CITY
COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
CITY HALL ANNEX
TUESDAY
April 3, 2007
7:00 PM
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER: The Chair called the meeting to
order at 7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Council Members Present:
Mayor Pro Tem
Council Member Leo Nicholas
Council Member Buzz Petsos
Mayor Rocky
Randels
Council Member Shannon
Roberts
Others Present:
City Manager
City Clerk Susan
Stills
Building Official Todd Morley
Recreation Director Nancy Hanson
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. Motion to Approve: An Authorization to Petition the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection for an Administrative Hearing on the
Request from Transmontaigne, Inc. for a 2-year Permit Extension.
Mayor Randels acknowledged that
Transmontaigne, Inc. filed a request for a permit extension and respondents had
21-days to reply. Attorney Garganese stated that there was
currently a pending appeal of the Building Official’s interpretation regarding
Coastal Fuels request for special exception yet to be heard by the Board of
Adjustment. The issue would be heard within the next 30 to 45 days. Currently, issue at hand was whether or not
the two tanks were lawfully permitted pursuant to the City’s zoning code. The Florida Department Environmental of
Protection [DEP] issued a construction permit for two additional tanks at the
Coastal Fuels site, and that permit has been issued, and Coastal Fuels has
filed an extension of time on the construction permit that the Florida DEP
issued. Coastal Fuels published said
notice with the allowable 21 days for any interested party to file a challenge
to the decision of the State Agency, in this case DEP. Attorney Garganese stated that if the Council
decided to file a petition challenging the extension, the only issue that the
Council could challenge was the extension, not the initial construction
permit. The DEP does not consider local
zoning regulations but its own rules.
Attorney Garganese stated that the real issue the City was facing was a
local zoning issue and the Council would need to consider where to apply its
resources. Attorney Garganese stated
that the question was if the intent to issue the extension was valid. Attorney Garganese clarified that the
construction permit ended May 31, 2007.
Attorney
Garganese stated that even if the City were successful, Transmontaigne could
apply for a construction permit again and DEP could award it again without
considering the City’s zoning regulations as was done the first time. Attorney Garganese explained that the
standard for issuing an extension on the permit was to demonstrate reasonable
assurances that upon completion, the extended permit would comply with the
standards and conditions required by applicable regulations. There were reasonable assurances certified
by an engineer in the original application under Attorney Garganese’s
review. Attorney Garganese stated that he
was unsure of any further permits needed by DEP.
Ms.
Roberts asked did he not think it important that the City go on record at the
State level. Mr. Boucher replied that
the DEP staff in
Ms.
Roberts expressed her concern that the City was not weighing in about its
original concerns regarding the expansion project in the most recent months and
the City was not recording that it had great difficulty with it. Attorney Garganese explained that he was
reviewing the issue from a technical permitting issue and as to whether or not
this was the proper forum to officially go on record in an extension petition
or to challenging DEP’s extension. If
the Council chose to officially go on record with the DEP, the Council could
adopt a Resolution stating their position related to their lack of coordination
on the permitting with the City.
Attorney Garganese re-stated that the real issue for the City was the
issue of zoning.
Ms.
Roberts conveyed that many of the community’s concerns were environmentally
related and she found it ironic that the DEP granted the construction permit
without consideration with the community’s environmental concerns. Ms. Roberts stated that she also found it
important to document the City’s concern about the environmental aspects of
this expansion proposal. Ms. Roberts stated further that it was not only the
process but also the implications with what DEP was doing. Attorney Garganese replied that a response to
the DEP would become irrelevant to the issue at hand. He informed that there was an innumerable
amount of study regarding the emissions from the existing facility that have
been filed with the DEP.
Mr.
Nicholas expressed that if the City decided to go on record in opposition to
the permit extension he thought it would be better to include the concerns of
the environmental aspect. This would provide sufficient grounds on the City’s
part to cite some reasons. Ms. Roberts
stated that from the City’s perspective there may be a precedent here. She also explained how this would broaden the
parameters of how the City defined environmental concerns because the community
is extremely close to what they consider a dangerous situation and they have
documented their concerns about the noise, the smell and the proximity of the
tanks, and to a layperson perspective these were environmentally related. Ms. Roberts stated that there was an
opportunity for the City to weigh in on how the State defined environmental
issues and concluded it important to weigh in on all counts in this case.
Mr.
Nicholas asked if the City decided to go on record in opposition to the
extension, with the issue yet to be heard by the Board of Adjustment, would
this be construed as the City administration or government having a negative
impact or influence on the Board’s decision.
Attorney Garganese stated that technically and legally it would be
irrelevant to the issue at hand facing the Board of Adjustment. The Board would address a very narrow issue
of whether or not liquefied petroleum as used in the code which means petroleum
under gas, or under pressure, or gasoline, or some other petroleum
product. They would not address the
extension or any other issue at this time, unless the Board agrees with Coastal
Fuels position. In which case, Coastal Fuels would be eligible to file a
Special Exception application for the two additional tanks and then there would
be another proceeding before the Board of Adjustment to address if this
particular permit application complies with the Special Exception criteria
including compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.
Mr.
Petsos questioned if a petition were submitted based solely on the
environmental impacts, how many resources would the City need to expend versus
the Board of Adjustment. Attorney
Garganese responded that the City would expend resources in multiple
forums. The Proceeding would require
significant litigation resources for Dower Administrative Hearing similar to a
lawsuit in Circuit Court as a trial before a law judge.
