and the
BREVARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, the municipalities pay fifty percent (50%) of the School
Resource Officer cost. For the contract period of August 1, 2005 through May 30, 2006, CAPE
CANAVERAL'S payment will be $4,338.00 as outlined in exhibit III. Payment shall be made to
COCOA BEACH in two equal installments of $2,169.00 according to the following schedule:
February 7, 2006, and June 6, 2006, subject to prorating based on the date of implementation.
3. CAPE CANAVERAL has designated City Mayor Rocky Randels and COCOA BEACH has
designated the Cocoa Beach Chief of Police for the purpose of implementing the terms of this
agreement.
4. CAPE CANAVERAL and COCOA BEACH agree to the goals and guidelines stipulated in the
Exhibits I and II, which are attached hereto and, by reference, made part hereof.
5. To the extent permitted by Florida Statute 768.28, CAPE CANAVERAL and COCOA BEACH
agree to indemnify and hold each other harmless and free from liability, including the officers,
agents or employees of said parties while acting as such, from all claims, damages, injuries, fines,
and costs, including expenses and attorney's fees which either party may become obligated to pay
resulting from or in any way connected to errors or acts or omissions of employees of either party's
performance relative to the terms of this agreement.
Page Two (2)
SRO Guidelines
C. The Principal or any other school board employee shall report all allegations of
improper conduct to the SRO's immediate supervisor or to the Internal Affairs
function. School Board employees shall not conduct an internal investigation of
alleged improper conduct on the part of the SRO. However, the Principal may request
reassignment during that investigation.
The SRO has the authority to request review of contract provisions after reasonable review
and conferencing between the SRO and the Principal has occurred. The following procedures
must be followed:
A. The SRO will request that a review of the contract provisions be completed stating the
reasons for the request in writing. That request should be directed to the SRO's
immediate supervisor and the Principal. A copy of that request must also be provided
to the Superintendent and the Chief of Police.
B. Within a reasonable period of time after receiving the request for review from the
SRO, the Superintendent, or designee, will meet with the Chief, or his designee to
mediate or resolve any contract provision concerns that may exist between the SRO
and the staff at their assigned school.
1. With the agreement of the Superintendent and the Chief, or their designees, the
SRO, or specified members of the staff from the school, may be required to be
present at the mediation meeting.
2. If, within a reasonable amount of time after commencement of mediation, the
contract provision concerns cannot be resolved or mediated, in the opinion of both
the Superintendent and Chief, or their designees, then an alternative action will be
taken.
6. It shall be the responsibility of the City of Cocoa Beach to provide all salary payments and
benefits of the agency to the SRO. The School Board shall reimburse the City for salary and
fringe based upon the amount stipulated in the agreement. If a substitute officer is required,
the School Board shall reimburse the city for actual cost for that substitute officer consistent
with the agreement.
7. The SRO's normal work year shall be the same as the normal teacher work year with an
additional alternative for five days of planning prior to the teacher work year and five days of
critique and review following the teacher work year.
8. A formal written plan of action with regard to the community policing philosophies will be
presented and discussed with the Principal, Chief of Police, SRO and other appropriate
personnel prior to the first day students arrive. This plan must include duties for the five days
prior and five days after teachers are on campus if that alternative option is selected, as well
as the number of hours that the SRO will provide in classroom instruction.
Page Three (3)
SRO Guidelines
9. The SRO, Principals, Area Superintendents, and Chief of Police will meet to review the plan
of action and provide summary evaluation concerning the SRO's progress not less than one
time per semester. Additional meetings may be requested by the Principal or the SRO to
review the progress of the plan of action.
10. The SRO shall be assigned specifically to the school, five days per week during the school
year. Unless it's an extreme emergency, the SRO will not be called away from school by the
law enforcement agency. If the SRO is called away from the school for a substantial portion
of the school day, the SRO shall notify the Principal and provide the Principal with an
alternative means of contacting the appropriate law enforcement agency. If the SRO is called
away from the school for more than a school day, the city should make every reasonable
effort to provide a substitute officer.
11. The SRO may be assigned to provide supplemental instructions at the discretion of the
Principal, as qualified. The Attorney General's (SRO training) philosophy with regard to in -
class SRO presentations will be used as a guide.
12. At the request of the Principal, the SRO may train school personnel in interview techniques,
investigation skills and related matters. It is preferred that the school resource officer make
parent contact prior to participating in a student disciplinary meeting. The SRO may engage
a student for the purpose of completing a Referral Form.
13. The SRO may be assigned by the Principal to supervisory duties during or after regular
school hours so long as they do not conflict with police department policy or the bargaining
agreement between the city and police officers. These after school activities will be under the
supervision of school personnel. The School Board will be responsible for 50% of all
overtime expenditures directly related to the daily activities of the SRO, not to exceed the
budgeted amount contracted between the Brevard County School Board and the employing
agency. [This does not include activities such as football games, basketball games, and
school dances for which a separate contract of service is required.]
14. If the SRO witnesses an unacceptable activity on campus, they will report the incident to the
school administration and police department. Both police and school administrative
procedures shall be followed. In the event they conflict, police procedure shall prevail. The
SRO shall avoid making arrests on school grounds unless under exigent circumstances. If
arrest is necessary, the SRO will be called to execute proper police procedure. The SRO
should coordinate arrest and other operational strategies with the Principal if at all possible.
15. The Principal, with the concurrence of the law enforcement agency, may assign the SRO to
sponsor extracurricular events and chaperone field trips or other school activities so long as
these assignments do not result in non -approved overtime expenses charged to the police
department.
Page Four (4)
SRO Guidelines
16. The SRO will integrate with students in the following ways: between class breaks and during
lunch periods, and will patrol neighborhood areas after school if necessary.
17. The SRO is encouraged to attend parent, faculty, and staff meetings, as staff support
personnel, to solicit their support and understanding of the program.
18. The SRO should be familiar with all community agencies which offer assistance to
delinquent youths, such as: mental health clinics, drug treatment centers, etc., making
referrals when necessary and acting as a resource person to the Principal.
19. At the request of the Principal or other school staff, the SRO shall take appropriate action
against individual trespassers who appear at school and at school related functions.
20. Should it become necessary to conduct formal police interviews with students, law
enforcement policy will be followed, parents shall be notified and coordination made with the
Principal.
21. The SRO shall submit bi-monthly reports of their activities to be reviewed by the Principal
and the SRO command staff which shall include all overtime activities [including hours] as
approved by the Principal.
22. At any time during the school year when students are not in school, or at the conclusion of the
contract period, the SRO shall be assigned other duties by the Chief of Police.
23. The SRO shall comply with the provisions specified in Section Florida Statute 1006.12
(School Resource Officer Program)
6. COCOA BEACH shall not assign or transfer this agreement to any other agency without the prior
written permission of CAPE CANAVERAL.
7. Any changes in the terms and conditions set forth in this agreement must be mutually agreed to by
both CAPE CANAVERAL and COCOA BEACH and may be implemented only after this
agreement has been amended in writing.
8. The parties understand and agree that while the School Resource Officer is rendering services
provided for by this agreement, he/she remains an employee of COCOA BEACH.
9. The parties understand and agree that the School Resource Officer will comply with police
policy/procedure and regulations when in uniform. The SRO is required to be in uniform to execute
all duties as required by the school unless otherwise agreed upon by the school principal and the
Cocoa Beach Chief of Police.
10. If any of the terms or provisions hereof are in conflict with any applicable statute or rule of law,
then such provision shall be deemed inoperative to the extent that it may conflict therewith and
shall be deemed to be modified to conform with such statute or rule of law.
11. A report of the School Resource Officer activity will be provided to CAPE CANAVERAL on a
calendar quarterly basis.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed by
their duly authorized officers and agents the day and year first written above.
THE ACOC BEACH, FLORIDA
By:Ch les B' li,nager
ATTEST: I0s.
B4 -\-"'Z& — -/
LoreAdana Kalaghchy, Cit erk
as to form
N
: W1&'W!44U ff W. W_
ATTACHMENTS:
THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
By:
Bennett Boucher, City Manager
ATTEST:
By:
Susan Stills, City Clerk
y
Exhibit I- Goals of SRO Program
Exhibit II- Guidelines of SRO Program
EXHIBIT I
SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER PROGRAM
GOALS
1. To identify and prevent, through counseling and referral, delinquent behavior,
including substance abuse.
2. To foster a better understanding of the law enforcement function.
3. To develop positive concepts of law enforcement.
4. To develop a better appreciation of citizen rights, obligations, and
responsibilities.
5. To provide information about crime prevention.
6. To provide assistance and support for crime victims identified within the
school setting, including abused children.
7. To promote positive relations between students and law enforcement officers.
8. To enhance knowledge of the fundamental concepts and structure of the law.
9. To provide materials and consultative assistance to teachers and parents on
various law education topics.
10. To evaluate program effectiveness, the Chief of Police, SRO, and the
Principal will define quantitative and qualitative measurements for each of
the nine (9) goals listed prior to the first day students arrive. Program
evaluation will occur twice during the school year with a final report prepared
on or before the last day of school for students. The evaluation will be based
upon input from the principal and school staff, as well as the SRO's chain of
command.
EXHIBIT II
SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER PROGRAM
GUIDELINES
BREVARD COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM
The school resource officer (SRO) is a City of Cocoa Beach police officer, responsive to the
Chief of Police's chain of command and shall remain an employee of the City of Cocoa
Beach. They shall report to the school Principal daily and the Principal shall have input in
their evaluation.
2. The SRO shall be interviewed by a committee in which the Principal or their designee is a
participant. The final selection is by the Chief of Police with mutual consideration on the part
of the Principal.
3. The determination as to when the SRO will wear their uniform shall be defined by the Chief
of Police and the Principal.
4. The Principal has the authority to request the reassignment of the school resource officer
from their duties at school. The SRO may be reassigned from their position at their assigned
school after reasonable review and conferencing between the SRO and the Principal has
occurred. The following procedures must be followed:
A. The Principal will recommend to the Area Superintendent that the SRO be removed
from the program at their school, stating the reasons for the recommendation in
writing. A copy of that recommendation must be provided to the Superintendent and
the Chief of Police.
B. Within a reasonable period of time after receiving the recommendation to remove an
SRO, the Superintendent, or designee, will meet with the Chief, or his designee to
mediate or resolve any problem that may exist between the SRO and the staff at their
assigned school.
With the agreement of the Superintendent and the Chief, or their designees, the
SRO, or specified members of the staff from the school, may be required to be
present at the mediation meeting.
2. If, within a reasonable amount of time after commencement of mediation, the
problem cannot be resolved or mediated, in the opinion of both the Superintendent
and Chief, or their designees, then the SRO will be reassigned from the program at
that school and a replacement will be selected.
April 19, 2005
Ms. Andrea E. Alford, Director
Office of District and School Security
2700 Judge Fran Jamieson Way
Viera, FL 32940
Dear Ms. Alford:
Below you will find the FY 2005/2006 salary and benefits projections for one (1) school
resource officer (SRO). All figures are based upon the 190 day school calendar.
If you have any questions please feel free to call.
Sincerely,
James E. Scragg, Chief of Police
Cocoa Beach Police Dept.
iscraaa an.citvofcocoabeach.com
pjm
cc: file
Salary and
5% Overtime
Police Officer
School
Benefits
Based on
Total
Salary Only
Cocoa Beach
Ellie Caruso
Jr/Sr High
$37,375
$1,986
$39,361
School
Totals
$37,375
$1,986
$39,361
City of Cocoa Beach — 50%
$18,688
$993
$19,681
School Board - 50%
$18,668
$993
$19,681
If you have any questions please feel free to call.
Sincerely,
James E. Scragg, Chief of Police
Cocoa Beach Police Dept.
iscraaa an.citvofcocoabeach.com
pjm
cc: file
Meeting Type: Regular
Meeting Date: 08-16-05
AGENDA
Heading
Ordinances -I" Reading
Item
¢
No.
development is appropriate for the City and passes this at first reading, this amendment will be sent to the
AGENDA REPORT
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE NO. 09-2005, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, FUTURE
LAND USE ELEMENT TO ALLOW FOR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
DEPT/DIVISION: GROWTH MANAGEMENT/P&Z
Requested Action:
City Council consider at first reading Ordinance No. 09-2005, adopting a large scale comprehensive plan text
amendment, amending the future land use element to allow for mixed-use development as requested by the
applicant, Mermaid Key LLC, and recommended by the Local Planning Agency on June 8, 2005.
Summary Explanation & Background:
This item is a legislative function, not a quasi judicial function. If City Council determines that a mixed-use
development is appropriate for the City and passes this at first reading, this amendment will be sent to the
Department of Community Affairs for review and comments. Then, the final public hearing will be scheduled.
The proposed comprehensive plan text amendments are underlined.
There was a large amount of public participation at the Local Planning Agency Public Hearing, and I expect the
same at this public hearing. Representatives of Mermaid Key LLC will be in attendance to support this proposal.
Since this is an applicant driven amendment, City Council should act on this request by motion to approve or deny.
Please advise.
Exhibits Attached:
P&Z memo; minutes; Ordinance No. 09-2005 text amendment; Mermaid Kay Hand -Out
City Man Office _
Department GROWTH MGMT/P&Z
�
cape- im\myd come admin\council\meeting\2005\08-16-05\09-2005.doc
ORDINANCE NO. 09-2005
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL,
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING; SETTING FORTH AND
ADOPTING A LARGE SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TEXT AMENDMENT, WHICH SHALL AMEND THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RELEVANT TO THE FUTURE
LAND USE ELEMENT TO ALLOW FOR MIXED-USE
DEVELOPMENT; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL OF
THE PLAN TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF PRIOR
INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS;
SEVERABILITY; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, section 163.3161 et. seq., Florida Statutes, established the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act; and
WHEREAS, section 163.3167, Florida Statutes, requires each municipality in the State of
Florida to prepare and adopt a Comprehensive Plan as scheduled by the Florida Department of
Community Affairs; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the Future Land Use Element of its Comprehensive
Plan to allow for mixed-use development in commercially zoned areas; and
WHEREAS, mixed-use development is intended to provide for a variety of residential and
commercial land uses in a way that assures internal and external compatibility of uses; and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency of the City of Cape Canaveral held a duly noticed
public hearing, in accordance with the procedures in chapter 163, Florida Statutes, on the proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendments and considered findings and advice of staff, citizens, and all
interested parties submitting written and oral comments and has recommended adoption to the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of this Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment, is consistent with
the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan amendments adopted by this Ordinance comply with
the requirements of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development
Regulation Act and the amendments are in the best interests of the public health, safety, and welfare
of the citizens of Cape Canaveral, Florida.
City of Cape Canaveral
Ordinance No. 09-2005
Page 1 of 3
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE
CANAVERAL, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are fully
incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2. Authority. This Ordinance is adopted in compliance with, and pursuant
to, the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulations Act,
sections 163.3184 and 163.3187, Florida Statutes.
Section 3. Purpose and Intent. It is hereby declared to be the purpose and intent of this
Ordinance to clarify, expand, correct, update, modify and otherwise further the provisions of the City
of Cape Canaveral's Comprehensive Plan.
Section 4. Adoption of Amendments to Comprehensive Plan. The City of Cape
Canaveral Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Element, is hereby amended as reflected in Exhibit
"A", attached hereto and fully incorporated herein by this reference. (Underlined type indicates
additions and strikeout type indicates deletions, while asterisks (* * *) indicate a deletion of text from
the Comprehensive Plan. It is intended that the text denoted by the asterisks shall remain unchanged
from the language existing prior to adoption of this Ordinance).
Section 5. Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Ordinances and Resolutions. All prior
inconsistent ordinances and resolutions adopted by the City Council, or parts of ordinances and
resolutions in conflict herewith, are hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict.
Section 6. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word or
provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of
competent jurisdiction, whether for substantive, procedural, or any other reason, such portion shall
be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 7. Incorporation into Comprehensive Plan. Upon the effective date of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendments adopted by this ordinance, said Amendments shall be
incorporated into the City of Cape Canaveral Comprehensive Plan and any section or paragraph
number or letter and any heading may be changed or modified as necessary to effectuate the
foregoing.
Section 8. Effective Date and Legal Status of the Plan Amendments. The effective
date of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments adopted by this Ordinance shall be the date a final
order is issued by the Florida Department of Community Affairs, or the Administration Commission
finding the Amendments in compliance with section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. No development
City of Cape Canaveral
Ordinance No. 09-2005
Page 2 of 3
orders, development permits, or land use dependent on these Amendments may be issued or
commenced before the amendments become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued
by the Administration Commission, the Amendments may nevertheless be made effective by
adoption of a resolution affirming its effective status. After and from the effective date of these
Amendments, the Comprehensive Plan Amendments set forth herein shall amend the City of Cape
Canaveral Comprehensive Plan and become a part of that plan and the Amendments shall have the
legal status of the City of Cape Canaveral Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, this day of
, 2005.
ATTEST:
SUSAN STILLS, City Clerk
First Reading:
Legal Ad published:
Second Reading:
ROCKY RANDELS, Mayor
For
Approved as to legal form and sufficiency for
the City of Cape Canaveral only:
ANTHONY A. GARGANESE, City Attorney
Bob Hoog
Jim Morgan
Rocky Randels
Buzz Petsos
Burt Bruns
City of Cape Canaveral
Ordinance No. 09-2005
Page 3 of 3
Against
Exhibit "A" Ordinance 09-2005
Cape Canaveral Comprehensive Plan
Future land use Element
Objective LU -8:
The City shall work toward the use of innovative land development regulations. The
measurement of this Objective is the extent to which innovative land development
techniques are allowed and the degree to which the following Policy is implemented.
