The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-21-2009 MinutesCITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL ANNEX 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida TUESDAY July 21, 2009 9:10 PM MINUTES CALL TO ORDER: The Chair called the Meeting to Order at 9:10 P.M. ROLL CALL: Council Members Present: Mayor Pro Tem Council Member Mayor Council Member Council Member Others Present: City Manager City Attorney Acting Deputy City Clerk REPORTS: Bob Hoog Buzz Petsos Rocky Randels Shannon Roberts Betty Walsh Bennett Boucher Anthony Garganese Mia Goforth CITY MANAGER • Mr. Boucher requested direction from Council on the Sign Code because the Second Reading was not preserved at the last City Council Meeting. He advised Council to figure out some kind of path and explained that he would have to re - advertise the Second Reading. Mayor Randels suggested a workshop and requested Ms. Joyce Hamilton, resident, read a report letter dated July 21, 2009, from the Community Visioning Committee (see attached). She announced that Mr. Phil Laurien informed the Committee that the City of Palm Bay will be having a Sign Code Charrette and recommended Mayor and Council attend; no date is set yet. Discussion followed. Mayor Randels asked for consensus to set a date for a Sign Code Workshop meeting in August. Council agreed to have the City Manager come back with a date for a meeting in August from 5:30 p.m. to 8:00 P.M. • Mr. Boucher reminded Council of the Budget Workshop scheduled for the next night, July 22, at 5:30 p.m. He offered Council a handout prepared by the City Treasurer, Andrea Bowers, of the Brevard County Property Appraisers Tax Data City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting July 21, 2009 Page 2 of 4 Base for the City of Cape Canaveral. A brief discussion followed. Council requested more levels of analysis. • Mr. Boucher responded to Ms. Roberts in regard to the Library Meeting Room negotiations. He informed that he met with Brevard County Commissioner Chuck Nelson the day before and brought along Cape Canaveral Sheriffs Precinct Commander Alan Moros with him. He informed that Commissioner Nelson agreed to do away with the hourly The for using the room, but the Library absolutely needed to have Monday nights. Council agreed to reschedule the meeting nights for City Advisory Boards: Community Appearance, Recreation and the Board of Adjustment STAFF Building Official • No report. Planning and Development Director • No report. City Clerk • No report. City Attorney • No report. BUSINESS & CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD REPORT No report. AUDIENCE TO BE HEARD: • Mr. John Johanson, 607 Manatee Bay Drive, inquired what City ordinance or code did the Council follow to approve the Farmers Market. Mayor Randels responded that it was an Outdoor Entertainment Permit. City Attorney, Anthony Garganese cited City Code Section 10-46, Amusements and Entertainment, as being the only code that remotely addresses this issue since a farmers market is not specifically listed. He responded to an audience member that the list of zoning uses cannot be changed by an emergency amendment. Mr. Johanson stated his personal opinion that this was a reach. • Mr. Johanson inquired about the status of the FPL Home Energy Makeovers program offered back in January/February 2009. Mayor Randels responded that the City of Cape Canaveral did not meet the quota of owner occupied homes that met the criteria. Mr. Johanson responded that he disagreed and stated he took out applications to people he knew that needed it and after waiting on the day City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting July 21, 2009 Page 3 of 4 that the application stated they would be contacted and visited, he said nobody contacted them and nobody visited the applicants. Mr. Boucher explained that FPL (Florida Power and Light) collected the applications and was supposed to screen applicants. • Mr. David Schirtzinger, 314 Surf Drive, handed out data he collected from the Brevard County Property Appraiser Office comparing 2008 and 2009 taxes on Mayor and Council, the City Manager and himself. He shared his opinion that the City of Cape Canaveral's Ad Valorem Specific Taxation is unfair to a lot of people. Discussion followed. Mr. Boucher suggested that a consultant from Brevard County could come and talk to Council about this issue. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Motion to Approve: Resolution No. 2009-20 Appointing a Regular Member to the Community Appearance Board; Rosalie Wolf. A motion was made by Ms. Roberts and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Hoog Approving Resolution No. 2009-20, Appointing a Regular Member to the Community Appearance Board, Rosalie Wolf. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For; Ms. Roberts, For and Ms. Walsh, For. CONSIDERATIONS: 2. Motion to Approve: City Council Member Appointments to the Charter Review Committee. Mayor Randels stated that the City Manager recommended that each City Council Member pick two individuals to serve from the list of names submitted. The City Council made their nominations in the following order. Mayor Randels/John Johanson and Harry Pearson; Mayor Pro Tem Hoog/Tom Garboski and Mark Morrisson; Mr. Petsos/Burt Bruns and Frank Baker, Ms. Roberts/John Porter and Dianne Marcum; and Ms. Walsh/David Schirtzinger and Richard Clarke. A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Hoog and seconded by Mr. Petsos to Approve the City Council Member Appointments of Tom Garboski, Mark Morrisson, Frank Baker, Burt Bruns, Harry Pearson, John Johanson, John Porter, Dianne Marcum, David Schirtzinger and Richard Clark to the Charter Review Committee. