CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
CITY HALL ANNEX
TUESDAY
April 5, 2005
7:00 PM
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
Council
Members Present:
Mayor Pro Tem Bob Hoog
Council Member Steve Miller
Council Member Buzz Petsos
Mayor Rocky Randels
Council Member Absent:
Council Member Jim Morgan
Others Present:
City Manager Bennett Boucher
City Attorney Anthony Garganese
City Clerk Susan Stills
City Treasurer Andrea Bowers
Building Official Todd Morley
Storm Water Coordinator Jeff Ratliff
PRESENTATION:
County Commissioner Update, Ron Pritchard
Commissioner
Pritchard distributed handouts to the Council.
He referred to a letter from Mayor Randels regarding
Commissioner
Pritchard stated that the City could assume ownership and maintenance of County
roads within the City at any time. He
referred to a data sheet that he provided the City Manager. Mayor Randels asked how the County paves owned
roads within other cities. Commissioner
Pritchard replied that he would need to inquire and return with an answer. Mr. Petsos expressed that the City supplies
up to $3 million to County revenue and he anticipated some return in funding to
the City. Commissioner Pritchard replied
that road paving could not be expended from the County’s General Fund. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog requested assistance from
the County in paving the roads prior to the City assuming ownership of the
roads.
Commissioner
Pritchard referred to a letter regarding the ad valorem taxes paid. He stated that the City paid $272,655 more
than what it received in return in 2003.
Mayor Randels summarized that those cities with denser population
support those lower populated areas in the County. Commissioner Pritchard stated that he tasked
his staff to discover which cities were actually paying taxes. He concluded that the City’s return on its
investment should be greater. Commissioner
Pritchard stated that the municipalities were in business to diminish the
County’s services. He stated that the
County government would still exist however the County would not perform the
current services. He expressed the hope
that the Growth Management Committee could help to make that decision.
Commissioner
Pritchard stated that his goal is to maintain Brevard’s existing aesthetic not
to create what he left in
Commissioner
Pritchard related on a meeting with the Reynolds, Crawford and the Environmentally
Endangered Lands [EELS] representatives.
He stated that review of the
Mayor
Pro Tem Hoog addressed the proposed after-hours playground at
Mr.
Petsos asked if the City could receive a breakdown of costs on how the County
expends revenue. Mr. Chic Bemerau, owner of Mountasia Miniature Golf Course on
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. City
Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 15, 2005.
2. Proclamation
for Arbor Day.
Mayor Randels asked
if any member of Council, staff or interested party desired to remove any items
from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
No request was made to remove an item for
discussion.
A motion was made
by Mr. Miller and seconded by Mr. Petsos to Approve Consent Agenda Items No. 1
and 2 as submitted. The vote on the
motion carried 4-0 with voting as follows:
Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Miller, For; Mr. Petsos, For and Mayor
Randels, For.
CONSIDERATIONS:
3. Motion to Approve: Fire Service Automatic Aid Agreement with the
City of
Mr. Boucher stated that this item was
removed from consideration.
The item will appear on a subsequent City
Council Agenda.
ORDINANCES: Second Public Hearing:
4. Motion
to Adopt: Ordinance No. 03-2005;
Amending Chapter 110, Zoning; Amending the Procedure by Which Site Plans are
Reviewed and Approved; Granting the City Council Final Decision-Making
Authority Regarding Site Plan Applications, at second reading.
Mayor Randels read Ordinance No. 03-2005 by
title.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 110 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCE, ZONING;
AMENDING THE PROCEDURE BY WHICH SITE PLANS ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED;
GRANTING THE CITY COUNCIL FINAL DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY REGARDING SITE PLAN
APPLICATIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES AND
RESOLUTIONS; INCORPORATION INTO THE CODE; SEVERABILITY; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mayor Randels reviewed the background of the ordinance beginning on
February 1, 2005. He stated that Section
110-223 authorizes the City Council with site plan approval and the City Clerk
provides notice of the Council’s actions.
The City Attorney noted that in Section 110-223, Subparagraph (h), under
Review Procedures, the additional language, “another” in front of public
hearing. Mayor Randels clarified that
this might interpret two hearings being held before the Planning and Zoning
Board and not a second hearing being held before the City Council. Ms. Bea
McNeely stated that two public hearings would be held, one by the Planning and
Zoning Board and a subsequent hearing by the City Council. The City Attorney recommended the language,
“upon receipt of the Planning and Zoning Board’s recommendation, the City
Council shall make a final decision on the application at a public hearing.” Mr. Boucher expressed than an applicant
should request a public hearing.
Discussion followed on whether City Council’s review should be at the
applicant’s request. Mr. Petsos noted
that he preferred that the Planning and Zoning Board provide subsequent review
to all applications approved with conditions.