Policy LU -8.1
The City shall allow planned unit developments (PUD's) with proper review, using the
following specific criteria:
1. The PUD is an area of land developed as a single entity, or in approved
stages, in conformity with a final development plan which is intended to
provide for a variety of residential and compatible uses and common
space.
2. The PUD is a concept which permits variation in residential
developments by allowing deviation in lot size, type of dwelling, density,
lot coverage, open space , and limited commercial uses, from that required
for any one residential land -use classification under the zoning
regulations.
3. PUD procedures and standards will have the following objectives:
A. Accumulation of large areas of usable open spaces for
recreation and preservation of natural amenities.
B. Flexibility in design to take the greatest advantage of
natural land, trees, historical and other features.
C. Creation of a variety of housing types and compatible
neighborhood arrangements that give the home buyer
greater choice in selecting types of environment and living
units.
D. Allowance of sufficient freedom for the developer to
take a creative approach to the use of land and related
physical development, as well as utilizing innovative
techniques to enhance the visual character of the City of
Cape Canaveral.
E. Efficient use of land which may result in smaller street
and utility networks and reduce development costs.
F. Establishment of criteria for the inclusion of compatible
associated uses to complement the residential areas within
the planned unit development.
G. Simplification of the procedure for obtaining approval
of proposed developments through simultaneous review by
the City of proposed land use, site consideration, lot and
setback considerations, public needs and requirements, and
health and safety factors.
H. PUD should utilize economical and efficient use of land,
utilities and streets and other infrastructure.
Policy LU - 8.2 Mixed Planned Unit Developments
A mix of uses maybe permitted within a Planned Unit Development
under the following conditions:
1. Mixed PUD's may only be approved on parcels designated as C-1 or
R-3 on the Future Land Use Map located either with direct frontage on
or a portion of the parcel having land within 300' of AIA.
2. Commercial and Residential land uses shall be defined within the Land
Development Regulations.
3. Parcels must be a total of 10 acres in common ownership and not
separated by any land mass.
4. Density Intensity and Development Ratios shall be governed as
follows:
Land Use
Development
Gross
Gross
Type
Ratios
Density
Intensity
Not less than
*12 - 15
50% lot
Residential
80%
DUPA
coverage
No greater than
Commercial
20%
*Maximum density for residential land uses shall not exceed 15 dwelling units per acre.
The Planning Commission may recommend and City Council approve awarding
additional units based upon performance standards, such as architectural and site design
features, as specified in the Land Development Regulations from those set forth in the
table not to exceed 15 dwelling units per acre.
5. The Land Development Regulations shall setforth standards and
regulations to control development within a mixed PUD.
6. Mixed PUD's shall be primarily residential. Percentage of uses shall
be as follows:
a. Residential uses shall not be less than 80%
b. Commercial uses shall not be greater than 20%
7. No commercial uses shall be within 300 feet of the Banana River or
2,500 feet of the Atlantic Ocean shoreline.
8. Architectural and site design features shall be specified within the
Land Development Regulations for use in all mixed PUD's. The
MPUD shall have an integrated and consistent architectural style
throughout the whole development. The design standards for the
MPUD shall be improved as part of the MPUD zoning.
9. A Homeowner's or Condominium Association shall be created for
both residential and commercial uses/lands to provide maintenance of
all private utilities or streets.
10. Development Agreements or binding site plans may be used by the
City and Developer as a means to effect conditions related to a specific
project.
K of Cape Canaveral
To: Bennett Boucher, City Manager
Susan Stills, City Clerk
From: Bea McNeely, Chairperson, Local Planning Agency
Re: Regarding Recommendation to City Council: Proposed Ordinance
No. 09-2005 for Transmittal to the Department of Community
Affairs of Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments,
Amending the Future Land Use Element, Objectives LU -3 (City of
Cape Canaveral) and LU -8 (Applicant) - Policies, to Allow for
Mixed -Use Development - (LU -3) the City of Cape Canaveral; and
(LU -8) Rochelle Lawandales, Designated Agent for Mermaid Key
LLC .
At the Local Planning Agency meeting held on June 8, 2005, by unanimous vote,
the Board recommended approval of Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment,
Objective LU -3. By a 3 to 2 majority vote the Board recommended the City
Council consider amending Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment, Objective
LU -8, with revisions. Please refer to the attached meeting minutes for the list of
recommended revisions.
105 Polk Avenue • Post Office Box 326 • Cape Canaveral, FL 32920-0326
Telephone: (321) 868-1220 • SUNCOM: 982-1220 • FAX: (321) 868-1248
www.myflorida.com/cape • e-mail: ccapecanaveralOcfl.rr.com
Local Planning Agency
Meeting Minutes
June 8, 2005
Page 3
Residents voiced their concerns about the City setting a precedent if this request is
approved; traffic flow and congestion; safety; not being able to see what is proposed
before making a recommendation; this property being located along a waterway; nothing
preventing this property owner from building a hotel if the property is rezoned C-1;
environmental impact; removal of Mangroves and hardwood trees; destroying wetlands
rather than protecting them; and protecting what is in the best interest of the City and its
residents. Discussion followed.
Chairperson McNeely voiced her opinion that this request is not compatible with the
area. Mr. Dunn voiced his opinion that commercial uses should not be located
anywhere along the water and explained that he is not against mixed use, but it does not
belong on this property. Mr. Nicholas asked the Board to consider what is most
beneficial to the City and did not believe that this waterfront property being rezoned
commercial is in the best interest of the City. Ms. Filteau did not feel comfortable with
the City shutting the door on mixed use and believed that an R-3 development with 113
units will create a traffic problem. Mr. Schaeffner advised that he does not support
changing the zoning from residential to commercial. Brief discussion followed.
Motion by Mr. Dunn, seconded by Mr. Nicholas to recommend denial of Proposed
Ordinance #08-2005. Vote on the motion carried unanimously.
2. Recommendation to City Council: Proposed Ordinance No. 09-2005 for
Transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs of Large Scale
Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments, Amending the Future Land Use
Element, Objectives LU -3 and LU -8 - Policies, to Allow for Mixed -Use
Development - Rochelle Lawandales, Designated Agent for Mermaid Key LLC;
and the City of Cape Canaveral.
Mr. Peetz, City Planner, advised that the City is requesting the amendment to Objective
LU -3, and the applicant is requesting the text amendment to Objective LU -8. He
explained that the request from the City is to amend Objective LU -3 by adding Policy LU -
3.4 to clarify consistency with the City's special exception application requirements.
Motion by Chairperson McNeely, seconded by Mr. Nicholas to recommend approval of
proposed Text Amendment LU -3. Vote on the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Peetz, City Planner, advised that this proposed Text Amendment to LU -8 was put
forth by the applicant. Mr. Peetz read the proposed text changes.
Mr. Fredrickson questioned why the agenda items were not reversed, as requested by
the applicant, at the last meeting. Mr. Peetz responded that the rationale behind the
order of the agenda was so that everyone within 500 ft. of the property would have time
to speak. He advised that the applicant can withdraw their request up to the time of
adoption. Mr. Nicholas advised that there are no mixed-use developments in the City,
and this request, brought by the applicant, is to allow mixed-use in the City. The Board
members reviewed and held discussion regarding the proposed text.
Local Planning Agency
Meeting Minutes
June 8, 2005
Page 3
Due to the late hour, Chairperson McNeely asked for consensus of the Board members
to continue the meeting past 10:00 p.m., which requires a unanimous vote. Mr.
Fredrickson agreed, Mr. Nicholas disagreed.
Motion by Ms. McNeely, seconded by Mr. Nicholas to deny Text Amendment LU -8. Vote
did not carry with (3) members voting against and (2) voting for the motion with members
voting as follows: Mr. Dunn, against, Ms. Filteau, for; Mr. Fredrickson, against; Ms.
McNeely, for, Mr. Nicholas, for. Discussion followed regarding the agenda item. Mr.
Nicholas left the meeting at 10:10 p.m due to another commitment. Attorney Garganese
pointed -out that the Board only makes a recommendation and advised that the City
Council has the authority to take the application away from the Board if recommendation
on a request is delayed by the Board. Ms. Lawandales, applicant, advised that the
conditions discussed by the Board were agreeable.
Motion by Mr. Dunn, seconded by Mr. Schaffner to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 p.m.
Vote on the motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Filteau made a motion to recommend approval with certain conditions. The motion
died for lack of a second vote. Discussion followed. Mr. Dunn suggested that the
Applicant, and City Planner, clarify the words in the application. Mr. Pickles, Attorney for
the applicant, responded that any more time delays would not be feasible for the
Applicant. Discussion followed.
Motion by Ms. Filteau, seconded by Chairperson McNeely, to recommend City Council
consider amending the text to Future Land Use Element, Objective LU -8 with the
following revisions:
•
Policy LU -8.2 3 read as follows: All commercial must be contained within 1/4 mile
O
or less of the adjacent arterial roadway, but not within 300 feet of the Banana River,
or 2,500 ft. of the Atlantic Ocean shoreline.
• Policy LU -8.2 (5) read as follows: The MUD shall be permitted by a special
exception within the C-1 commercial zoning district contained within the City's land
development regulations.
• Policy LU -8.10 (h) read as follows: MUD's shall be required to submit a master
development plan for all lands under common ownership to be included within the
MUD, although it may be developed in phases; and the property shall be maintained
by the owners associations.
• The property must be a minimum of 7 1/2 acres.
• There shall be a executed Development Agreement.
• The property use shall be a maximum of 80%/20% split.
Motion carried by a 3 to 2 majority vote as follows: Mr. Dunn, for; Ms. Filteau, for; Mr.i
Fredrickson, for; Ms. McNeely, against; Mr. Schaffner, against.
pq P.1
Ah Ah
I;ffj
�4
M1r
r &
pq P.1
Ah Ah
I;ffj
rm" k N k T i --*,,,,j
as
•
rm" k N k T i --*,,,,j
a.:
E
4
W20
'r�lYi
va
ws
c ..
-+Q
C20
-.".
S
�
4m3p
4=
�s
��
4wx
V,f
9.
.. o.sY.
"c.'i
Q,1
C
.,...
ca
sr
Qi
C
C=
k3
ca
4=ca
w�.ro
www
ca
Qi
�
Yr
Qui
4=
mY�aYr.�
cc*
4.
030g
4
Qi
c
4231
�i
..A=
Liss
a—
C%
y=��
'AP
s
�M
nlye
•fir
!
�V*
C=
9=3L.
4wa
oft
ER
_
902
X!^REyyS�y�
r
4�yyyy���
1I
4=
Cak
�.
l
�
or.*^
y�
C=
'NYSE
�i�
Yr Sams
4ii
qwx
q`
SSS
+V_Y
V
co
e r•r
�
SM4Mt
m
y
yS1Y�
qw%
9�—
S�Y
�wi(SyiyV
4ax
T
V
ctp
4
ca
eta
�Cyry
C=
��/i�y �: r
` is
:2=
E
4
W20
'r�lYi
I
e 7%h
ee
OF
1 5
I
e 7%h
ON
{
F
ate:,
i
y�
3
33,
e
^1
S
f ry
k
-3
t
� k
t
ay h
{
ate:,
33,
e
^1
S
f ry
k
s
� k
t
i
'4
i
i
t
t
� v
3
1 �
Ns
65
� Fye
4
Y Fnp£ p
W)
5
'4
i
t
� v
'4
v ,us
s <
_
CLv
�Aj OD
to
•ice `tip`
Q
UL
0 fa
.„
'0 4 x�
tea++
' +4D.
0.9
ID
LyD 3 + as O - ' ik
a? °
CL
4e R
cl
'''' � ...� ,h„ � ;� •� � ° _ `�' `� _� . o, its � o°E - �� '
4 - crV
OCL
CL
75 35
CL
o
4� L
Al %
x •r► xl �• s v .+may r _ 0j CX
..
Im
w E _
C w r+, c e,
� �= C C C as , m
02 = +3
'iN • ' -0 � � — tl> Y V � d?
ID `" to U N Y- D M �'' — p
0.2 L"
a .0 a •°' CL CM M
-� a L
`
of �' vi +� os to tv
o: E
o
0CV-0 -D .4.2
06 m to
a.. i QjD
CL
pq P--1
j,� Am
�;Wj
x 41.Mao
o
W ON. di_� r x u
N v
11, too
O We s ;$
^,
lot
Ull
•YI 1 i `"
ca
io
•H u
p s
jW O �,
` o a�
" ..�
.3 v o t
� c
wCL 0
gig�-�
+� os.
ccmF
r.,, to
o° :� t
sem' � u. Q:
Ap
040
JC 13 0
lug !
0
MAJ
co
,+
CL
C. a
IM
s� s "� _-
oCL
,m c
jc
UAM
!1 d
� .0 c,
' .
$o °
W
C y,� o 0
o o c
• o
JIM 0.
pq P-1
Am Am
AMA
�;A
a �**
z
kx,
"wt
x 41.Mao
o
W ON. di_� r x u
N v
11, too
O We s ;$
^,
lot
Ull
•YI 1 i `"
ca
io
•H u
p s
jW O �,
` o a�
" ..�
.3 v o t
� c
wCL 0
gig�-�
+� os.
ccmF
r.,, to
o° :� t
sem' � u. Q:
Ap
040
JC 13 0
lug !
0
MAJ
co
,+
CL
C. a
IM
s� s "� _-
oCL
,m c
jc
UAM
!1 d
� .0 c,
' .
$o °
W
C y,� o 0
o o c
• o
JIM 0.
pq P-1
Am Am
AMA
�;A
Meeting Type: Regular
Meeting Date: 08-16-05
AGENDA
Heading
Ordinances -is` Reading
Item
5
No.
I recommend approval at first reading.
AGENDA REPORT
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE NO. 14-2005, PROVIDING FOR LIMITATIONS ON CITY COUNCILS
AUTHORITY TO EXERCISE EMINENT DOMAIN POWER SOLELY FOR ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES
DEPT/DIVISION: LEGISLATIVE
Requested Action:
City Council consider at first reading, Ordinance No. 14-2005, providing for limitations on City Councils authority
to exercise eminent domain power solely for economic development purposes.
Summary Explanation & Background:
City Council requested the city attorney draft an ordinance in response to the recent Supreme Court case.
He also provided a brief white paper on this issue.
I recommend approval at first reading.
Exhibits Attached:
Ordinance No. 14-2005; Information
City MagA r' ffice,
Department LEGISLATIVE
~F---
,mem
-
,mo o .. ..%...,,...���X1,«�, ligXcvva�vo-io-lig-cuv5.do
ORDINANCE NO. 142005
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA, RESPONDING TO
THE RECENT UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
DECISION OF KELO V. CITY OF NEW LONDON, 125 S.
CC 2655 (2005); PROVIDING FOR LIMITATIONS ON THE
CITY COUNCIL'S AUTHORITY TO EXERCISE EMINENT
DOMAIN POWER SOLELY FOR ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL
OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES AND
RESOLUTIONS, INCORPORATION INTO THE CODE,
SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City is granted the authority, under Section 2(b), Article VIII, of the
State Constitution, to exercise any power for municipal purposes, except when expressly
prohibited by law; and
WHEREAS, municipalities are also expressly authorized to exercise eminent domain
powers pursuant to Sections 166.401 and 166.411, Florida Statutes, and Section 163.375, Florida
Statutes; and
WHEREAS, through the enactment of this Ordinance, the City Council desires to place
self-imposed limitations on the City Council's ability to exercise eminent domain powers solely
for economic development purposes in light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in
Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005); and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the placing such limitations serves a municipal
purposes by enhancing and protecting private property rights within the City of Cape Canaveral,
Florida; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral finds that this Ordinance is
in the best interests of the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Cape Canaveral.
BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Brevard
County, Florida, as follows:
Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are hereby fully incorporated herein by this
reference as legislative findings and the intent and purpose of the City Council of the City of
Cape Canaveral.
Section 2. Code Amendment. Chapter 2, Article II, City Council, of the Code of
Ordinances, City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, is hereby amended as follows underlined type
indicates additions and see type indicates deletions, while asterisks (* * *) indicate a
deletion from this Ordinance of text existing in Chapter 2, Article II. It is intended that the text
City of Cape Canaveral
Ordinance 14-2005
Pagel of 3
in Chapter 2, Article II, denoted by the asterisks and set forth in this Ordinance shall remain
unchanged from the language existing prior to adoption of this Ordinance):
CHAPTER 2 GENERAL
ARTICLE H. CITY COUNCIL
Sec. 2-70. Eminent Domain Powers.
Notwithstanding the United States Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v City of New London 125
S. Ct. 2655 (2005), and any other authority under Florida law, the Citv Council shall not exercise
the power of eminent domain solely for economic development purposes Any exercise of such
power shall be declared void ab initio
Sec. 2-70 71-2-90 Reserved.
Section 3. Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Ordinances and Resolutions. All prior
inconsistent ordinances and resolutions adopted by the City Council, or parts of prior ordinances
and resolutions in conflict herewith, are hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict.
Section 4. Incorporation Into Code. This Ordinance shall be incorporated into the Cape
Canaveral City Code and any section or paragraph number or letter and any heading may be
changed or modified as necessary to effectuate the foregoing.
Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word or
provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of
competent jurisdiction, whether for substantive, procedural, or any other reason, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect
the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.
Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon
adoption by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida.
[adoption page follows]
City of Cape Canaveral
Ordinance 14-2005
Page 2 of 3
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, this
of , 2005.