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For; Ms. Roberts, For and Ms. Walsh, For. A motion was made by Mayor Randels and seconded by Ms. Roberts to Extend the Meeting five (5) minutes. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting July 21, 2009 Page 4 of 4 follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For; Ms. Roberts, For and Ms. Walsh, For. 3. Motion to Approve: Policy for Certificates of Commendation, Keys to the City, Proclamations and other forms of recognition. Mayor Randels stated that the City Manager has put forth, in the agenda packet, a procedure to follow. Discussion took place on who would be responsible for carrying out the procedures, the criteria for each category and determining who deserves proclamations and keys to the city and using a form for implementation. Council agreed to workshop the issue. COUNCIL REPORTS: Ms. Roberts recommended that at the next City Council Meeting that Council Reports be put as one of the primary agenda items. Mr. Petsos recommended putting a time certain on Council Reports. ADJOURNMENT: There being no, further,business, the Meeting adjourned at 10:07 P.M. Rocky Randels, AYOR lrs-2"90-0 s payor - I �-itY r;ounci{ � July 21, 2009 c;ty MW. City . CityAty_ LFiinance _. N? �tD f. r.! Du. --t Council Members: At the Special Session of the City of Cape Canaveral Council Meeting on Tuesday, July 14, 2009, you requested that the following questions be given to the Visioning Committee at their meeting on July 20, 2009 for them to be considered for the possibility of being placed on a survey to be given to the Residents and Business Owners. The questions that you asked to be presented were: 1. What height of a sign is appropriate in the City of Cape Canaveral, 10', 15', 20' or 30'? 2. Do you support the use of electronic signs throughout the city? The following is the feedback from those questions. It was stated that the sign ordinance is a very complex thing and should be addressed in a different context. The suggestion was made and met with approval that since the July 27h workshop is filled, that maybe at another workshop with the date to be determined it could be presented as "What type of signs would you like to see?". Also in the visioning process, keep in mind that we would like to see A 1 A change into a beautiful road that has a median with curbs and graceful palm trees instead of the "suicide lane" and also trees on the sides of the street. We need to determine what type of signs would be appropriate in that particular type of setting. There are a lot of questions that will need to be addressed as we get further into the visioning session. We encourage you to come to the Visioning Sessions and invite residents and business owners in the city to come as well. We would like for all to be a part of this new visioning for the city. The Visioning Committee At a Special Session of the City of Cape Canaveral Council Meeting on Tuesday, July 14, AEON 2009, Buzz Petsos asked the City Council to place on the Visioning Workshop a survey for Signs for the City of Cape Canaveral to read: What height of a sign is appropriate in the City of Cape Canaveral, 10'; 15', 20' or 30'? 2. Do you support the use of electronic signs throughout the City? Buzz further stated that he had sent a memo to Phil Laurien with reference to this and evidentally he had not received Phil's answer to that memo which was: The Councilman is on the right track, maybe just needs a bit more information. The sign code issue is more complicated than those two questions. In my 35 years as a planner, sign codes are the most controversial section of most zoning ordinances. I think it is premature to ask these questions of the visioning group at our next meeting without better context. We could, however, ask if people generally like the signs in Cape Canaveral, or dislike them, and why. And, if they would like to participate in a sign Charrette to address these issues and help resolve and give guidance to better signage. Interestingly enough, one of your Brevard County neighbors is about to embark on this very issue, Palm Bay. They are hiring us to assist them with three charrettes where they can get stakeholder input and determine where signs should be larger or smaller and what they should look like. This is the more complete context that I speak of. If the Cape Canaveral City Council would like to pursue a similar type of sign code charrette, perhaps they might benefit from watching what happens in Palm Bay and then see if they would like to do the same. I have attached the Palm Bay scope so you can see how we are going to work with them to answer the same, but more detailed questions of their community about sign preferences. And that is ultimately what the councilman seeks. Philip Laurien, AICP Executive Director At that meeting it was decided that at the Visioning Committee Meeting on Monday, July 20, at 5:30 PM, this would be brought to the Visioning Committee's attention for further discussion and the outcome of this would be reported back to the Council at their meeting on July 21, 2009, at 6:00 PM. There are copies of the Scope of Work for the City of Palm Bay attached for you to read. Those members of the Visioning Committee present at the Special Council Meeting on Adw Tuesday, July 14, 2009, were: Joyce Hamilton Dave Shirtzinger Tom Garboski Leo Nicholas L Scope of Work: Sign Code Charrette Facilitation For The City of Palm Bay By the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council A. OVERVIEW This Scope of Services describes how the ECFRPC will provide planning assistance to the City of Palm Bay, Florida as requested in Palm Bay's draft scope of work dated April 8, 2009. The basic tasks are: • to host, prepare for, moderate and facilitate stakeholder meetings; • do visual preference survey for signs and locations of greatest to least sign intensity • develop a summary and recommendations from stakeholder meetings B. TASKS Task L- Issue and Stakeholder Identification 1. ECFRPC staff will meet with City of Palm Bay staff to determine current issues and expected outcomes as they may pertain to the sign code update. 