Attorney Garganese suggested the language “upon receipt of the Planning
and Zoning Board’s recommendation, the applicant may submit an application for
review.” Ms. McNeely explained that the
Board’s intent was to ensure that the
applicant was aware of a subsequent public meeting. Council concluded to retain the ordinance’s
original language.
Attorney Garganese referred to Subparagraph (j) on Page 3 and said that
the Planning and Zoning Board desired to eliminate this paragraph. Mayor Randels clarified to strike Line 5,
Subparagraph (j) on Page 3. Attorney Garganese stated that these were not
substantive changes. Mr. Leo Nicholas pointed
out that the application form should explain the site plan review process. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Board
makes recommendation with approval by the City Council should be noted on the
application. Mr. Morley reviewed the
application guidelines Discussion
followed on a time limit between the Planning and Zoning Board’s recommendation
and City Council’s approval. Mr. Morley
expressed the need for expeditious review.
The City Attorney would provide language to address the review process
timeline for a site plan application.
There was no public comment.
A motion was made by Mr. Petsos
and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Hoog to Adopt Ordinance No. 03-2005 at
second reading. The vote on the motion carried 4-0 with
voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog,
For; Mr. Miller, For; Mr. Petsos, For and Mayor Randels, For.
ORDINANCES: First Public Hearing:
5. Motion to Approve: Ordinance No. 05-2005; Amending Chapter 102,
Vegetation; Providing for Land Clearing Permit Requirements; Providing for
Standards of Review; Providing for Rules and Regulations Regarding the
Preservation of Trees; Providing for Tree Replacement Guidelines; Providing a
Limited Exception for Land with Three or Fewer Residential Dwelling Units;
Providing Conforming Amendments to Chapter 110, Sections 566 Through 568, at
first reading.
Mayor Randels read Ordinance No. 05-2005 by
title.
AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 102 OF THE
CODE OF ORDINANCES, VEGETATION; PROVIDING
FOR LAND CLEARING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING FOR STANDARDS OF REVIEW;
PROVIDING FOR RULES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING THE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION
OF TREES; PROVIDING FOR TREE REPLACEMENT GUIDELINES; PROVIDING A LIMITED
EXCEPTION FOR LAND WITH THREE OR FEWER RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS; PROVIDING
CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 110, SECTIONS 566 THROUGH 568; PROVIDING
FOR THE REPEAL OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; INCORPORATION
INTO THE CODE; SEVERABILITY; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mr. Petsos requested
to review the memo from the Planning and Zoning Board Chair to the City Council
relating to undesirable trees. Mr.
Boucher explained that eleven (11) trees were identified as susceptible to damage
in storms. Ms. McNeely reviewed material
from the book Stormscaping – Landscaping to Minimize Wind Damage in Florida
and suggested amendments to the existing acceptable vegetation list. Ms. McNeely related that the three worst
trees identified were the Australian Pine, the Ficus and the Laurel Oak. Mayor
Randels clarified the removal of the Water Oak, Red Bud, Drake Elm, Benjamina
Ficus and Tabebuia to undesirable list.
Mr. Todd Peetz, City Planner, stated that perhaps these trees could be
transferred to a list of lesser points and not as totally undesirable for
planting. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog pointed out
that the Water Oak was the identified acceptable tree over which the mitigation
ordinance came into discussion. Mayor
Randels concluded that if Water Oaks were added to the list, then these
predominate specimen trees could be removed and the developer would not be obligated
to provide mitigation.
Mayor Randels stated that
several elements in the ordinance were changed.
He noted on Page 6, Section 102-36, land that contained three or less
lots was exempt. Mr. Petsos replied that
these would be addressed at a later time.
Mayor Randels affirmed that the mitigation table was in the City Council
Agenda packet. Attorney Garganese stated
that he included in Section 102-36 that planting preferred plant material would
offer substantial mitigation credits.
Mayor Randels pointed out that the ordinance outlined that no trees
shall be planted under power lines. He also
stated that no more than 25 percent of one tree species could be planted. Mr. Todd Peetz related that one application
with a four-unit town house necessitated planting the majority of trees in the
back of the dwelling. He expressed that
in the future the City might need to amend the code to allow for wider garages
in order to make room for landscaping in front of the dwelling.
A motion was made by Mr. Petsos and seconded by Mr. Miller to Approve
Ordinance No. 05-2005 at first reading. The vote on the motion
carried 4-0 with voting as follows:
Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Miller, For; Mr. Petsos, For and Mayor
Randels, For.
SITE
PLAN:
6. Motion to Approve: Madison Cay Revised Site Plan.
Mayor Pro Tem Hoog
requested to Abstain from Voting on the Item since he is the electrician of
record. Mayor Randels pointed out that originally the
Shores of Artesia was approved with a swimming pool on its 1985 vested site
plan. He stated that the former owner
obtained a building permit in 1986 to install a maintenance shed on the
premises. Mayor Randels noted the
location of a small concrete building.