ATTEST:
SUSAN STILLS, City Clerk
First Reading:
Legal Ad published:
Second Reading:
ROCKY RANDELS, Mayor
For
Approved as to legal form and sufficiency for
the City of Cape Canaveral only:
ANTHONY A. GARGANESE, City Attorney
Burt Bruns
Bob Hoog
Jim Morgan
Buzz Petzos
Rocky Randels
City of Cape Canaveral
Ordinance 14-2005
Page 3 of 3
Against
day
The Myth That Kelo Has Expanded the Scope of Eminent Domain
John D. Echeverria
July 18, 2005
In the wake of the Supreme Court's June 23, 2005, decision in Kelo v. City of New
London, some have contended that the Court's decision expanded government authority to
condemn private property for economic development. For example, a story in The Washineton
Post states, "The ruling greatly broadened the -types of projects for which government may seize
property to include not only bridges and highways but also slum clearance and land
redistribution." The idea that Kelo expanded the law of eminent domain is simply incorrect.
1. The Law Before Kelo
In the modem era prior to Kelo, there were basically four Supreme Court cases dealing
with the use of eminent domain for economic development. In each of these cases the Court,
applying a deferential standard, upheld the use of eminent domain because the taking was found
to serve a legitimate public purpose and the owner received just financial compensation.
National R R Passenger Cora v Boston & Maine Corp., 503 U.S. 407 (1992), involved
an Interstate Commerce Commission order requiring one railroad to transfer a rail line to a
second railroad. The ICC issued the order because the first railroad had neglected to maintain a
portion of the line which carries the Amtrak "Montrealer" through New England, and it believed
the second railroad would do a better job of maintaining the line. The Court unanimously
rejected the first railroad's objection that the taking was not for a public use because the use of
the rail line would not physically change. The Court said it could not "strike down a
condemnation... so long as the taking is rationally related to a conceivable public purpose." In
this case, Justice Kennedy said, "there can be no serious argument that the ICC was irrational in
determining that the condemnation will serve a public purpose by facilitating Amtrak's rail
service. That suffices to satisfy the Constitution ..."
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Mid kff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984), involved a challenge to a
Hawaii statute designed to deal with the problem that a very few owners held most of the private
land in the state. The statute required owners of large holdings, under certain conditions, to sell
residential lots to individual citizens so that they could own their own homes. The unanimous
Court, in an opinion by Justice O'Connor, recognized that the Constitution does not permit a
compensated taking "for no reason other than to confer a private benefit on a particular private
party." However, the Court said it had an obligation to uphold the use of eminent domain
where it is "rationally related to a conceivable public purpose." Under that standard, Justice
O'Connor concluded that the Hawaii statute was constitutional. "Regulating oligopoly and the
evils associated with it is a classic exercise of a State's police powers."
Ruckleshaus v. Monsanto, 467 U.S. 986 (1984), involved a takings challenge to the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The Act authorizes the Environmental
Protection Act to rely on trade secret data submitted by a prior pesticide applicant in considering
the application of a subsequent applicant, subject to payment of compensation to the first
applicant. While it acknowledged that subsequent applicants permitted to exploit confidential
business information in this fashion were the "most direct beneficiaries," the Court had no
difficulty concluding that this use of the eminent domain power served a public use.
Finally, Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954), involved a major urban redevelopment
project in southwest Washington, D.C. that displaced numerous homeowners, renters, and small
businesses. The owner of a non -blighted department store in the redevelopment area challenged
the taking as not being for a public use. The Court unanimously rejected the challenge, reasoning
that the eminent domain power can be exercised to achieve any legitimate legislative objective.
"Subject to specific constitutional limitations, when the legislature has spoken, the public interest
has been declared in terms well—nigh conclusive.... This principal admits of no exception merely
because the power of eminent domain is involved." The Court also rejected the argument that
eminent domain can only be used to eliminate "slum" properties. "It is within the power of the
legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as
well as clean, well-balanced as well as carefully patrolled."
These modem decisions are consistent with a long line of Court decisions stretching back
to the 19h century. Indeed, if anything, the older decisions even more emphatically uphold the
power of government to take and retransfer property, upon payment of just compensation, in
order to promote economic development. To a cite a few examples, in Head v. Amoskeag
Manufacturingg, Co., 113 U.S. 9 (1885), the Court authorized a manufacturing company to build a
mill pond that flooded upstream landowners so that it could produce hydropower to drive a
manufacturing facility. In Strickley v Highland Bay Gold Minim Co., 200 U.S. 527 (1906), the
Court approved condemnation of a right of way over private property so that a private mining
company could operate an aerial bucket line to its mine. And in Fallbrook Irrigation District v.
Bradl ,164 U.S. 112 (1896), the Court upheld condemnation so an irrigation district could
build an irrigation ditch across neighboring private property.
II. The Law After Kelo
In light of the state of the law prior to Kelo. it is incorrect to suggest that Kelo broke new
ground and expanded government's power of eminent domain. If anything, Kelo moved the law
in the direction of more restrictions, not fewer restrictions, on the use of eminent domain for
economic development.
The Court affirmed a decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court upholding use of
—2—
eminent domain to assemble over 100 separate parcels within a 90 -acre area characterized by
high vacancy rates, significant disinvestment and neglect. The City of New London has lost a
substantial portion of its population and suffers an unemployment rate twice the state average.
Seeking to take advantage of the economic spark generated by the decision of the Pfizer company
to construct a major new facility on an adjacent site, the city sought to implement a compre-
hensive redevelopment of the area for residential, commercial, office, and recreational purposes.
The Court said that New London's redevelopment plan easily met the public use test. "It
would be incongruous," the Court said, "to hold that the City's interest in the economic benefits
to be derived from the development of the Fort Trumbull area has less of a public character than
any of... [the] other interests" endorsed in prior cases. Applying its deferential standard for local
legislative judgments about how and when to deploy the eminent domain power, the Court also
rejected plaintiffs' novel argument that it should demand a "reasonable ccrtainry" that the
redevelopment program would actually succeed.
Significantly, none of the dissenters in Kelo made a strong argument that the majority
opinion departed from longstanding precedent. Justice O'Connor acknowledged that her position
was inconsistent with the language, if not the specific holdings, of Berman and Midkiff. She
suggested that those decisions could be distinguished on the ground that eminent domain had
been used to address an "extraordinary, precondemnation condition of the targeted property [that]
inflicted affirmative harm on society." But, in reality, nothing in the analysis or facts of those
cases — much less the full body of relevant Supreme Court precedent — supports a sharp
distinction between harm -preventing and benefit -conferring government action. Furthermore, as
Justice Scalia observed in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992), this
difference is often "in the eye of the beholder," making it a weak potential basis for
distinguishing action that serves a legitimate public use.
Justice Thomas argued, based on the language and original understanding of the phrase
public use, that eminent domain should be used only when the public will own the property or
have a legal right to use it. But this constitutional analysis is fundamentally flawed. Dictionaries
(modem and old) include public "advantage" among the definitions of public use, meaning that
actions which serve a legitimate public purpose fit comfortably within the language "taking for a
public use." Moreover, other scholarly examinations of the constitutional history indicate the
drafters intended the phrase "public use" to impose few, if any, constraints on the eminent
domain power. See, e.g., Mathew P. Harrington, "`Public Use"' and the Original Understanding
of the So -Called `Takings' Clause," 53 Hastings L.J. 1245 (2002). Justice Thomas
acknowledged that his position required overruling over a century of Supreme Court precedent.
This candid statement confirms that Kelo does not expand the eminent domain power.
Even as it followed well-settled precedent in Kelo. the Court placed new limits on the use
of eminent do►nain for economic development purposes. First, the Court emphasized that New
London was seeking to implement a "carefully considered development plan" for the area based
on "thorough deliberation," including several public hearings and explicit approvals by the city
—3—
,. Z, .._ -- -- -- -- - ---
council. The Court indicated that while it approved this type of carefully considered
redevelopment program, it would not necessarily uphold "a one-to-one transfer of property,
executed outside the confines of an integrated development plan." The Court's virtual mandate
that future exercises of eminent domain proceed in accord with a comprehensive, carefully
considered plan represents an important new limit on the eminent domain power.
Second, the Court strongly suggested that it is critical that the developer chosen to
implement the development be bound to carry out the redevelopment and serve as the public's
agent. Opponents of redevelopment projects sometimes suggest that property is being turned
over to private developers without strings, with the public benefitting solely through enhanced
tax revenues and a general increase in economic activity. In fact, in Kelo the city will retain title
to the property and lease the property to the redeveloper on a long-term basis. An enforceable
agreement binds the developer to provide specific facilities and services in accord with the city's
plan. Public welfare and private profit are no doubt inextricably linked — as in my effective
public/private partnership — but there is no question that firm controls are in place to ensure the
public interest will be protected.'
Finally, the limits placed on the eminent domain power in Kelo are underscored by
Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion. Because his fifth vote was necessary to make a majority
in Kelo, Kennedy's •concurring opinion is likely to be especially influential in determining how
courts interpret and local jurisdictions apply the decision. Although the judicial standard is
deferential, Justice Kennedy said, courts should review exercises of eminent domain using a
"meaningful" rational basis standard. He also echoed the concerns about one-to-one transfers,
statins that there might be categories of eminent domain in which "a presumption (rebuttable or
otherwise) of invalidity" might be warranted. He identified a set of factors that justified
upholding use of eminent domain in this case, suggesting that the absence of these factors might
lead to a different outcome in another case. These factors included that "[t]his taking occurred
in the context of a comprehensive development plan," the plan was meant to address "a serious
city-wide depression," the "economic benefits of the project cannot be characterized as de
minimis," the identities of project beneficiaries "were unknown at the time the city formulated its
plans," and the city followed various "procedural requirements" that facilitated review of the
project's bona fides.
In sum, while Ke o, in line with prior precedent, upheld the city's use of eminent domain
for economic development purposes, the decision represents a change in the direction of less, not
more, deferential judicial examination of the use of the eminent domain by state and local
governments.
' The Court also suggested in a footnote that the traditional measure of just
compensation, based on fair market value, might not be an appropriate measure of compensation
when government takes private property for economic development purposes. The Court said
that this issue, while "important," was not raised by the Kelo litigation.
—4—
Some Thoughts on Kelo and the Public Debate Over Eminent Domain
John D. Echeverria
July 22, 2005
1. Why the Public Needs the Power of Eminent Domain.
Why, one might ask, does the public possess the power to take private property without
the owner's consent, even upon payment of just financial compensation? The answer is the
"hold out" problem. Without the eminent domain power, any property owner could thwart an
important public project by refusing to sell to the public or — what amounts to the same thing —
by refusing to sell except at a ridiculous price. The need for eminent domain arises when
property has unique locational advantages or characteristics that make it an essential piece of
some public project. Without the eminent domain power, we would not have railroads,
highways, electric transmission lines, or many of our most successful downtown redevelopment
projects, like the Baltimore waterfront.
II. Why the Use of Eminent Domain Is Generally Fair.
Under, the Constitution, an owner subject to eminent domain is entitled to "just
compensation' — usually measured based on the property's fair market value. In practice, owners
involved in condemnations usually receive more than fair market value. As Chief Justice
Rehnquist once explained, the Takings Clause "does not prohibit the taking ofprivate property,
but instead places a condition" -- payment of financial compensation — "on the exercise of that
power." There is nothing unconstitutional about a taking to advance some public purpose,
provided the government is able and willing to pay just compensation. During the process of
negotiation which generally precedes formal condemnation proceedings, owners can usually
bargain for above -market compensation. In addition, raider the federal relocation assistance law,
which applies to federal projects as well as state and local projects supported with federal funds,
owners are entitled to extra compensation for relocation expenses. Not surprisingly, there are
many citizens who have had their property condemned, or who sold under threat of
condemnation, who feel well treated and fully satisfied by their local communities' pursuit of
economic development.
Hug 03 auuJ �., • z .... ..... -
III. Why Kelo Narrowed — Rather Than Expanded — the Eminent Domain Power.
Much of the congressional and public interest in the eminent domain issue has been
fueled by the false impression that Keo expanded government's authority to use eminent domain
for economic development purposes. In fact, the result in Kelo is consistent with a long,
unbroken line of Supreme Court precedent stretching back to the 19th century. If anything, the
Court's opinion narrowed the eminent domain power, by strongly suggesting that eminent
domain should only be exercised (1) to implement a comprehensive plan for community
redevelopment based on wide public consultation acid with the approval of the highest political
authority in the jurisdiction, and (2) when the community has obtained contractual commitments
from the redevcloper to achieve the public's redevelopment objectives.
IV. Why Private Homes Should Be'— and Generally Are — Protected.
In a bit of wild exaggeration, the dissenters in Kelo said that the Court's decision means
that "the specter of condemnation hangs over all property," especially private homes. This is
simply not true. No sensible local elected official seeks. to exercise the eminent domain power
as a first, or even second, resort, and local officials virtually never focus redevelopment efforts
on established residential areas. In an infamous case featured on 60 Minutes, the leaders of
Lakewood, Ohio, did target a residential neighborhood. But at the next election the mayor was
removed from office, and this unwise use of the eminent domain power was stopped in its tracks.
The democratic process at the local level is capable of stopping unwise uses of the eminent
domain power. The dissenters also suggested that the Court's decision made church properties
vulnerable to eminent domain. But any use of eminent domain that intentionally targeted
churches would plainly violate the First Amendment.
V. Why the Institute for Justice's Radical Position Is Mistaken.
The Institute's position is that, no matter how compelling the public objective, no matter
the strength of public support for a project, no matter how willing other owners may be to sell
their properties, and no matter how fair the price being offered, any sira landowner should be
entitled to exercise an absolute veto over economic progress. ' The Institute has let its libertarian
ideology overcome common sense in arguing that property ownership can trump the public
welfare in this fashion.
One of the ironies of the Institute position is that it promotes public ownership of
economic development projects and discourages public/private partnerships. The Institute has
never questioned the power of government to condemn property if the government will own the
property; rather it only objects to eminent domain when a private company will end up with an
interest in the property, even if only a long-term lease. As a result, the Institute is effectively
arguing for government-owned shopping centers and government-owned stadiums. How does
—2—
that promote the Institute's agenda of less rather than more government?
The Institute cannot draw a principled line between the types of projects it believes are
acceptable and those it believes are not. The Institute thinks the use of eminent domain to
construct stadiums is acceptable, but not to construct shopping centers. Thus, for example, the
Institute apparently thinks the use of eminent domain to assemble the site for the Texas Rangers
stadium in Arlington, Texas, involved a permissible use of eminent domain, but it would be
unacceptable for the District of Columbia to use the eminent domain power to redevelop the
Skyland Mall in Anacostia. There is no principled basis for making this distinction; if anything,
a shopping mall has more of a public character than a privately owned baseball stadium.
The Institute's myopic focus on the use of eminent domain for economic development
purposes ignores the fact that the use of eminent domain for any purpose can burden private
property owners. Whether land is taken for a road, a shopping center or a stadium, the owner is
being forced to sell. if the Institute were serious about alleviating the burdens on those subject to
eminent domain, it would seek to address the issue across the board.
The U.S. Senate recently passed an energy bill expanding the power of the Department of
Energy to exercise eminent domain to aid electric utilities to obtain rights of way for
transmission lines across private property. What principle can justify granting greater eminent
domain power to the federal government to benefit the energy industry while stripping local
governments of the power of eminent domain to assemble properties for redevelopment? Where
was the Institute for Justice in defense of homeowners, family farmers, and other property
owners when the Senate was debating the energy bill?
VI. Why Eminent Domain Promotes Smart Growth and Rational Urban Development.
The eminent domain power is a useful and important tool for promoting sensible land
use. Important public goals — ranging from energy conservarion, to farmland preservation, to
reducing public infrastructure costs — are furthered by making more efficient use of previously
developed areas. However, one of the biggest obstacles to revitalization of our cities and older
suburbs, many of which were developed when different technologies and social conditions
prevailed, is the difficulty of reassembling land parcels divided among many owners. When
many different ownerships are involved, the ability to use eminent domain is essential to
overcome the hold-out problem, to proceed with redevelopment in an open and transparent
fashion, and to achieve efficient and effective redevelopment.
VII. Why Racial Minorities and the Poor Wouldn't Benefit from Destroying Eminent Domain.
The dissenters in Kelo suggest that the use of eminent domain for economic development
purposes will impose a particular burden on minorities and the poor. There is no question that
these groups have sometimes suffered from unwise use of eminent domain in the past. But the
Kelo dissenters are not offering to resolve this problem. Under their view, the type of "negro
—3—
removal" sanctioned by the Supreme Court in Berman v. Parker should continue to be allowed
on the theory that eliminating a "slum" serves a public use. Ironically, by focusing on
immunizing other types of property from the eminent domain power, the dissenters' position
would likely have the effect of further concentrating uses of eminent domain in poor and
minority communities. Many of the bills pending in Congress likewise contain a loophole
allowing the use of eminent domain to eliminate "blighted" areas. More generally, eliminating
or restricting the power of eminent domain for economic development would destroy a tool that
many minority and poor communities desperately need. The D.C. City Cotuicil would not have
approved, with wide community support, the use of eminent domain to redevelop the Skyland
Mall in Anacostia if it did not think it would benefit one of the city's poorest neighborhoods.
VIII. Why Planning Matters.
The single most important aspect of the Court's recent Kelo decision is the novel,
powerful suggestion that eminent domain should only be used for economic development
purposes in the context of a comprehensive plan for the area, developed through an open public
consultation process, and adopted by the governing political body for the relevant jurisdiction.
This new mandate will police the use of eminent domain, helping to ensure that it is used to
advance genuinely public purposes, and not to advance the financial interest of some private
investor at the expense of existing owners. This new mandate also should enhance the
transparency and accountability of the political process, helping to ensure that the use of eminent
domain is based on a legitimate democratic decision rather than a back door deal. The Institute
for Justice has contended that the Court's new planning mandate will not add meaningful
protection for property owners, but the fact is that the worst abuses the Institute has identified
involved ad hoc uses of the eminent domain power outside the context of any plan.