2. Prepare agendas for 2 Charrettes in conjunction with Palm Bay staff 3. Identify sign issues that need to be addressed in the new code. Examples might include electronic changeable message signs, garage sale signs, and political signs. (Estimated 15-25 issues). (Staff hours already included in item 1 above) 4. In addition, ECFRPC staff and City of Palm Bay staff will identify stakeholder groups (residents, businesses, elected officials, billboard companies) and assemble them for future Charrette based on the issues identified. 5. Photograph many different signs in Palm Bay. Note: [Based on this discussion, Palm BasLiwyer will research relevant best practice sign code applications that are consistent with Florida Law.] The City of Palm Bay — Sign Code Chan -me Facilitation Version 8 — 6.2809 Deliverables/Outcome: List of sign issues that need to be addressed in the new code, list of stakeholders and plan for Charrettes based on commonality of CO issues/stakeholders. Task 1: Estimated Hours- ECFRPC staff: PL- 8.5 Support Staff - 9 Task 2: Stakeholder Charrettes ECFRPC staff will host, moderate and facilitate two stakeholder Charrettes. ECFRPC staff will develop a summary of each Charrette and offer recommendations. Charrette # 1 1. Lead discussion on strengths and weaknesses of the current sign code, including positives and negatives of various selected sign types, using a limited number of examples of sign types, including those in the current sign code and those agreed upon types that Palm Bay and /or its stakeholders believe would be benefit to be allowed in Palm Bay. 2. Lead discussion on legal issues related to sign amortization. 3. Ask stakeholders to identify selected areas in the city of Palm Bay for sign intensity (smallest to largest, shortest to tallest, internally lit versus unlit). Using colored dots, locate the areas of sign intensity in the various commercial districts as depicted on a parcel based zoning map of Palm Bay. 4. Ask stakeholders to take pictures of different signs they like and dislike in Palm Bay or anywhere else and send the digital images to ECFRPC staff. Hand out disposable cameras to those who do not have digital cameras. 5. Establish time for Charrette #2. Charrette L• Hours- ECFRPC staff time estimated: PL- 11.5 Support Staff -11.5 Charrette #2 1. ECFRPC staff will take 100-300 photos of signs in the central Florida area, or other areas using internet resources or previous archive resources, including photos from Palm Bay. Separate by agreed-upon sign types. The City of Palm Bay — Sign Code Charrette Facilitation Version 8 — 6.28.09 2. Place sign photos on ECFRPC web site linked to Palm Bay web site for public rw examination (stakeholder sign photos and ECFRPC sign photos). Link to Palm Bay website. Print hard copies and place on display boards for Charrette #2. 3. Display the sign intensity map results from Charrette 1. (Preparation: Interpret the dot locations of sign intensity (GIS Intern- dot geo-coding; Claudia -Inverse Distance Weighted interpretation of dots). 4. At Charrette, ask stakeholders to select photos on display boards of signs they prefer (visual preferences) and indicate which areas they prefer them in by intensity district established in Charrette 1 in the appropriate selected areas in the city of Pahn Bay for certain classes of sign intensity (smallest to largest, shortest to tallest, internally lit versus non lit) as agreed upon by RPC staff and Palm Bay staff. Using colored dots, locate the areas of sign intensity in the various commercial districts as depicted on a parcel based zoning map of Palm Bay. 5. At the Charrette, calculate the top sign preferences by visual preference (photo) selection by the distinct districts they were preferred within. 6. Stakeholders discuss what sign types they want and don't want in the various districts based upon visual preferences. 7. Discuss if any additional stakeholder Charrettes are needed to complete the process of citizen input. If none are needed, this completes the Charrettes. 8. Summarize results after Charrette 2 and submit to Palm Bay. Charrette 2- ECFRPC staff estimates: PL- 13.5 Support- 15.5 Whitney- GIS 8 Claudia- GIS 2 Deliverables: Sign photos signs, visual preference display boards, post to web site link, make IDW interpretation of sign intensity districts from Charrette 1. Lead Charrette #2. FINAL PROJECT DELIVERABLES The deliverables associated with this project will include a summary of Charrette results and recommendations including any graphics and matrices used to arrive at end results. Total project time- 90 days from date of contract signing The City of Palm Ba — Si �Code Charrette Facilitation Version 8 — 6.28.09 �I PROTECT COSTS Lump Sum Cost for Tasks 1 & 2 travel and printing inclusive $6,000 (Supplemental) Task # 3 — Additional presentations (as requested) Philip Laurien of ECFRPC will travel to Palm Bay to present summary/recommendations to various Boards and Commissions as requested. This may include presentations to the Economic Development Task Force, Chamber of Commerce, Planning and Zoning Board, and City Council. Cost: $500/presentation (presumes 3 hours travel, presentation, plus travel all included) C; The Ci f Palm B City oam ay — Sign Code Charrette Facilitation Version 8 — 6.28.09