He stated that the most recent owner desires to amend the pool to create
six additional parking spaces. Ms.
McNeely related that Mr. Roger Smith had no concern if the shed were
removed. Mr. Smith affirmed that parking
was a more defined need than a pool. He
said that all current residents had no problem with removing the pool. Ms. Collette Cannon stated that she had a
contract with Mr. Smith for the shed. Mr.
Petsos expressed concern that the City is named as requiring the additional
parking in place of the pool. For the
record, Mr. Smith affirmed that he had nineteen signed contracts that affirmed
that the prospective residents were aware that the pool was not forthcoming and
he accepted the responsibility for making the amendment from a swimming pool to
parking spaces.
Mr. Boucher reviewed
the elements in the Site Plan packet as: the Planning and Zoning Board
recommendation letter, the site plan review recommendation, staff comments, the
Planning and Zoning Board recommendation dated February 23, 2005 including a
cut sheet without the storage shed, a copy of the original vested site plan, a
cut sheets with the storage shed and no swimming pool, and a letter from Ms.
Collette Cannon dated February 28, 2005.
Mr. Boucher concluded that Council action was needed on the Planning and
Zoning Board’s recommendation. Mr. Boucher explained that the City Planner’s
correspondence notes that the removal of the shed would create additional
parking. Mayor Randels read that in the
1985 zoning regulations, when the site plan was vested, only two parking spaces
were required per unit. Mr. Petsos noted
that the Building Official stated further that a variance was necessary since
the storage shed did not meet the setback requirement and he asked for
clarification on the issue to retain the storage shed.
Ms. Collette Cannon
stated that she developed the Shores of Artesia in 1985 that required only two
parking spaces at that time. The utility
building was constructed in February 1986.
She informed Mr. Smith that she wanted to protect the residents that
live in the 21 townhomes and Mr. Smith was aware of the conditions of sale. She expressed that she does not want the utility
building removed and the 21 residents have rights to the shed. Mr. Peetz explained that when the City
received the application, staff was unaware of the existence of a shed. If the City had all of the information at the
time of the application, he would have noted an error in that the building was
not part of the vested site plan and that it was not within the required
setbacks. He clarified two errors as: 1)
the building was not part of the approved site plan of 1984, and 2) the
building was too close to the property line that makes the building a variance
requirement. Mr. Peetz stated further
that when the building permit was approved, it created an error and vesting the
site plan with the building created an additional error.
Attorney Garganese stated
that Council determined the site plan was vested and the vested site plan showed
no building. However, since the vesting
it was found that a permitted building application was issued in error for a
maintenance shed building. The permit was issued after the site plan was
approved. Attorney Garganese stated that
the Building Official at that time did not have the authority to sign off on a
building permit that was not in compliance.
The vested site plan did not have a building on it. He concluded that
the building would need to either be removed or approved. Attorney Garganese
asked if there were any other legal interest in the property. Mr. Smith replied no however he had an
agreement with Ms. Cannon. Ms. Cannon
affirmed that agreement.
Mr. Boucher pointed
out that the Building permit was not tied to a particular lot. Mr. Smith restated that he was agreeable to
have the maintenance shed remain on the property. However, he did not want the shed to
jeopardize acquiring Certificates of Occupancy on his project. Mr. Boucher contended that there were no
facts on record to ascertain that a City official ever inspected the shed to
state that it was completed as permitted.
Ms. Cannon stated that Mr. Artis Gunn, former Building Official, signed
off on the project. Attorney Garganese
referred to Paragraph 38, part of the Vested Rights Order. Mayor Randels read, “The City Council also
recognizes the unique and extraordinary nature of this situation, the likes of
which may not be seen again in the City of
A motion was made
by Mr. Petsos and seconded by Mr. Miller to Approve the Vested Site Plan for
Madison Cay to Allow the Garage to Remain on the Premises and to Amend the Site
Plan to Remove the Swimming Pool and to Develop Six (6) Parking Spaces. The
vote on the motion carried 3-0 with voting as follows: Mr. Miller, For; Mr.
Petsos, For and Mayor Randels, For.
DISCUSSION:
7. Canaveral
Drainage Ditch Easements.
Mr. Jeff Ratliff, Stormwater Coordinator, explained what was depicted on the area map and said that he included photos of the ditch. Mayor Randels noted the varied size of the easements. Mr. Boucher replied that there has been much discussion on how to develop the ditch. He stated that in order to proceed with development, the City would need to secure easement rights from Wendy’s restaurant. Attorney Garganese replied to Mayor Randels that easements might not be needed where the ditch falls naturally within the required boundaries. Mr. Petsos inquired about a prototype to allow the area residents to gain buy-in on the project. Mr. Boucher stated that he wants Mr. Ratliff to seek grant funding to stab