IX. Why Eminent Domain for Economic Development Purposes is a Local Issue.
The use of eminent domain for economic development purposes raises a quintessentially
local issue. The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized that the types of projects and programs
for which state and local governments may exercise the eminent domain power will vary widely,
from case to case and between different regions of the country. In the West, for example,
eminent domain was historically used to deliver irrigation water to fanners' lands; in the
Northeast, the power has more frequently been deployed to promote urban redevelopment. The
Court has basically adopted a policy of leaving to local jurisdictions the policy decision on when
and how to use the eminent domain power. Given that the effects of eminent domain are
generally quite local, and given the widely different conditions and needs across the country,
Congress should adopt the same deferential approach. Some states prohibit the use of eminent
domain for economic development purposes, and some support it, reflecting the diversity of
policy approaches characteristic of our federal system. Already, different states are reexamining
their policies in light of the publicity generated by the Kelp decision. There has been no showing
of a need for a uniform federal resolution of this debate.
—4—
Meeting Type: Regular
Meeting Date: 08-16-05
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA
Heading
Considerations
Item
6
No.
The subject property is located at 8200 Astronaut Blvd., and the amount of the lien is $14,350.
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION: APPLICATION FOR SATISFACTION OR RELEASE OF CODE
ENFORCEMENT LIEN, MAGMA TRADING CORP., APPLICANT
DEPT/DIVISION: CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
Requested Action:
City Council consider the recommendation from the Code Enforcement Board:
Case No. 02-00212 — Approve the satisfaction of lien to take place immediately upon satisfactory completion of the
demolition of the building within six months or upon completion of a building permit for rehabilitation of the
building within six months.
Summary Explanation & Background:
The subject property is located at 8200 Astronaut Blvd., and the amount of the lien is $14,350.
Please advise.
Exhibits Attached:
Recommendation memo from Code Enforcement Board and draft 07-21-05 minutes; application for satisfaction or
release of code enforcement lien; case history and photographs prepared by Code Enforcement Officer Alexander;
10-24-2002 Notice to Appear; 12-19-2002 Code Enforcement Board minutes; hand-written statement by Mr.
Hardick; recorded order imposing penalty, City Code Section 2-260 (g), City Council's authority to act.
City Mana Office
Department CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
cap
my o ume admin\council\meeting\2005\08-16-05\magma.doc
City of Cape Canaveral
To: Bennett Boucher, City Manager
Susan Stills, City Clerk
From: Mary Russell, Code Enforcement Board Chairperson
Re: Recommendation to the City Council Regarding Satisfaction of Lien; In The
Amount of Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Dollars ($14,350.00)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 21, 2005, The Code Enforcement Board reviewed Case No. 02-00212, Magma
Trading Corp., c/o Rudy Hardick, 8200 Astronaut Blvd — Violation of Section 34-98
Building Appearance and Maintenance, of the Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances. The
Code Enforcement Board heard testimony from Mr. Hardick and recommended that City
Council approve the satisfaction of lien to take place immediately upon satisfactory
completion of either the demolition of the building within six months or to obtain a
building permit for rehabilitation of the building within six months.
105 Polk Avenue - Post Office Box 326 - Cape Canaveral, FL 32920-0326
Telephone: (321) 868-1222 - SUNCOM: 982-1222 - FAX: (321) 868-1247
www.myflorida.com/cape 0 email: ccapecanaveral@cfl.rr.com
Code Enforcement Board
Meeting Minutes
July 21, 2005
Page 2
Code Enforcement Officer, Duree Alexander testified that this Case has been heard, the
Board Order was sent, and the Respondent is still not in compliance. Officer Alexander
stated that Mr. Patel requested to be heard.
Mr. Patel, property owner, testified that he has removed some of the signs in the window
and is requesting more time to come into compliance. The Board questioned Mr. Patel
whether he understood how to come into compliance. Officer Alexander instructed him
how to come into compliance. Mr. Patel stated that he understood. Discussion followed.
Motion by Mr. Holfve, seconded by Mr. Godfrey to find Case No. 01-0008 remains in non-
compliance of the Board Order and no extension is granted. Vote on the motion carried
unanimously.
2. Case No. 02-00212 — Violation of Section 34-98 Buildinq Appearance and
Maintenance, of the Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances (8200 Astronaut Blvd )
— Magma Trading Corp., c/o Rudy Hardick Property Owner.
Code Enforcement Officer, Duree Alexander provided an overview of the Case History
and presented exhibits for the Board's review. Officer Alexander testified that Mr. Hardick
is requesting the Code Enforcement Board recommend that Council approve the
satisfaction or reduction of the lien based on the satisfactory completion of the demolition
of the building or the completion of a building permit for rehabilitation of the building within
six (6) months.
Mr. Hardick, property owner testified that he believed he was in compliance based on a
statement from the former Code Enforcement Official, Morris Reid. Mr. Hardick further
stated that he would like the lien to be abolished and stated that he intends to do
something with the building very soon, however he requested that a specific stipulation or
time restraint not be placed in the motion.
The Board expressed their concerns to Mr. Hardick regarding the length of time that the
building has been vacant. Discussion followed.
Motion by Mr. Godfrey, seconded by Ms. Russell to recommended that City Council
approve the satisfaction of lien to take place immediately upon satisfactory completion of
the demolition of the building within six months or upon completion of a building permit for
rehabilitation of the building within six months. Discussion followed. Vote on the motion
carried unanimously.
3. Case No. 05-00043 — Violation of Section 34-96 Standards Established of the
Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances (605 Shorewood Dr) — Paul Jindra
Property Owner.
Code Enforcement Officer, Duree Alexander, requested that the Board withdraw this
Case from the Agenda; due to the fact that the Board Order prepared by the City Attorney
gave the respondent until July 28, 2005 to come into compliance.
Motion by Mr. Hartley, seconded by Mr. Godfrey to withdraw Case No. 05-00043 from the
agenda. Vote on the motion carried unanimously.
FROM : -: I TY' OF t=:HPE CANAIJERHL FAX NO. :321 858 1247 AU9. 10, 2005 11:0 FHM P2
CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL
APPLICATION FOR SATISFACTION OR RELEASE
OF CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN
CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE #: (:;26d °� _ � ��' APPLICATION FEE: $�
APPLICANT: %'1(__ j� �'�DATE: CJ I
ADDRESS: �' I
CITY: - �— C�-4 STATE. _—�� . ZIP'
NATURE OF VIOLATION(S):
ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: ��gt cc
DATE FINE/LIEN IMPOSED:-,4q-t�2 -2AN40UNT: �e� /DAY OR TOTAL
COMPLIANCE DATE:
RELIEF REQUESTED: SATISFACTION / REDUCTION (Circle one) IF REDUCTION, THE APPLICANT
PROPOSES $-- A5 THE AMOUNT OF THE REDUCED FINE,
THE FACTUAL BASIS UPON WHICH ITTE VIOLATOR BELIEVES THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE GRANTED:
(IC more space is needed add additional pages)
�C-
(i
TERMS OR CONDITIONS TO BE IMPOSED UPON APPLICANT SHOULD THE APPLICATION BE GRANTED:
(If more space is deeded add additional pages)
Lp
THE REASONS, IF ANY, WHY THE APPLICANT DID NOT BRING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE
PRIOR TO THE ORDER OF PENALTY OR FINE BErNG PVTOSED AND RECORDED: (If more space is needed add
additional pages)
ANY ADDITIONAL FACTS OR INFORNIATItON THE APPLICANT DEEMS PERTINENT TO THE REQUEST,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, TIDE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT EXIST WHICH WOULD WARRANT TILE
REDUCTION OR SATISFACTION OF PENALTY OR FINE: (If more space is needed add additional pages)
�/ &-2t�S17 �Date:�.---
FROM :CITY MJF CAPE CAHAQERAL. FAX 140. :321 86 13 1247 Aug. 10 2005 11: G 7AM P3
STATE OF
COLNTY OF
a ear v ' ff�'�e2fa� ho provided
BEFORE ME the undersigned authority did personally pp
^� —1 L— as identification, and who after being place under oath, swore or affirmed the
information contained within this application is true and correct.
> � -"732
dd Morley
_ ��,-
To
Commission #DD241 110
.oQ- Expires: Sep 25, 2007 ota ublic
�9OF F�OQ, Bonded Thru
Atlantic Bonding Co. Ir,
FOR STAFF USE ONLY
APPLICATION FEE' S_ RECEIVED $Y CITY ON
COMPLIANCE CONFIRMED BY BUILDING OFFICIAL Ole ---
CODE ENFORCEMENT REVIEW ON
CODE ENFORCEMENT RECOMMENDATION ATTACKED: _� YES
ACTION OF CITY COUNCIL: _ APPROVE; DENY; , APPROVE WITH FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
DATE OF COUNCIL ACTION:
CONDITIONS AND PAYMENT OF REDUCED FINE TO BE NET WITHIN 30 DAYS OF COUNCIL ACTION,
TO WIT: ON OR BEFORE
�_J
H
U
N
�
ct
c
�
�
�i
'c�
1.4
. C's
M
v
O
N
cd
O
�
•�
m
O
GA•�
CIS
U
.14
�
�
N
W
U
of
H
v
v N to
c�
to
m
cd 4a
N baa IcJ) moo
7:1 Q, �
Z a; o O O a� ,+3 ';., u O
Q N N cd ~ O
E-� A N � ct bA v -4 c� O
N ct
cz
4� O C4 N � �'
O W
p
WGQ a 4 `�-�
F-+ '`� ►--ate, N 'd �i
m
rda
r i 4•
a ��k ai r `?t
a �4 �
�$t �';�
,� �_.
-_'
$,,
,.
'i _ .. �;�
f1� - .ti. � ;;��
�, w � �,,,
� x �,+i
z
v
20:
d
z
rc�zz_'
City of Cape Canaveral
NOTICE OF ORDINANCE / CODE VIOLIJION
ORDER TO APPEAR BEFORE THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
Date: 10/24/2002
Case '#: 2002-00212
MAUM,-', I radinc CG
PJ ;0X 32061
Cccca Ee_=::h. F:. 32:22
-cfci c to our r=:; ✓o L, ow,-,�Gn:r - r- ^. ___
E200 AS I KOINAU T i"E' VD , B-r'-..'ia,'.J Couni i F:ori0a .•.•
P -=roe! I 2^-3i-233- 28;.G -
You are hereoy notifiez tnat you are in vlGiaii,,., Ce.,. '-_8 E" r
t'= Cape Canavera! Code of Ordinances
Corrective action. Repair or Remove exteric,- v:c is. 0 111.- , _
aina r _ is re�u
Corrective action shouid be completed within 10 days from the case this notice is r eive^ You mus:
contact Code Enforcement for a compliance inspection. Please n:,te the case may be cre_e -ed tc
Board even if the vloiation has been corrected prior to the Board n earing. .
If corrective action is not completed then this matter will be sch=cJuled for a Code Enforcement Boa.,d
Hearing on 11/21/02. at TOO P.M. at the City 'mall Ann=X. 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral. FL 32�2�.
If you have any questions or need to schedule an inspection, phase contact the Cit-/ of Cape Canave-al
Code Enforcement Office at (321) 868-1222.
/ JAMES WATSON
./ Code Enforcement Officer
0
105 Polk Avenue - Posr Office Box 326 - Cape Canaveral, FL 32920-0326
Telephone (321) 868-1220 - FAX (321) 799-3170 - www.fen.srare.fl.us/cape
e-mail: ccapecanaveral@cfl.rr.com
Code Enforcement Board
Meeting Minutes
December 1J,.',7,002
Page 2 -
Mr. Reid testified that the fence enclosure has been erected however no permit was obtained. Mr.
Reid passed around pictures entered as Exhibit A.
Mr. Reid responded to Ms: Russell that there has been no contact with Mr. Patel. Mr. Reid
testified that there has been no follow through on the maintenance of the parking areas.
Attorney Buak suggested sending a notice of compliance for obtaining a permit. Another option
may be that the Building Department file an additional complaint for not obtaining a permit.
Motion by Ms. Russell, to find in compliance, second by Hartley. Motion carried as 5-1 as
follows:
1. Case No. 2002 -DRS -192 Yogi Patel - 6850 N. Atlantic Avenue - Violation of Section
34-97, Responsible for Maintenance of Parking Areas required. (Board Order imposed at
previous meeting).
Mr. Reid testified that this case is currently not in compliance. Motion by Stewart to find case
not in compliance and be assessed as noted in the order, second by Ratliff. Order carred
unanimously.
2. Case No. 2002 -MR -00216, Douglas Labnon. 229 Cherie Down Lane - Violation of
Sections 104 & 105. Florida Building Code. Permits and Inspections.
Mr. Reid testified that the order was sent to the incorrect address, however the correct person
received the notice. He further testified that they had filed for a permit. Mr. Reid asked the
Attorney whether he should table the matter. Motion by Russell to table, second by Ratliff.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. Case No. 2002 -MR -00212, Masora Trading Corp.. 8200 Astronaut Blvd. - Violation of
Section 34-98, Building Appearance and Maintenance.
Mr. Reid issued photos entered as exhibit A. Chairperson Russell questioned the contract on this
property to which Mr. Stewart responded that there is no contract on this property. Mr. Reid
responded to Chairperson Russell that the building appears to be secure. Mr. Reid responded to
Mr. Ratliff that this is a concern from Citizens through A Better Place, an anonymous complaint
system. Motion by Stewart, second by Biederman to find in non-compliance and fine $50 a day
until compliance met. Motion carried unanimously
5. Case No. 2002 -MR -00221, Donald Regan, Jr., 105 Justamere Road - Violation of
Section 34-98, Building Appearance and Maintenance.
Mr. Reid testified that this case was found to be in compliance.
DISCUSSION:
Status Update: Case No. 2002 -DRS -00146. Ocean Park North Condominium —
Association, Inc. — 350 Taylor Avenue. Violation of Sections 104 & 105, Florida
Building Code - Permits and Inspections required of the Cape Canaveral Code of
Ordinances.
Mr. Reid testified that the fine had not been paid as of this date. The condo association has not
been notified as to who should receive the notice of the fine. Attorney Buak said he would follow
up and let Mr. Reid know where the notice should be sent. Mr. Holfve asked that if no -payment
was made, would the amount reverted back to the original 10,000? Mr. Holfve also testified that
0'5 WED
� sx1 i {11 n• - s °. 11��1 —ro y it r—[ 5 _ {r{"" s T �' (' 0 4
AU
P.O. Box 320615' •
Cocoa Beach, FL. 32.932-0b+5
Fax f W) - 784.3264
OS I
js "� �'
S`'•~�h[Ifyj, � (�•J r,7 s/J ! '4. W ,.
�-- -ate` r") i'' C,r-
4
Jim z--
floor
�� `;�a':.�'�-;.�' �►,�,i t.. cam- ��,. �-''� �` � � c�•'! ~ � J �-.. c. ,��St f c� t'�
T11N ? —0'3 1PJEZD 2_ a 1 E.
G't=N;20(?3039832 03-WfT;2�am
ca 4809 ! 0629
CODE EtWORCEIvEEN'T 130ARD
CITY OF CAFE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
CAST: NO: 2002-00212
THE CITY OF GAPE CANA�VEP AL,
A Florida atunicipal corporation, Pd. 60
'
Complainant,
V,
Owner of the property located Tot; 8200 Astronaut D.M.
Respondent;
P . 0 15
Solt suis _
clerk of COW*
T►uas� �.sa °6 rcwe: a.ao
.., 4.00 IMT&W 0,00
00
'11415 CAU'S'E having cant on for consideration, aticr be419 duty noticed, before the Code
Evfomoment Board of thg City ofCHpe Canaveral, Florida, on December, 19, 2002, to detemine
whO17Lr any violations of the City of Cape Canaveral Code of Ordin xim exist(s) or existed on thin
Property. 11' 9 Board having heard the argunsentsl of the patties and the evidence prc=tad anti
hav irag ttvieWed the t=rd and being ottecrwise fully advised, the following findings of Fact and
Co>j0iusioat3 of 1.sw are incorporated into MIs Order as set fortis lrrein.
raft,
a# act a d melri5i o f Le
Ansel upon the evid.mice; atxd wst;mony presented at this hearing, the Code Enforcement
Board finch:
1. The Respondent was provided a Notice of Violation, in accordsmc:e with Section 2.2$$.....
of the City of Cape Ctunverall Code of Ordinances and coPsistent with Section 162.12, Floridan
Statutes, that a violation of Secdon 34-93 of tlae Cape Canaveral Cate of Ordinances existed urix)n
ithe Propertn'
2. The lie -.;pc ndexrt either failed or resfWt-,d to sorfect such violation within the re:awnable
I tires period provided in the Notice of Violation; that the Respoczclmt was presviJed n0dCC Of the
hearing before the Code En orccment Doaad and was not present at this h0wing;
3. Respondent has violated the City crf Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinanccs, to wit;
Scctlon 34-98, Building Appcarance mid tvlainteaance pursutart to Section 162-07, Florida Statutes,
and the City of Cape Canavet-al Cade Chapter 2, Article V1,
4. That said violation cuntinucs to oxist within tic City of Came CanaverFd Code of
RASW MON THE, pf)!I?3rGOING F'AC7S AND CONCLUSIOM5, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED:
1. A tint; in dke amount of Fifty 13a116A ($50.00) per Clay shall accrue until the violation
is corrected and in aril compliance by the Cade Entowernent Off%cci. Upon such confiru,ation, tete
Cole. ntam ent_C ccr_slYali.protnptly Ic a Notica of Code
Enforcement $oard.
2. The Secxewy of the Cotta; Er*forcemcul Board is dim;IM to inimcdia%ly Mmi rd a
cr rtifiwd copy ofthis Order in the public rt -cords for Bmvard t~ou aty, Florida, wWch shall serve as a
lien against the property and any other tail or personal property owned'by the ltespoxaacnt;'
3. AAy and all littt�e recurrence of any violntion addressed -ha -rein me Inas been
Cort+ecW--slaa l.n cessitate.further pmetedings Wore the Coeic.rnfox�ernl�nt f3oarcl.�v�thncii�
ncr ;;arily.providing.l2eapoddetatan opportunity to corrcw( such violation and that the Code
En10 aent.Romd;•npon;ftiir^t&gr su,ob repot violadon exist s681161rse aXne•"4o;excw&Fii'e
Hundred -D611", $500;00) per day4 for each rcF�c�tt,viola�dta,-t�'�a�ttin� on the°farA &Y,•the'repftt
violation is found to exist.
4.. The Code Ent'oncctutrat Board hereby reserves the rigfrt to t ike further necessary actical
against the Itesponderrt to taorce this Order and coarcct any violations) on ilio P espon,t!T"t(s)
property, in accordaaare with Section 152.09, Flodda St atutcs, and City of Cape Canaveral Code,
Chuptct2, article V1.
1D14►, ,SKU twl�tlit►> 11 M at Cape Camawral, FlorfdA this '7 th dAy of January, 203
... �`'•°".'. . -,.^tom ��e:��
if
'�i a4 V1•tY. •..
COP14M ft"ISIWd W
City of C" t:ariA'YM1, suild;res official
COVC >! NFOP CEMENT BOARD OF TIME
CITE' OF CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORD A
May RU_sct a' �u iscuti
cr-N.2..003(y5952
OR 4609 10634
§ 2-260
CAPE CANAVERAL CODE
(4) The terms upon which the satisfac-
tion or release should be granted;
(5) The reasons, if any, compliance was
not obtained prior to the order of
penalty or fine being recorded;
(6) The reduction in penalty or fine
sought by the violator; and
(7) Any other information which the vi-
olator deems pertinent to the re-
quest, including but not limited to
the circumstances that exist which
would warrant the reduction or sat-
isfaction of the penalty or fine.
(8) This application shall be executed
under oath and sworn to in the pres-
ence of a notary public.
(c) The violator shall submit at the time of
application payment to the city in the
amount necessary to reimburse the city
for its costs associated with recording the
order imposing a penalty or fine and the
requested satisfaction or release of lien.
These costs are nonrefundable, without
regard for the final disposition of the
application for satisfaction or release of
lien.
(d) Upon receipt of the application for satis-
faction or release of lien and payment
provided above, the Building Official or
designee of the building official shall con-
firm through the code enforcement depart-
ment that the violation which resulted in
the order imposing penalty or fine has
been satisfied. If the violation has been
satisfied and there is no current code
violation upon the property in question,
the building official or designee of the
building official shall place the applica-
tion upon the agenda of the next meeting
of the Code Enforcement Board for the
City of Cape Canaveral.
(e) At the hearing before the code enforce-
ment board, the board shall review and
consider the application for satisfaction or
release of lien, provide the violator with
an opportunity to address the board re-
garding the application for satisfaction or
Supp. No. 11 CD2:20
(fl
(g)
release of lien, and to take the testimony
of other interested parties, including but
not limited to city staff.
Upon review of the application and any
testimony presented, the code enforce-
ment board shall by motion direct a rec-
ommendation to the city council for ap-
proval, approval with conditions, or denial
of the application for satisfaction or re-
lease of lien.
The code enforcement board, in determin-
ing its recommendation, shall consider
the following factors:
(1) The gravity of the violation;
(2) The time in which it took the viola-
tor to come into compliance;
(3) The accrued amount of the code en-
forcement fine or lien;
(4) Any previous or subsequent code vi-
olations;
(5) Any financial hardship; and
(6) Any other mitigating circumstance
which may warrant the reduction or
satisfaction of the penalty or fine.
After a recommendation has been ren-
dered by the code enforcement board, the
building official or designee of the build-
ing official shall place the application for
satisfaction or release of lien upon the
agenda of the next regularly scheduled
city council meeting. The city council may
take action solely based upon the sworn
application and recommendation of the
code enforcement board; or it may, in its
discretion, provide the violator with an
opportunity to address the council in re-
gard to the application for satisfaction or
release of lien.
The city council may approve,
with conditions, or deny the applic,
satisfy or release of lien. If the city
approves the application to satisf,
lease the lien and the approval is
tioned upon the violator paying a r
penalty, fine, or any other conditi
satisfaction or release of lien shall
ADMINISTRATION
prepared or recorded until the condi-
tion(s) placed by the council have been
satisfied.
The violator shall have 30 days in which
to comply with the conditions imposed by
the city council. Failure of the violator to
comply will result in the automatic denial
of the application for satisfaction or re-
lease of lien.
If the application is denied or if the appli-
cation is automatically denied due to the
failure of the violator to comply with the
conditions imposed by the city council, the
violator shall thereafter be barred from
applying for a subsequent satisfaction or
release of lien for a period of one year
from the date of denial. During the one-
year period, the lien may only be satisfied
and released upon full payment of the fine
or penalty imposed in accordance with
this division.
No. 05-2003, § 2, 2-18-03)
1 ;
`Secs. 2-261-2-279. Reserved.
DIVISION 3. CODE ENFORCEMENT
CITATIONS
Sec. 2-280. Intent and purpose.
(a) It is the intent and purpose of this division
to provide a supplemental procedure for the en-
forcement of city codes and ordinances. Nothing
contained in this division shall prohibit the city
from enforcing its Code and ordinances by any
other lawful means.
(b) It is also the intent and purpose of this
division to enhance the effectiveness of code en-
forcement within the city by authorizing the en-
forcement methods and penalties contained in
this division for the betterment and promotion of
the public health, safety, and welfare of the citi-
zens of the city.
(Ord. No. 06-2004, § 2, 4-20-04)
Sec. 2-281. Definitions.
§ 2-282
The following words and phrases shall have the
meaning ascribed herein unless the context clearly
indicates otherwise:
(a) Code enforcement officer shall mean city
manager designated employees or agents whose
duty it is to enforce the City Code and ordinances.
Code enforcement officers may include, but are
not limited to, code inspectors, building inspec-
tors, the building official, law enforcement offic-
ers, fire safety inspectors, or any other employee
or agent authorized by the city council and/or city
manager. All such officers employed by the city
shall receive training as prescribed by the city
council and/or city manager.
(b) Person shall mean any individual, associa-
tions, joint ventures, partnerships, corporations,
trusts, sole proprietorships, and any and all other
groups or combinations and legal entities.
(c) Repeat violation shall be as defined by F.S.
ch. 162, and as may be amended from time to
time.
(d) Violation shall mean the act of breaking,
infringing or transgressing any provision of the
City Code, its ordinances or other law by a person,
pursuant to this division.
(Ord. No. 06-2004, § 2, 4-20-04)
Sec. 2-282. Authorization of citation pro-
gram.
(a) The city hereby adopts a code enforcement
citation system to provide an additional and sup-
plemental method of enforcing the enumerated
codes and ordinances enumerated in section 2-283
or specifically made subject to this division else-
where in the City Code. The enforcement method
shall be by the issuance of citations for violation
of duly enacted city codes and ordinances in
accordance with the rules and procedures estab-
lished by this division and F.S. Ch. 162.
(b) Code enforcement
the power of arrest for
violation in compliance.
code enforcement officer
Supp. No. 13 CD2:21
officers shall not have
purposes of bringing a
For each violation, the
shall determine, using
Meeting Type: Regular
Meeting Date: 08-16-05
AGENDA
Heading
Considerations
Item
7
No.
zoning district with conditions that the number of units be limited to four (4) dwelling units and access be only from
AGENDA REPORT
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION: SEA SHELL CAY PRELIMINARY REPLAT
DEPT/DIVISION: PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
Requested Action:
City Council consider approval of the preliminary replat for Sea Shell Cay Townhomes, as recommended by the
Planning & Zoning Board.
Summary Explanation & Background:
This request is for a preliminary replat of Lot 1 Harbor Heights Subdivision and Part A of Tuten's Subdivision to be
four (4) lots on the East side of North Atlantic Avenue. This request has a special exception for residential in a C-1
zoning district with conditions that the number of units be limited to four (4) dwelling units and access be only from
Sea Shell Lane. The proposed number of units being four (4) will require a site plan.
The applicant is seeking reconsideration from the Board of Adjustment concerning the access only to Sea Shell
Lane. It appears to be an unworkable condition based on the configuration of the lot and design of the proposed
building. This reconsideration should not impact the preliminary plat, but will need to be resolved prior to the site
plan being approved. A meeting with the Board of Adjustment is scheduled for August 29, 2005.
Exhibits Attached:
1. P&Z Board's recommendation and draft of 07-27-05 minutes,
2. Application,
3. Site report by city planner,
4. Staff review comments, and
5. Preliminary replat drawing (hand-out)
,s Office
Department P&Z BOARD
rcl7tyman
�r
c - im dp, nts\admin\council\meeting\2005\08-16-05\seashell.doc
Date: August 4, 2005
To: Bennett Boucher, City Manager
Susan Stills, City Clerk
From: Bea McNeely, Chairperson, Planning & Zoning Board
Re: Recommendation to City Council Regarding Preliminary
Replat for Sea Shell Cay Townhomes - James E. Morgan,
All Shores Development Co., Inc., Applicant
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By unanimous vote the Planning & Zoning Board recommended
approval of the Preliminary Replat the above referenced project.
Please schedule this Preliminary Replat on an upcoming City Council
meeting agenda.
Also, please inform James Morgan, All Shores Development Co., Inc.
when this request is scheduled. You can reach Mr. Morgan at 784-
0024.
Attached are (7) copies of the Preliminary Replat.
Planning & Zoning Board
Meeting Minutes
July 27, 2005
Page 3
The Board members reviewed the submitted Final Replat. James Morgan, the project
general contractor, testified that he was authorized by the property owner to act on his
behalf. Todd Peetz, City Planner, reported that staff reviewed the Final Replat and all
requirements have been met. Mr. Morgan explained the location of the townhomes on
Adams Avenue. The Board members pointed -out a few Scribner's errors on the City
Planner's report.
Motion by Leo Nicholas, seconded by Lamar Russell, to recommend approval of the
Beachside Townhomes First Addition Final Replat to City Council. Motion carried by
majority, with Mr. Fredrickson not being present at the time of voting.
2. Sea Shell Cay Townhomes - Preliminary Replat - Replat of Lot 1 Harbor Heights
Subdivision and Part of Lot A, Tueton's Subdivision Section 14 Township 24
South, Range 37 East - James E. Morgan Applicant
Todd Peetz, City Planner, read the conditions of the granted Special Exception for this
project. He explained that the Board of Adjustments requested that the applicant come
back to the Board for reconsideration of the condition regarding access on Sea Shell
Lane. He advised that the applicant was not present at the Board of Adjustment meeting
Monday night, however, the applicant can still move forward with the Replat.
The Board members reviewed the Preliminary Replat. James Morgan, Applicant,
testified that the project met all level -of -service standards for access on N. Atlantic
Avenue. He noted that all the trees would be destroyed if the project was required to
have all the access on Sea Shell Lane. Chairperson McNeely advised that
recommendation of the Preliminary Replat does not excuse the applicant from all the
conditions of the Special Exception.
Motion by Lamar Russell, seconded by Leo Nicholas, to recommend approval of Sea
Shell Cay Townhomes Preliminary Replat. Vote on the motion carried unanimously.
There being no further business for the Board to consider the meeting was adjourned at
9:50 p.m.
Bea McNeely, Chairperson
Susan L. Chapman, Board Secretary
APPLICATION FOR PLAT REVIEW
DATE OF SUB-MITTAL:
(NOTE: SUBMITTAL MUST BE SUBNIITTED A NI NT4UNI OF 30 DAYS PRIOR TO
THE PLA.NZNT,'G & ZON�tG MEETING; PLAT NfUlST NIEET THE REQUIRENIENTS
OF SECTION 98-41 THROUGH 98-62).
IS TRIS A PRELBM A.Ry PLAT, RE -PLAT, OR FLNAL PLAT? �
AMOUNT OF FMENG FEE PAID: S50, CL)
kMOLTINT OF ENGL FERE G DEPOSIT PAID: S
DID BREV . D COUNTY, GEOGRAPHIC RESEARCH DIVISION APPROVE THE
REQUEST FOR STREET NAME. IF APPLICABLE? (NOTE: THIS NEEDS TO BE
DONE PRIOZ TO SUBMITTAL).' YES NO • N.A. ✓
PROJECT NAME: 1, plI C'-T� n II mei _
PROJECT ADDRESS: -+J-)c
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: I 15137E ccr� c L+ ,q (. {
��tc�hts S'�,��,u', r
O�'F:��ER(S) N:��IE:_}L I ShD�-eS -_)NUej()prner4- On
OWNNER(S) ADDRESS: Ai3 Lii�ec[n /Ave, •�cC'P CancWera-1 f -L 3Z-
PROJECT ARCHITECT/EiNGENtER: /Yl. 1�, C f je ( L
PHONE NO. OF ARCHITECT/E_NGL•`EER:
APPLICANT(S) SIGNATUR � 4 -�, s,--z,�---�
OWNER/AGENT
PHONE N TIMER OF OWN'ERIAGENT:
City of Cape Canaveral
Sea Shell Cay Preliminary Replat
Applicant:
Location:
Acreage:
Proposed Number of Units:
Current Future Land Use:
Current Zoning:
Applicant James Morgan
Range: 37 Township: 24 Section: 14
Parcel A-16 & Lot 1 Harbor Heights
60 +/- or an Acre
4 residential units
Commercial C-1
Commercial C-1
Description:
The applicant desires to build 4 town home units. The subject parcel is currently vacant located
on the northeastern corner of North Atlantic and Harbor Hei is Drive.
North
South
East
West
Zoning C 1 Commercial
C 1 Commercial
RI Residential
C 1 Commercial
Comp Plan C 1 Commercial
C 1 Commercial
RI Residential
C 1 Commercial
Existing Conditions Vacant &
Residential
Residential
Residential
Restaurant and
Circle K
Public Services and Facilities in Amendment Area:
The Level of Service for parks and recreation is one (2) acres of park land per 1,000 residents.
Approximately twenty-four (24) acres of park land exist in Cape Canaveral. This equates to a
population of approximately 12,000 residents. The City's population as of April, 2004 was 9,807.
This is still adequate park space available.
AIA is operating at Level of Service "A" with 373 available peak hour trips between North City
Limits and Central Blvd. AIA South of Central Blvd to North Atlantic has a level of Service is
"A" with 368 excess trips. This development could generate 3-5 more peak hour trips as added
into the Traffic Impact Analysis and capacity is available.
The City of Cape Canaveral provides wastewater treatment. The wastewater treatment capacity
is 1.8 million gallons per day (MGD). The existing usage is 1.26 MGD with an excess capacity of
.54 MGD. This project could generate approximately 1,200 gallons daily. There is adequate
wastewater treatment capacity available.
The City of Cocoa has a total capacity of 56 MGD and currently provides 48 MGD.
Approximately 24.4 MGD of water is being used on an average daily basis, leaving 23.6 MGD
available. This project could require approximately 1,400 gallons daily. There is adequate
potable water service available with the proposed change.
Brevard County provides facilities for solid waste disposal. At this time, the County does not
foresee any deficiency with their solid waste facilities.
Environmental Description of Amendment Area:
The site is vacant Palm Beach Pb soil type. Palm Beach soils are excessively drained sandy soils
that consist of nearly level and gently sloping. There are no known wetlands, Aquifer Recharge
or Floodplain areas associated with this parcel. There are also no known endangered species
living on the site.
Historical and Archaeological Resources in Amendment Area:
There are no known historical or archaeological resources on site.
Population Projections and Trends:
The potential addition of 4 new town home units would equate to at 2.37 persons per household
to 9-10 new persons to the City.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Morley,
Building Official
FROM: Todd Peetz
City Planner
DATE: July 1, 2005
RE: Preliminary Replat, a.k.a. Sea Shell Cay
I have reviewed the submittal of the preliminary replat for the above referenced project. I
do not have any further comments at this time. Additional comments may occur during
the site plan review of said project.
Page 1 of 1
Todd Peetz
From: John Cunningham Dcunningham@ccvfd.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 11:47 AM
To: Todd Peetz
Subject: Re: Sea Shall Cay Townhomes
Todd,
I have reviewed the first submittal for the preliminary replat and have no comment at this time.
John Cunningham
Asst. Fire Chief/Fire Marshal
Cape Canaveral Volunteer Fire Dept.
190 Jackson Ave
Cape Canaveral, FL 32920
Office: (321) 783-4777
Fax: (321) 783-5398
htt ://www.ccvfd.org
7/19/2005
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Morley,
Building Official
TO: Todd Peetz
City Planner
FROM: Ed Gardulski
Public Works Director
RE: Sea Shell Cay Townhomes
Preliminary Replat
DATE: June 28, 2005
The Public Works Department has reviewed the re -plat of the above stated project
and request a 20 -foot Utilities and landscaping easement along North Atlantic
Avenue.
July 20, 2005
Mr. Todd Peetz
Miller -Legg & Associates
631 South Orlando Avenue
Suite 200
Winter Park, FL 32789
RE: Preliminary Plat Review — Sea Shell Cay Townhomes - Review #3
SSA Job No. 05-0025, Task 004-1003
Dear Mr. Peetz:
SSA
rilA COPY
SSA has reviewed the submitted preliminary plat for the above referenced project. Based on our review,
SSA recommends said plat for City approval.
This review does not relieve the applicant from other local, state, and federal agencies having jurisdiction
over the project site. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
David Roy Jo es, LS
Chief Surveyor
DRJ:jls
Cc: Susan L. Chapman
City Engineer's Review Fee For Review #3 — N/C
NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL FEES
As this project is being reviewed under the original City contract,
Engineering Fees for all reviews after 2nd review will be billed at $70.00 per hour.
STOTTLER STAGG & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PLANNERS, INC.
8680 North Atlantic Avenue P. O. Box 1630 Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920 Tel 321-783-1320 Fax 321-783-7065
Lie. #AAC000329 #EB0000762 #LB0006700
u.Goan sottorivalcivillprojecWcapeV-sea shell cay townhomes pre plat review 3.doc
41 s Ldncoin Ave.
Cape. Canaveral, FL 32920
(321) 784-0024.
Attn.: Mr. James E. Morgan
Re: Sea Shell Cay Special Exception
City of Cape Canaveral
July 26, 2005
Dear Jim,
Please see the attached correspondence from Todd Peetz, City Planner, wherein he indicates that the
above-mentioned project appears to work best with accesses to two different roadways. Specifically, a
two -unit shared drive accessing N. Atlantic Avenue and a two -unit shared drive accessing Sea Shell
Lane.
At your request, I am providing this documentation indicating that I do not disagree with Mr. Peetz's
opinion. My rationale: the project originally consisted of two parcels, one with its only access on N.
Atlantic Ave. This C1 parcel could be built separately from the other,'thereby requiring the N. Atlantic
access. Separated, it is a right owed to this parcel.
Although other designs may make a Sea Shell Lane access viable for all four units, the design you
present appears to work best as described by Mr. Peetz.
Sincerely
Todd Morley
Building Oficial
•105 Polk Avenue - Post Office Box 326 - Cape Canaveral, FL 32920-0326
Telephone: (321) 868-1222 - SUNCOM: 982-1222 - FAX (321) 868-1247
www.myflorida.com/cape - email: ccapecanaveral@cfl.mcom
Datc: July 27, 2004
To: City of Cape Canaveral, Attn, Susan Chapman
From; All Shores Construction
Subject: Request for Special Meeting of the Board of Adjustment (BOA); RE: Sea Shc11
Cay Town Home Project Special Exception
Susan, let me start by first apologizing to you and members of the BOA for missing
Monday's meeting. Was called out of town suddenly for a family emergency just prior to
the meeting and was unable to attend or arrange for representation. That said, I am
requesting that a special meeting with the BOA be scheduled to discuss a condition
placed on the subject excelstion by the BOA during the last meeting held June 27d' of this
year.
Based on••ihe following; All Shores Construction is requesting that the ingress/egress
condition irnposed.by*the BOA be rescinded. It should•be notedthat the as submitted = .
project satisfies -Al-seven ofthe "Level of'Service Staadair ", as well as, reflecting the
traffic routing model suggested by city board representatives during a -F&Z meeting held
earlier in the year.
However, at'the request=of the BOA, All Shores Construction evaluated building and
driveway layout cohfgurations in an effort -to direct ingress/egress of all four -units
(instead of two) to. Sea Shell: Several variations, layout concepts and scenarios•were
attempted and reviewedf or feasibility. Asa result, it was determine that duc to setback
requirements property geometry, and other important • considerations, there is simply not
adequate.spaoe.to•pr&ide for ingress and egress of all four units from/to Sea Shell. Even
the best of concepts considered would effectively ruin the aesthetics of the planned
project as viewed from Sea Shell, spoil the front yards of at least the two north units
while adding undesired impact to the home ev mers to the east.
The City Planner and the City Building Official have both concurred with these findings.
It is for these reasons that All Shores Construction respectfully rcqucst that members of
the BOA reconsider their position on this issue.
Regards,
Meeting Type: Regular
Meeting Date: 08-16-05
AGENDA
Heading
Considerations
Item
8
No.
Exhibits Attached:
AGENDA REPORT
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION: BEACHSIDE TOWNHOMES FINAL REPLAT
DEPT/DIVISION: PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
Requested Action:
City Council consider approval of the final replat for Beachside Towhomes, as recommended by the Planning &
Zoning Board.
Summary Explanation & Background:
This request is for a final replat of Lot 14, Block 5 of Avon -by -The -Sea to be two (2) lots on the north side of
Adams Avenue.
Exhibits Attached:
P&Z Board recommendation letter and draft 07-27-05 minutes; application; City Planner site report; staff review
comments; final replat drawing (hand-out)
City Manage' -Office -
Department PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
cape
1A�l:__.yy .Nawuiitwvut-ull\meeting\2005\08-16-05\heachside.doc
Date: August 4, 2005
To: Bennett Boucher, City Manager
Susan Stills, City Clerk
From: Bea McNeely, Chairperson, Planning & Zoning Board
Re: Recommendation to City Council Regarding Final
Replat for Beachside Townhomes First Addition
(506 & 508 Adams Aveue) - John Johanson, Applicant
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By unanimous vote the Planning & Zoning Board recommended
approval of the Final Replat the above referenced project.
Please schedule this Final Replat on an upcoming City Council
meeting agenda.
Also, please inform John Johanson when this request is scheduled.
You can reach Mr. Johanson at 783-6821.
Attached are (6) copies of the Final Replat.
Planning & Zoning Board
Meeting Minutes
July 27, 2005
Page 2
It was noted that the Agenda item should read ... Dwelling Units for a Period of Less
Than Sixty (60) Consecutive Calendar Days.
City Attorney, Anthony Garganese, advised that he made changes to the draft
ordinance, as requested by the Board, and reviewed the changes. City Manager,
Bennett Boucher, encouraged the Board to work on an ordinance that can be enforced,
fast and effectively, through the City Citation Program, for infraction of performance
standards that the Board recommends. Discussion followed regarding: Making the
property owner(s) responsible; identifying that time limits may not be the problem, and
recognizing that the problem may be an owner or renter behavior; establishing
performance standards; enforcement of individual association rules and regulations; the
City establishing a reasonable set of rules for short-term rentals; the City developing a
permit or license for rental units; requiring a 24 hour local emergency contact for each
rental unit; issuance of a civil citation to the property owner, or lien the property, for
violations of noise, disturbances, and property maintenance; enforcement of violations;
revocation of the rental permit or license after a number of unresolved complaints is
established within a certain period of time. Comments from the audience followed.
Following discussion, City Manager, Bennett Boucher, agreed that he would find out how
many registered short-term rentals were in the City, and how many complaints have
been documented through the Sheriffs Office. Mayor Randels advised that City Council
will give a directive to the Sheriffs Office to file case reports when they respond to
complaints at residential rental units.
Motion by Leo Nicholas, seconded by Lamar Russell, to postpone any recommendation,
and continue fact finding at the next meeting. Vote on the motion carried unanimously.
2. Discussion Re: Pad -Mounted Generators - AnthonyGar anese City Attorney.
Building Official, Todd Morley, advised that there were -conflicts between the draft
ordinance and the adopted technical codes. He respectfully requested that the Board
reschedule the agenda item, until the next meeting, to allow staff to identify and change
the discrepancies.
Motion by Mr. Russell, seconded by Mr. Dunn, to postpone this agenda item until the
next meeting. Vote on the motion carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS - CONTINUED
1. Beachside Townhomes First Addition - Final Replat - (506 & 508 Adams Avenue)
- Replat of Lot 14. Block 5 Avon by the Sea Subdivision Section 23 Township
24 South, Range 37 East - John Johanson Applicant
Planning & Zoning Board
Meeting Minutes
July 27, 2005
Page 3
The Board members reviewed the submitted Final Replat. James Morgan, the project
general contractor, testified that he was authorized by the property -owner to act on his
behalf. Todd Peetz, City Planner, reported that staff reviewed the Final Replat and all
requirements have been met. Mr. Morgan explained the location of the townhomes on
Adams Avenue. The Board members pointed -out a few Scribner's errors on the City
Planner's report.
Motion by Leo Nicholas, seconded by Lamar Russell, to recommend approval of the
Beachside Townhomes First Addition Final Replat to City Council. Motion carried by
majority, with Mr. Fredrickson not being present at the time of voting.
2. Sea Shell Cay Townhomes - Preliminary Replat - Replat of Lot 1 Harbor Heights
Subdivision and Part of Lot A Tueton's Subdivision Section 14 Township 24
South, Range 37 East - James E Morgan Applicant
Todd Peetz, City Planner, read the conditions of the granted Special Exception for this
project. He explained that the Board of Adjustments requested that the applicant come
back to the Board for reconsideration of the condition regarding access on Sea Shell
Lane. He advised that the applicant was not present at the Board of Adjustment meeting
Monday night, however, the applicant can still move forward with the Replat.
The Board members reviewed the Preliminary Replat. James Morgan, Applicant,
testified that the project met all level -of -service standards for access on N. Atlantic
Avenue. He noted that all the trees would be destroyed if the project was required to
have all the access on Sea Shell Lane. Chairperson McNeely advised that
recommendation of the Preliminary Replat does not excuse the applicant from all the
conditions of the Special Exception.
Motion by Lamar Russell, seconded by Leo Nicholas, to recommend approval of Sea
Shell Cay Townhomes Preliminary Replat. Vote on the motion carried unanimously.
There being no further business for the Board to consider the meeting was adjourned at
9:50 p.m.
Bea McNeely, Chairperson
Susan L. Chapman, Board Secretary
PPLICATION FOR PLAT _REM EW
DATE OF SUBMITTAL:
(MOTE: SUBI•IITTAL MUST BE SUM11TTED A NII\INIUM OF 30 DAYS PRIOR TO
THE PLAINTNT'G & Z0NMN G NIEETUiG; PLAT MUST MEET THE REQUIRENI MNTS
OF SECTION 98-41 THROUGH 98-62).
IS THIS A PRELLtiiLtiARY PLAT, RE -PLAT, OR FLNNAL PLAT.
A. -MOUNT OF FMLN --G FEE PAID: S < 9, 50
AMOUNT OF E\GLNTEERL'�G DEPOSIT PAID: S 760 ,QC)
DID BREVA—RD COUNTY, GEOGRAPHIC RESEARCH DIVISION APPROVE THE
REQUEST FOR STREET NA_N E, IF APPLICABLE? (NOTE: THIS NEEDS TO BE
DONE PRIG Z TO SLIIII
BTTAL). YES NO • N.A.
PROTECT NA_ M R e ci.&I'k s"J e o w, � o rw e.s
A�181•F,o,
PROJECT ADDRESS: 0- 6
LEGAL DESCR1[PTIO:ti: % +- Ccl �IQ�k S� , � r.� r"� c S� -f 37
OWNER(S)NAME:
OWINT-R(S) ADDRESS: -31C
lq d w• s L4 e C°�.,.,e ����ve.�,a ,C /- g
PROJECT ARCHITECT/ENGL\_EER: C l � -(r �✓ �'
PHOti-E ISO. OF ARCHITECT/E_\GrNEER:
APPLICANTS) SIGNATURE:
I V0WI ER/AGENT
PHONE NUNBER OF OWiN'ER/AGE,N`T: 7 " 6 6;Z.
;Z I
City of Cape Canaveral
Beachside Townhomes
Final Plat
Applicant: John Johanson
Location: Range: 37Township: _24 Section:_23, Lot 15, Block-5-
Avon
lock5Avon by the Sea
Acreage: .14 +/- acres
Permitted Number of Units: 2 Dwelling Units
Proposed Number of Units: 2 Townhome Units
Current Future Land Use: Residential R-2
Current Zoning: Residential R-2
Description:
The applicant desires to use the property for residential townhome use in a residential R-2 zone.
The subject property itself is vacant located on the north side of Adams Avenue.
Townhome Requirements:
North
South
East
West
Zoning
R2 Residential
R2 Residential
R2 Residential
R2 Residential
Comp Plan
R2 Residential
R2 Residential
R2 Residential
R2 Residential
Existing
Conditions
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Townhome Requirements:
Required
Provided
Minimum Lot Area
6,250 sq. ft.
6,250 sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Area
1,600 sq. ft.
3125 sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Width
20 feet
25 feet
Minimum Lot depth
70 feet
125 feet
Public Services and Facilities in Amendment Area:
The impact on public services for two (2) residential unit is, the Level of Service for parks and
recreation is one (2) acres of park land per 1,000 residents. Approximately twenty-four (24)
acres of park land exist in Cape Canaveral. This equates to a population of approximately 12,000
residents. The City's population as of April, 2003 was 9,496. This is still adequate park space
available.
The traffic on North Atlantic is operating at Level of Service "D" with 179 available peak hour
trips between North Atlantic and Central Blvd. North Atlantic south of Central Blvd is operating
at a level of service "D" with 224 available peak hour trips from Central Blvd to AlA. The
maximum peak -hour volume acceptable is 810 representing a LOS of "E". The proposed
development with 40 dwelling units could generate 1 additional peak hour trips per day and this
would not create a traffic deficiency.
The City of Cape Canaveral provides wastewater treatment. The wastewater treatment capacity
is 1.8 million gallons per day (MGD). The existing usage is 1.26 MGD with an excess capacity
of .54 MGD. The development would generate 500 gallons per day (GPD). There is adequate
wastewater treatment capacity available.
The City of Cocoa has a total potable water capacity of 56 MGD and currently provides 48
MGD. Approximately 24.4 MGD of water is being used on an average daily basis, leaving 23.6
MGD available. The development would consume 600 GPD. There is adequate potable water
service available with the proposed change.
Brevard County provides facilities for solid waste disposal. At this time, the County does not
foresee any deficiency with their solid waste facilities.
Environmental Description of Amendment Area:
The subject parcel has Ga — Galveston Urban upland soil associated with urbanizing conditions
well drained. There are no known wetlands, floodplains or endangered species currently
identified on site.
Historical and Archaeological Resources in Amendment Area:
There are no known historical or archeological resources on site.
Population Projections and Trends:
The average single family dwelling unit may contain 2.37 persons per unit or 5 persons. This
should not have a significant affect on the population projections.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Morley;
Building Official
TO: Todd Peetz
City Planner
FROM:--Ed-Gardulski - — -�— — -- - — -- -
Public Works Director
DATE: June 28, 2005
RE: Beachside Townhomes
Re -Plat, Lot 3 Block 5
The Public Works Department has reviewed the Re -Plan of the above stated
project and the Department does not have any comments or concerns.
Page 1 of 1
Todd Peetz
From: John Cunningham ocunningham@ccvfd.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 10:24 AM
To: Todd Peetz
Subject: Re: Final Replat - Beachside Town homes
I have reviewed the site plan and have no comment at this time.
John Cunningham
Asst. Fire�Chief/Fire Marshal
Cape Canaveral Volunteer Fire Dept.
190 Jackson Ave
Cape Canaveral, FL 32920
Office: (321) 783-4777
Fax: (321) 783-5398
hftp://www.ccvfd.org
7/19/2005
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Morley,
Building Official
FROM: Todd Peetz
City Planner
DATE: - _- -,----July 13,-2005---,--,-----._r....—ry ,_._- _. _. _Y. —..__ ..
RE: Final Replat, Beachside Townhomes
I have reviewed the submittal of the final replat for the above referenced project. I do not
have any further comments at this time. Additional comments may occur during the site
plan review of said project.
July 6, 2005
Mr. Todd Peetz
Miller -Legg & Associates
631 South Orlando Avenue
Suite 200
Winter Park, FL 32789
E`„,.EI VEL-)
JULY
MILL, ►.EG &
A�SOCER►ATEG
, INC.
RE: Final Plat Review — Beachside Townhomes First Addition - Review.#1
SSA Job No. 05-0025, Task 005.1003
Dear Mr. Peetz:
SSA
SSA has reviewed the submitted preliminary plat for the above referenced project. Based on our review,
SSA recommends said plat for City approval.
This review does not relieve the applicant from other local, state, and federal agencies having jurisdiction
over the project site. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to call.
cerel ,
David Roy J n , PL
Chief Sury or
DRJ:jls
Cc: Susan L. Chapman
City Engineer's Review Fee For Review #2 $500.00
NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL FEES
As this project is being reviewed under the original City contract,
Engineering Fees for all reviews after 2nd review will be billed at $95.00 per hour.
STOTTLER STAGG & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PLANNERS, INC.
8680 North Atlantic Avenue P. O. Box 1630 Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920 Tel 321-783-1320
11c. #AAC000329 #EB0000762 #LB0006700
u:ljoan sottorivalcivillprojectslcape0.beachside townshomes 1st add final plat review 1.doc
Fax 321-783-7065
Meeting Type: Regular
Meeting Date: 08-16-05
AGENDA
Heading
Considerations
Item
9
No.
AGENDA REPORT
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION: FPL ENGINEERING DEPOSIT FOR UNDERGROUND SERVICE
FOR THURM BLVD. AND W. CENTRAL BLVD.
DEPUDIVISION: LEGISLATIVE
Requested Action:
City Council consider FPL's proposal to develop binding detailed engineering cost estimates to underground
services along Thurm Blvd. ($4,218) and W. Central Blvd. ($637.20).
Summary Explanation & Background:
The ballpark estimate for Thurm Blvd. is $550,000 to underground 3,515 feet of service lines and the W. Central
Blvd. ballpark estimate is $44,367.90.
The proposed engineering fees will be used to develop binding detailed cost estimates for these two tasks.
The estimates can be used to assess these costs to the power customers that will benefit from these projects pursuant
to the attached tariff.
The City would be required to pay FPL up front for the cost of undergrounding. I would recommend the City
borrow funds from the Florida League of Cities and the debt would be paid off over time by FPL customers in the
project area.
Please advise.
Exhibits Attached:
FPL proposals and tariff.
CityMa en's Office Department LEGISLATIVE
rr-nt\kim\mv ocume in\council\meeting\2005\08-16-05\fpl.doc
9001 ELLIS ROAD
MELBOURNE, FL 32904
August 8, 2005
Mr. Bennett Boucher
City Manager
City of Cape Canaveral
105 Polk Avenue
Cape Canaveral, FL 32920
Re: Conversion of existing FPL overhead distribution facilities to underground — Thurm Blvd.
In response to your request, the non-binding "ballpark" estimate for Florida Power and Light
Company to install underground electrical distribution facilities and remove the existing overhead
feeder facilities along Thurm Blvd, from the West Central, to Astronaut is $550,000. This estimate
is not an offer from FPL to perform the work and is provided to assist your preliminary decision
making. FPL shall not be held liable for any variations that may occur between this "order of
magnitude" estimate and any detailed estimates that may subsequently be provided by FPL.
Should you desire to pursue this matter further by requesting a binding detailed Engineering Cost
Estimate, an engineering deposit in the amount of $4,218 will be required. This request must be
made in writing and shall specify, in detail, the scope of work to be included in the estimate.
Binding Detailed Engineering Cost Estimates are valid for 180 days, and are subject to change in
the event of a work scope change.
Should you pay the engineering deposit and elect to have the work performed as estimated (the
work included in the estimate for which the deposit was paid), that deposit will be applied to the
FPL work order as part of the total customer Contribution in Aid of Construction (CIAC), if the
CIAC is paid while the estimate is valid. If you elect to not have that work performed, or if no
CIAC payment is made while the estimate is valid, the deposit will be withheld by FPL to defray a
portion of the cost of producing the estimate.
Should additional detailed estimates be required or requested for work not detailed in your original
request, you may be required to pay additional FPL engineering cost to produce those estimates.
Thank you for this opportunity to serve you. Please contact me at 321-726-4828 if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
W. R. York
System Project Manager
0
FPL
August 9, 2005
Mr, Bennett Boucher
City Manager
City of Cape Canaveral
105 Polk Avenu
Cape Canaveral, FL 32920
Re: Puerto Del Rio Feeder Tie
Dear Mr. Boucher:
Florida Power & Light Company
In response to your request on June 1, 2005, the non-binding "ballpark" estimate to install an underground
feeder tie at Puerto Del Rio is $44,367.90. This amount is an "order of magnitude" estimate only. This
estimate is not an offer from FPL to perform the requested work and should not be construed or used as
such for detailed planning purposes. It is provided strictly to assist your preliminary decision making. FPL
shall not be held liable for any variations that may occur between this "order of magnitude" estimate and any
detailed cost estimates that may subsequently be provided by FPL.
Should you desire to pursue this matter further by requesting a "binding" detailed Engineering Cost Estimate,
an engineering deposit in the amount of $637.20 will be required. This request must be made in writing and
shall specify, in detail, the scope of work to be included in the estimate. Binding Detailed Engineering Cost
Estimates are valid for six months and subject to change in the event of a work scope change.
Should you pay an engineering deposit and elect to have the work performed (the work included in the
estimate for which the deposit was paid), that deposit will be applied to the FPL work order as customer
Contribution in Aid of Construction (CIAC). This applied amount would contribute toward the total CIAC
amount determined by the detailed cost estimate, if the CIAC is paid while the estimate is valid. If you elect
not to have that work performed, or if no CIAC payment is made while the estimate is valid, the deposit will be
withheld by FPL to defray a portion of FPL's cost to produce the estimate.
Should additional detailed estimates be required for work not included in your original request, you may be
required to pay any additional FPL engineering costs to produce those estimates.
Please contact me at 455-6120 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
David Pryor
Service Planner
Florida Power and Light Company
Cc: Tom Kunz, FPL
an FPL Group Company
VT nDTTl A DllllrCn D_ T Yl -Yl ` �-- . 11 -
Original Sheet No. 6.600
SECTION 14.0
MECHANISM FOR GOVERNMENTAL RECOVERY OF UNDERGROUNDING FEES (MGRUF)
SERVICE
Under this tariff, the Company provides qualifying local governments with an optional mechanism for recovering certain costs
paid by or due from the local govemment to the Company in connection with converting distribution facilities from overhead to
underground service. The MGRUF tariff is offered to local governments as that term is defined below.
LOCALGOVERNMENT
A "local government" shall be defined as a municipality or county under Florida law possessing tax assessment and collection or
other comparable authority sufficient to permit such local governmental to apply for application of this tariff and enter into an
Underground Capital Cost Recovery Contract, as defined herein below.
UNDERGROUND ASSESSMENT AREA (UAA)
The local government shall establish the geographic boundaries of an Underground Assessment Area based on a determination,
in its discretion and consistent with applicable law, that the electric customers located within these boundaries benefit sufficiently
from the underground conversion project in question to warrant the payment of a Governmental Undergrounding Fee to recover
the costs of the conversion project. The Underground Assessment Area so established may consist of all or any contiguous
portion of the area within the local government's corporate limits, and may overlap all or portions of other Underground
Assessment Areas previously established by the local government.
TARGET ANNUAL PAYMENT TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT (TARGET ANNUAL PAYMENT)
Based on the Target Annual Payment calculation, the Company will assess an amount to be recovered through a Governmental
Undergrounding Fee, which shall be added to the electric bills of the Company's customers located within a UAA. The Target
Annual Payment shall be calculated in accordance with the following formula:
Target Annual Payment = [ (FC + GC + B) x i
1—(I/(I+i)")]
Where:
FC = Facility Charge, all amounts payable to the Company in connection with converting distribution
facilities from overhead to underground, as specified in the Installation of Underground Electric
Distribution Facilities For the Conversion of Overhead Electric Distribution Facilities sections of
the Company's rules and regulations, which the local government intends to collect through a user
fee on electric customers in the UAA.
GC = Governmental Cost, which, at the local government's option, consists of the following costs
incurred by the local government:
I. Ancillary costs related to the undergrounding project, such as right-of-way acquisition,
preparation and restoration costs, and financing costs.
2. The total cost charged by electrical contractor(s) selected and hired by the local
government to convert customer facilities (such as service entrances and meter bases) to
receive underground service.
B = Billing Charge, equal to 550,000 or 10% of the Facility Charge, whichever is less.
n = The number of years over which the Facility Charge, the Governmental Cost, and the Billing
Charge are to be recovered by the local government, which shall not exceed a maximum of twenty
(20) years.
The interest rate on the bonds or other financial instruments utilized by the local government to
finance the Facility Charge, the Governmental Cost, and the Billing Charge adjusted for financing
costs.
(Continued on Sheet No. 6.601)
Issued bv: S.E. Romig, Director, Rates and Tariffs
Effective: August 19, 2003
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPAINY
(Continued from Sheet No. 6.600)
ACTUAL ANNUAL PAYMENT TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACTUAL ANNUAL PAYMENT)
Only those amounts actually collected through the Governmental Undergrounding Fee shall be remitted by the Company to the local
government. This amount shall be known as the Actual Annual Payment. The Actual Annual Payment shall be remitted by the Company
to the eligible local government within sixty (60) calendar days following the conclusion of each calendar year. Amounts collected through
the Governmental Undergrounding Fee are not revenues or receipts of the Company for any purpose, including the establishment of
electric rates or the determination of revenue sharing or other amounts under any revenue sharing or other incentive plan approved by the
Commission, and are not subject to the franchise fee or other separately stated fees, the gross receipts tax, state or local sales or use taxes,
or the municipal utility tax. However, if any such taxes are assessed upon the Company's collection of the Governmental Undergrounding
Fee, the Actual Annual Payment shall be reduced by the amount of the taxes assessed and paid by the Company.
GOVERNMENTAL UNDERGROUNDING FEE
(a) The Company will bill a monthly Governmental Undergrounding Fee to electric customers located in the UAA established by
the local government. The Governmental Undergrounding Fee is intended as a recovery mechanism for the local government
imposing a user fee on electric customers in the UAA. The Governmental Undergrounding Fee shall be assessed as a percent
of total electric revenues and applied to all electric customers located within the UAA, subject to the terms and conditions of
the applicable Underground Capital Cost Recovery Contract. The Governmental Underground Fee should be calculated to
produce the Target Annual Payment. In no event shall the Governmental Undergrounding Fee assessed on a customer exceed
the lesser of i) 15% of the customer's total net electric charges, where total net electric charges are defined as total electric
charges exclusive of any Governmental Undergrounding Fees or ii) a maximum monthly amount of S30 for each residential
customer and $50 for every 5,000 kWh of consumption for each non-residential customer.
(b) The initial Governmental Undergrounding Fee shall be calculated for the remainder of the calendar year in which the fee
becomes effective and shall be recalculated for each succeeding calendar year or portion of a calendar year during its
effectiveness. The calculation or recalculation shall be based on the Company's most current projections for the upcoming
period, and each recalculation shall include a true -up adjustment based on the difference between projected and actual
recovery for the prior calendar year. Each true -up recalculation shall include, but not be limited to, any uncollected
Governmental Undergrounding Fee resulting from any applicable limits on the amount of the Governmental Undergrounding
Fee which can be assessed on the electric bill or from customer non-payment of the Government Undergrounding Fee.
REIMBURSEMENTS DUE THE COMPANY
Nothing herein shall alter the conversion costs paid by or due from the local government to the Company in connection with
converting distribution facilities from overhead to underground. In addition, service under this tariff requires the full upfront
payment by the local government to the Company of the Billing Charge included in the Target Annual Payment, as well as any
other amounts specified in the Company's rules and regulations.
CUSTOMER NOTIFICATION
The local government shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local requirements in connection with the establishment
of a UAA and the imposition of the Governmental Undergrounding Fee. Further, at least ninety (90) days prior to the execution
of an Underground Capital Cost Recovery Contract pursuant to this tariff, the local government shall mail a notice to each
electric customer located within the proposed UAA as defined by the local government, stating its intention to recover the cost of
the underground conversion project in question through a Governmental Undergrounding Fee on the customer's electric bill. In
addition, the local government shall provide to the Company such information as the Company may require in the event the
Company elects or is required to provide notice to its customers. Such notice would be provided at the cost of the local
government and would be in addition to such other notice requirements as may be required under Florida law. To the extent
required, the local government shall file notice in the public records once the Governmental Undergrounding Fee has been
approved by the local government.
LIMITATION OF SERVICE:
The Company shall withhold application of this tariff under any of the following conditions:
i. if the Company's projections show the Annual Target Payment would exceed 15% of the net electric charges from
customers in the affected UAA
ii. if the local government fails to ensure the conversion of any existing overhead service entrances to underground service
in the affected UAA
iii. if the local government fails to comply with any of the terms and conditions of this tariff, including, but not limited to
the provisions on Customer Notification and Reimbursements Due the Company
iv. if the local government fails to comply with any other terms or conditions of the Company's rules and regulations.
including the Installation of Underground Electric Distribution Facilities for the Conversion of Overhead Electric
Distribution Facilities sections of the Company's General Rules and Regulations for Electric Service.
(Continued on Sheet No. 6.602)
Issued bv: S. E. Romig, Director, Rates and Tariffs
Effective: August 19, 2003
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPAiINY
(Continued from Sheet No. 6.601)
nA_;. 1 Q!h--* v- 4 cn'%
UNDERGROUND CAPITAL COST RECOVERY CONTRACT
The local government shall enter into an Underground Capital Cost Recovery Contract with the Company, the form of which
is satisfactory to the Company and has been approved by the FPSC or its staff, establishing the specific terms and conditions
for underground cost recovery consistent with the provisions of this tariff. Terms to be included in the Underground Capital
Cost Recovery Contract shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
1) [The local government] represents and warrants that it has full legal right and authority: (a) to enter into this Underground
Capital Cost Recovery Contract; (b) to take all actions and measures necessary to fulfill [the local government's] obligations
under the MGRUF tariff and this Underground Capital Cost Recovery Contract; (c) to establish Underground Assessment
Areas; and (d) to authorize the Company to collect a Governmental Undergrounding Fee from the Companv's customers
pursuant to the MGRUF tariff and this Underground Capital Cost Recovery Contract. [The local government] further
represents and warrants that it has complied with all applicable notice and other procedural requirements pertaining to the
assessment or collection of a charge to residents for the undergrounding of electric service.
2) [The local government] acknowledges and agrees that the Governmental Undergrounding Fee computed and collected by
Company in accordance with the MGRUF tariff is assessed solely by virtue of duly exercised authority of [the local
government] and not pursuant to authority of the Company or the FPSC and that, in collecting the Governmental
Undergrounding Fee for [the local government], the Company is acting on behalf of [the local government] and not in its own
right.
3) [The local government] acknowledges and agrees that all payments made by the Company's electric customers within the
UAA shall first be applied to satisfy the customers' payment obligations to the Company, including payments for electric
service, and for any service charges and penalties for late payments, and that only the amount, if any, by which a payment
exceeds a customer's obligation to the Company shall be available for application to the Governmental Undergrounding Fee
and remittance to [the local government]. [The local government] further acknowledges and agrees that, notwithstanding
anything in this Underground Capital Cost Recovery Contract or the MGRUF tariff to the contrary, the Company shall have no
obligation to remit to [the local government] any amounts in excess of Governmental Undergrounding Fees actually collected
and that any shortfall between the Target Annual Payment and the Actual Annual Payment amount remitted to [the local
government] pursuant to this Underground Capital Cost Recovery Contract shall be borne solely by [the local government].
4) The Company and [the local government] agree that the Company shall not assess any late payment fee on the Governmental
Undergrounding Fee.
5) [The local government] agrees, to the extent permitted by applicable law, to indemnify, pay, defend, and hold harmless the
Company and its officers, directors, employees, agents, contractors and affiliates (collectively referred to hereinafter as the
"FPL Entities") from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, costs, or expenses for loss, damage, or injury to persons
or property of the FPL Entities or third parties caused by, arising out of, or resulting from: the application of the MGRUF or
this Capital Cost Recovery Contract; the assessment or collection of the Governmental Undergrounding Fee, a breach by [the
local government] of its covenants, representations, warranties or obligations hereunder; the negligence or willful misconduct
of [the local government] or its contractors, agents, servants or employees; or any other event or act that is the result of, or
proximately caused by the local government or its contractors, agents, servants or employees.
6) [The local government] acknowledges and agrees that the Company may not and shall not disconnect electric service of
customers for failure to pay the Governmental Undergrounding Fee.
7) The Company and [the local government] agree that the term and expiration date of this Underground Capital Cost Recovery
Contract shall coincide with the number of years specified in the Target Annual Payment section of this tariff.
8) [The local government] shall not (a) permit any lien, encumbrance or security interest to attach to the Company's revenues.
including without limitation, the amounts collected or to be collected as the Governmental Undergrounding Fees under the
MGRUF tariff (collectively, "Revenue Stream"), (b) permit any of the Revenue Stream to be levied upon under legal process,
(c) attempt to sell, transfer, pledge or assign any of the Revenue Stream, or permit anything to be done that may impair the
value to the Company of the Revenue Stream.
9) The Company and [the local government] agree that the Company may suspend on an indefinite basis the application of the
Governmental Undergrounding Fee to those customers where four consecutive months of non-payment of said Governmental
Undergrounding Fee is experienced. The Company shall provide [the local government] on an annual basis a list of the
customers where suspension of the Governmental Undergrounding Fee has taken place as a result of non-payment.
10) The Company and [the local government] agree that the Company shall not assess the Governmental Undergrounding Fee
until the conversion of distribution facilities from overhead to underground service upon which the Target Annual Payment is
based is complete.
Issued by: S. E. Romig, Director, Rates and Tariffs
Effective: August 19, 2003
Meeting Type: Regular
Meeting Date: 08-16-05
AGENDA
Heading
Considerations
Item
10
No.
Also, need City Council to appropriate funds for the City's share of paving Center Street in the amount of $13,000;
AGENDA REPORT
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION: CENTER STREET LANDSCAPING AND PAVING PLAN WITH
BENKO CONSTRUCTION
DEPT/DIVISION: PUBLIC WORKS/STREETS
Requested Action:
City Council review and consider approval of the Center Street Landscaping and Paving Plan with Benko
Construction, as recommended by the Beautification Board on 08-09-05.
Summary Explanation & Background:
See attached memo and agreement.
Landscape plan (hand-out).
Also, need City Council to appropriate funds for the City's share of paving Center Street in the amount of $13,000;
Benko's share is $6,384.
I recommend approval.
Exhibits Attached:
Public Works Director's memo; agreement
City ManaRice
Department PUBLIC WORKS/STREETS
cape-- im\my ocumen admin\council\meeting\2005\08-16-05\benko.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bennett C. Boucher
City Manager
FROM: Ed Gardulski
Public Works Director
DATE: August 10, 2005
SUBJECT: City Council Agenda Item for August 16th, 2005
Center Street Landscaping Agreement with Benko Construction
On August 9th 2005, the Beautification Board was presented a landscape design along
Center Street. As part of the Benko Construction Company Landscaping Remediation Plan
Agreement, the landscape plan was acceptable by the Beautification Board with the following
modifications:
The Sabal Palms to set back five (5) feet from the curb to allow the construction of a future
sidewalk by the City of Cape Canaveral.
2. The Landscaping Plan at the end of Center Street shall provide amble space for the City of
Cape Canaveral to construct one (1) handicap parking and two (2) additional parking spaces.
In addition, the curb shall be a Miami type and the sidewalk shall be six (6) inches.
3. The Beautification Board requested that a sign be installed stating at the Center Street Park is
a City of Cape Canaveral Public Park. The sign will be purchased and installed by the City of
Cape Canaveral.
Recommend approval of the Center Street Landscape Plan as amended by the Beautification
Board.
Attachment
CC: File
BENKO CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
1000 SHOREWOOD DRIVE, SUITE 200
CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA 32920
Telephone (321) 784-8093
August 5, 2005
Bennett Boucher, City Manager
City of Cape Canaveral
105 Polk Avenue
Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920
Re: Center Street
Dear Bennett:
Fax No. (321) 784-3644
Please find a copy of the Construction Staging and License Agreement (landscaping for
the end of Center Street). I have signed the Agreement and placed as an Exhibit `B" the
drawing that Ed Gardulski provided to me by fax on August 3, 2005. Please have the
same executed and return a copy to me. We will start scheduling the work in the very
near future.
I am also sending the Landscape Plan for Center Street. We have proposed to place trees
and plants in the 8' right-of-way along both sides of Center Street. Ed Gardulski
mentioned that it would be nice to have a 5' sidewalk on both sides plus the landscape.
After consideration of this, we believe that there really is not enough room for both.
We are anxious to complete this work. If you could get this approved with the
Beautification Board and get back to us in writing, we will complete the work at the same
time with the end of Center Street.
Finally, please find a copy of the e-mail between you and Kohn Bennett. As you will
recall, Kohn had agreed to pay $6,384.00 towards the repaving of Center Street.
Of course, we would like to complete all of the landscaping work first before the
repaving is started.
Bennett Boucher, City Manager
City of Cape Canaveral
Page 2.
August 5, 2005
We are very concerned with the final outcome and beautification of Center Street. Please
help us finalize these few necessary requirements to start this project.
If you need any other information from me please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
X4 �� ��o "
Vice
cc: 'Ed Gardulski
Todd Morley
Kohn Bennett
Prepared by and return to:
Anthony A. Garganese, Esquire
City Attorney of Cape Canaveral
Brown, Salzman, Weiss & Garganese, P.A.
Post Office Box 2873
Orlando, Florida 32802-2873
(407) 425-9566
CONSTRUCTION STAGING AND LICENSE AGREEMENT
THIS CONSTRUCTION STAGING AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as
the "Agreement"), made and executed this day of O -u , 20 05
by and between the CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, a Florida munlci al corporatio- r
(hereinafter referred to as "City"), whose address is 105 Polk Avenue, Cape
Canaveral, Florida 32920, and BENKO CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., a Florida
corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Benko"), whose address is 1000 Sherwood
Drive, Suite 200, Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920.
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, the City is the owner of certain real property subject to this
Agreement and legally described and depicted on Exhibit "A," which is attached
hereto and fully incorporated herein by this reference (hereinafter referred to as
"Property"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to several development orders issued by the City,
Benko is in the process of constructing a condominium project in the vicinity of the
Property called "Solana on the River;" and
WHEREAS, Benko desires to use the Property for a limited period of time as
a construction staging area to assist in the completion of construction of Solana on
the River; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to allow Benko to use the Property for
construction staging purposes, provided Benko abides by the terms and conditions
set forth in this Agreement; and upon completion of use of the property for
construction staging purposes, Benko agrees to construct, install and build (at their
expense) the landscape and hard scape improvements required hereunder.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and benefits
contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1.0 Recitals. The foregoing recitals are hereby fully incorporated herein
by this reference and deemed a material part of this Agreement.
Construction Staging Agreement
City of Cape Canaveral - Benko Construction Co., Inc.
2.0 Purpose; Construction Staging and License.
2.1 Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to allow Benko to
use the Property for staging construction materials and
equipment relative to the on-going construction by Benko of
Solana on the River.
2.2 Grant of Temporary License.
(a) City hereby grants and conveys to Benko a non-exclusive
and temporary construction staging license over and across
the Property. The license is for the limited purpose of
allowing Benko to stage construction materials and
equipment on the Property relative to the construction of
Solana on the River.
(b) To accomplish the purpose stated above, the following
rights are conveyed to Benko by this license and may, at
the licensee's sole and absolute discretion, be exercised at
any time during the duration of this license:
(1) To have the non-exclusive use of the Property to stage
construction materials and equipment, provided such
materials and equipment are related to the Solana on
the River project.
(2) To use this license for ingress and egress over, upon
and through the Property.
(c) The license shall be subject to the following conditions:
(1) All construction materials and equipment shall remain
at least ten (10) feet from the perimeter fence required
by section 2.5 herein that abuts any right-of-way.
(2) Construction materials (stacked or otherwise) shall not
exceed thirty-two (32) feet in height, above grade.
(3) During the term of the license, the Property shall be
maintained by Benko as a restricted access
construction site pursuant to law.
Construction Staging Agreement
City of Cape Canaveral - Benko Construction Co., Inc.
2
(d) City may enter the Property at any time to determine
Benko's compliance with this license and the Agreement.
(e) Benko shall maintain the Property in a neat and orderly
manner.
(f) Benko shall not surcharge or overburden the Property.
2.3 Removal of Trees. Prior to staging construction materials and
equipment on the Property, Benko shall remove and discard all
existing trees and landscaping materials from the Property.
2.4 Duration of License. The license shall remain effective until
the last certificate of occupancy is granted by the City for Solana
on the River or the building permits for Solana on the River have
expired or been revoked, whichever occurs first. The Parties
may extend the duration of the license for a reasonable period of
time by mutual written agreement, provided the construction of
Solana on the River is still pending.
2.5 Site Preparation. Prior to staging construction materials and
equipment, Benko shall erect and install a six -foot -high chain link
fence around the perimeter of the Property with a gate for
ingress and egress. Said fence shall remain in place while the
staging activities are on-going. The gate shall remain locked at
such times that Benko and its contractors are not actively using
the Property. Benko shall attach to the fence one or more "keep
out" or "no trespassing" signs in conspicuous places. When the
duration of the license has expired, Benko shall immediately
remove the fence from the Property.
3.0 Landscape Remediation Plan. Within ninety (90) days of receiving
the final certificate of occupancy for the Solana on the River project, or Benko's
discontinuance of the Property for construction staging, whichever occurs first,
Benko shall restore the Property in accordance with a landscape remediation plan
deemed acceptable by the City's Beautification Board and City Council. At a
minimum, the plan shall be in conformance with the concept plan attached hereto
as Exhibit "B." Said exhibit is fully incorporated herein by this reference.
Notwithstanding, Benko agrees that the Beautification Board and City Council may
require that the concept plan be reasonably changed or reasonably enhanced. The
landscaping plan shall also satisfy the following minimum requirements:
Construction Staging Agreement
City of Cape Canaveral - Benko Construction Co., Inc.
3
3.1 A seating area with a concrete or paver pad and two outdoor
bench seats suitable for the public's use.
3.2 New plant materials and trees shall be A grade material. The
total caliper inch of new trees shall exceed the total caliper inch
of old trees removed from the Property.
3.3 The Property will include a reclaim water irrigation system with a
separate zone branched off the City's main reclaim line. Benko
shall be responsible for the proper installation of the irrigation
system, located on the Property. The City will be responsible for
providing the City's main line to the Property, maintaining the
irrigation system and for the cost of the reclaimed water.
3.4 A paved or concrete walkway shall be constructed from the right-
of-way to the seating area.
3.5 Sod shall be installed in all areas not covered by hardscape or
landscape materials.
4.0 Escrow Payment. Benko agrees that upon the effective date of this
Agreement and prior to the use of the Property for construction staging, they will
deposit $8,500.00 into escrow with the City. Said money will be released by the City
at such time as Benko completes all of their obligations under this Agreement.
5.0 Successor and Assigns. City shall notify Benko, in advance and in
writing, of any transfer of ownership of the Property. This Agreement shall
automatically be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors and
assigns of the Property.
6.0 Applicable Law, Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and
construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida and the Cape
Canaveral Code and Comprehensive Plan. The parties agree that venue shall be
exclusively within Brevard County, Florida, for all state disputes or actions which
arise out of or are based upon this Agreement, and in Orlando, Florida, for all such
federal disputes or actions.
7.0 Amendments. This Agreement shall not be modified or amended
except by written agreement executed by all parties hereto and approved by the City
Council of the City of Cape Canaveral.
Construction Staging Agreement
City of Cape Canaveral - Benko Construction Co., Inc.
4
8.0 Entire Agreement; Headings. This Agreement contains the entire
agreement between the parties as to the subject matter hereof. Paragraph
headings are for convenience of the parties only and are not to be construed as part
of this Agreement. All references to whole paragraph numbers (e.g., 2.0) shall
include all subparagraphs thereunder (e.g., 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3).
9.0 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement shall be held to be
invalid or unenforceable to any extent by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City
shall have the unconditional right to either terminate this Agreement, modify this
Agreement with Benko's consent; or remain in the Agreement as modified by the
court.
10.0 No Recordation. This Agreement shall not be recorded in the public
records of Brevard County, Florida.
11.0 City's Police Powers. Benko acknowledges and agrees that the City
hereby reserves all police powers granted to the City by law. In no way shall this
Agreement be construed as the City bargaining away or surrendering its police
powers.
12.0 Sovereign Immunity. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be
construed as a waiver of the City's right to sovereign immunity under Section
768.28, Florida Statutes, or any other limitation on the City's potential liability under
state or federal law.
13.0 Notices. All notices and correspondence in connection with this
Agreement must be in writing. Notice and correspondence shall be sent by first
class mail or hand delivered at the addresses set forth below or at such other
addresses as the parties hereto shall designate to each other in writing:
13.1 If to City: Mr. Bennett Boucher, City Manager
City of Cape Canaveral
105 Polk Avenue
Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920
Telephone: (321) 868-1230
Facsimile: (321) 868-1224
If to Benko: Maath Bennett, Vice President
Benko Construction Co., Inc.
1000 Sherwood Drive, Suite 200
Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920
Telephone: (321) 784-8093
Facsimile: (321) 784-3644
Construction Staging Agreement
City of Cape Canaveral - Benko Construction Co., Inc.
5
14.0 Waiver. Any forbearance by the City in exercising any right or
remedy under this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of or preclude the
exercise of any right or remedy.
15.0 Indemnification and Hold Harmless. Benko agrees to the fullest
extent permitted by law, to indemnify and hold harmless the City, and its Council
members, employees, officers and city attorneys (individually and in their official
capacities) from and against any and all claims, losses, damages, personal injuries
(including, but not limited to, death), or liability (including reasonable attorneys fees
through all administrative and appellate proceedings) directly or indirectly arising out
of or resulting from any act or omission of Benko, and its employees, agents, and
contractors under this Agreement, any default of this Agreement, and/or any
accident, caused by Benko, its employees, subcontractors or agents, which may
occur on the Property during the duration of the license granted hereunder.
16.0 Attorneys' Fees. In the event of any litigation or dispute arising
under this Agreement, each party shall bear their own attorneys fees and costs.
17.0 No Joint Venture. Nothing herein shall be deemed to create a joint
venture or principal -agent relationship between the parties, and neither party is
authorized to, nor shall either party, act toward third persons or the public in any
manner which would indicate any such relationship with the other.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of
the date first written above.
ATTEST: CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL,
a Florida Municipal Corporation
Susan Stills, City Clerk
By:
Rocky Randels, Mayor
B7ja:
INC.,
a
B
ent
Construction Staging Agreement
Cityof Cape Canaveral - Benko Construction Co., Inc.
6
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF BREVARD
I hereby certify that the foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 2005 by Rocky Randels, Mayor of City of Cape Canaveral, a
Florida Municipal Corporation, who is personally known to me or who has produced
as identification.
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF BREVARD
I hereby certify that the foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
5t� day of � , 2005 by Maath Bennett, Vice President of Benko
Construction Co., Ific., who is personally known to me or who has produced
as identification.
NOTARY PUB IC
80.UE JO GEN
Commission N DD010/M
an°
mM�
Bonded 0woughh �
1(800,432.4254) Florida Notary Assn.. Inc.
...................................................:
Construction Staging Agreement
City of Cape Canaveral — Benko Construction Co. Inc.
7
EXHIBIT LIST
Exhibit "A" Legal Description of Property
Exhibit "B" Landscape Plan
Construction Staging Agreement
City of Cape Canaveral - Benko Construction Co., Inc.
0
io
i.DC-LA0IJ1GL I\.Ive.r
ic)
ZF
Cccono+ Pwrn
"wL�,)Doia,n &3 ,C
calx" .r --j__ poi In
22ET898TF-2: 'ON XUA
A,* Cfl-1
i ( O
SIJP- WO -1 k
PMoiL
Cen +ef—
L3--
Td WJSV:TO SOOE 20 -6nU
� 0, s
--Qc';?e
2-- ---- D -: 2: — = - -,—
�--q.qerc�,s via,fn,-Culo. - QV
C NI
ZoSm.i -x
2r
.. ..... .... 1.4.— PL
Page 1 of 3
Kohn Bennett
From: Kohn Bennett
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 4:36 PM
To: 'Bennett Boucher'; 'Ed Gardulski'; Anthony Garganese
Cc: Maath Bennett; morley-cape@cfl.rr.com
Subject: RE: center st paving cost
Bennett this is a follow up to our telephone conversation today that an amendment to the Landscaping Project
Agreement is certainly acceptable and we are absolutely in agreement to pay our share of the road re -surfacing
as outlined in this e-mail but we agreed that this agreement shall not hinder or delay the issuance on the C/O for
Building 4 which is pending. Clearly we would have already completed this re -surfacing if the Baffle Box project
by the City was complete. Thanks , Kohn
-----Original Message -----
From: Bennett Boucher [mailto:boucher-cape@cfl.rr.com]
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 3:33 PM
To: Kohn Bennett; 'Ed Gardulski'; Anthony Garganese
Cc: Maath Bennett; morley-cape@cfl.rr.com
Subject: RE: center st paving cost
Anthony,
Please take this information and draft an amendment to the existing agreement
We have with these guys on the Center Street landscaping project.
Thanks,
Bennett Boucher
City Manager
City of Cape Canaveral, FI.
Phone 321.868.1230
Fax 321.868.1224
e-mail boucher-cape@cfl.rr.com
www.myflorida.com/cape
From: Kohn Bennett [mai Ito: kbennett@benko1.com]
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 3:31 PM
To: Ed Gardulski
Cc: Maath Bennett; morley-cape@cfl.rr.com; boucher-cape@cfl.rr.com
Subject: RE: center st paving cost
Ed, these calculations are certainly acceptable and it is my understanding that we are waiting to complete
this work until the baffle box has been installed by the City's contractor. Additionally I want to discuss
with the City the balance of the landscaping, at our expense, which we are proposing to install along the
road. This hopefully could get installed before the paving is complete. I hope you understand that our
commitment to the City and to our Buyers is to genuinely improve Center Street.
Kohn Bennett
-----Original Message -----
From: Ed Gardulski [mailto:egardulski@bellsouth.net]
8/3/2005
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 3:14 PM
To: Kohn Bennett
Cc: Maath Bennett
Subject: Fw: center st paving cost
FYI
Ed Gardulski
City of Cape Canaveral
Public Works Department
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Gardulski
To: Bennett Boucher
Cc: City - Todd Morley ; Staff - Walter Bandish
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: center st paving cost
11V
The road is 30 feet wide, hence the numbers will be higher...
Center St is 969 ft X 30 ft = 29,070 Sq/ft = 3,320 sq/yd = $19,380
City share is 650ft X 30 ft = 19,500 sq/ft = 2,166 sq/yd = $12,996
Benko share is 319 X 30 = 9,570 sq/ft = 1,064 sq/yd = $6,384
cost is based on milling and paving at $6.00 sq/yd
ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Bennett Boucher
To: 'Ed Gardulski'
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 11:56 AM
Subject: RE: center st
I can see the developer paying for what they tore up, and the City paving
the remainder.
What's Benko's share?
Bennett Boucher
City Manager
City of Cape Canaveral, FI.
Phone 321.868.1230
Fax 321.868.1224
e-mail boucher-cape(a)-cfl.rr.com
www.m)dlorida.com/cape
From: Ed Gardulski [mailto:egardulski@bellsouth.net]
8/3/2005
Page 2 of 3
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 11:53 AM
To: City - Bennett Boucher
Cc: Staff - Walter Bandish; City - Todd Morley
Subject: center st
the cost for milling is $1.00 per sq/yd
the cost for paving is $5.00 per sq/yd
the total cost is $6.00 per sq/yd
Center St is 1,025 feet long 24 ft wide
Center St is about 2,734 sq/yd
times $6.00 = $16,400
cost estimate of $17,000
8/3/2005
Page 3 of 3
_ BankofAmerl
BENKO CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.* ®®, 2772
1600 N. ATLANTIC AVE., STE. 201 ACH Fi T 063100277
COCOA BEACH, FL 32931
634/630 FL
DATE: : i . 116
G
W
Review Dep? ' Fee Required:$
(1/2 of pe it fee based on valuation)
Acct.#001-202:24OU _ _ __�—_— --
C7:\Ad[nin\FORMW. AYMENT RECEIFT.d0c;12-M
Ud
npr. 20 2004 03:12P -M79 P1
ol ' 6 eA
City of Cape Canaveral
Building Department
P O Box 326
Cape Canaveral, FL 32920
REZONING/SPECIAL EXCEPTION/VARIANCE
Acct. #001-220.8000
PLAN REVIEW ESCROW
Acct. # 001-202.2400
PAYMENT ESCROW RECEIPTY .
Cen
4c-(��:
Date:
Project Name: .-)r,
Deposit Received:
Date Received: -4—/
M
Review Dego , ' Fee Required:$
(1/2 of pe it fee based on valuation)
Acct.#001-202:2400
17,.\Admin\'ORMS\PAYMF-NT REC:EIPT.&U2-04
rkYl-I-
1m f rov e-rae.n