He explained that Todd Morley would also require individual legal counsel
related to the Building Official’s position regarding the interpretation of
zoning code. Attorney Garganese advised
the Council to choose their battle wisely keeping in mind the end result. He stated that there was a narrow issue
before DEP. In finality even if the City
were successful, the DEP could issue another construction permit without considering
the City’s zoning regulations that was a real issue and the environmental
issues the DEP would address using their own regulations.
Ms.
Roberts expressed her concern with the DEP ignoring local prerogatives and
concerns and she stated the Council has and should continue to weigh in on the
community’s concerns possibly by staff or the Council at the hearing. Ms. Roberts explained that there were some
precedents here of concern that were conveyed while the City’s delegation was
in
Mayor
Pro Tem Hoog expressed that he agreed with the City Attorney to expend the
resources where necessary. He stated
that the City’s zoning issue would stand as is and he was not concerned with
proceeding to a legal fight. Attorney
Garganese replied he anticipated a legal issue and if the construction permit
were enough then they would proceed to build the tanks. Attorney Garganese stated that the City’s
strongest position would be to stand behind the zoning regulations and the
interpretation of the Building Official.
He stated that there were two different bureaucracies at work with
separate jurisdictions and many venues involved. The Council would need to work within the
multiple venues and expend resources across all of those venues including
involvement with the State Legislation and effectuating rule changes with the
DEP.
Mayor
Randels summarized that if the Council supported addressing the issue at hand,
then Transmontaigne could still apply for another construction permit. Attorney
Garganese affirmed. Mr. Petsos added
that if they denied the permit extension they would need grounds for
denial. He clarified that they would use
the original building permit for their case on the extension denial. Attorney Garganese replied that some of that
would be relevant.
Ms. Ruth Anders
addressed the Council and stated that DEP’S letter stated that there must be a
material fact to dispute. She stated
that the public and City were not made aware of Transmontaigne’s permit
application on something that made an environmental impact. Ms. Anders informed that their rules were so
highly technical and specialized that they required a team of specialized
engineers and attorneys for analysis.
Ms. Anders read a portion of a DEP document that establishes the
procedures to obtain a permit. She
stated that the regulations were extremely difficult to interpret. Ms. Anders related that the citizens’ group
would be appreciative if the Council would substantiate the facts as presented
by them in their three-page letter.
Ms.
Anders related how the applications appeared to be a cut and paste of highly
technical data with no requirement for zoning location, the legal status of the
existing location, or the proposed tanks in the community. Ms. Anders also pointed out how the headings
were not contiguous and no one could identify a legal issue or if any existed. Ms. Anders introduced Mr. Rick Evans to
provide his analysis of the technical information. Mayor Randels summarized that her request for
relief from the Council was to void the original permit and reject the
extension request. Ms. Anders clarified for Mayor Randels that their desire was
for the City to substantiate the facts as stated in her letter about regarding
the Coastal Fuels application. Mayor
Randels concluded that the intent was for the Council to review the facts as
presented by the
Mr. Richard Evans,
Mr.
Evans stated that based on Mr. Pound’s letter at three tank turns per month,
the annual throughput rate at the low end of his range would be 453 million
gallons, If they perform at the high number of four tank turns, the rate would
be 604 million gallons and 195 trucks.
Mr. Evans stated that these were the expansion numbers. Mr. Evans questioned the disparity in the
application maximum throughput of 315 million gallons and Mr. Pound’s statement
of three to four tank turns monthly, if he does four tank turns it is almost
double that amount. Mr. Evans stated
that four tank turns per month, would deliver considerably more and not the 315
gallons capacity as stated in their application. Mr. Evans stated that this
appeared to be a material fact to him.
Mr.
Evans referred to page 2 of the spreadsheet and look at the three situations
and if they deliver the tanks at the stated capacity that would be 101
transports daily. A transport to
deliver, preset the load, to fill the truck, and disconnect was optimally
performed in 18 minutes. He summarized
that there would be 1,828 minutes per day of loading not occurring with the new
tanks. Mr. Evans supposed that they
would need to build at least 1.27 more lanes operating 24 hours per day, seven
days per week.
However,
if Mr. Pound’s calculation of 3 to 4 tank turns were correct, then they would
need to build 2-3 more lanes to deliver fuel.
Mr. Evans queried if the application covered every part of the
expansion. Mr. Boucher summarized that
in relation to their letter they were under capacity, so there would be a
significant change in truck traffic. Mr.
Evans noted the critical fact of throughput volume of 315 million gallons,
which was in conflict with Mr. Pound’s numbers of efficient operations of 3 to
4 tank turns. Mr. Boucher also noted
that this would also effect emissions.
Ms.
Roberts re-stated the importance of the Council going on record. She asked if legal counsel were
required. Attorney Garganese replied
that the hearing was a legal proceeding that required putting on evidence, a
discovery process, disclosure of witness, such as was done in Circuit
Court. Mayor Randels explained that Ms.
Anders representing
Mayor
Randels asked the Council if there was consensus to go on record with a
Resolution to oppose the extension due to the environmental concerns. Ms. Anders replied to Mayor Randels that she
forwarded her Committee’s reply by Certified Mail. Mayor Randels clarified that
the City’s strongest position was as a zoning issue through the Board of Adjustment.
Attorney Garganese affirmed the position of the City’s local zoning
regulations. Mr. Boucher stated that 21 days to formulate a position and
obtaining information from the DEP Orlando office was a difficult task. However, he hoped to see the community
continue to participate in the disclosure process, which was helpful in gaining
pertinent knowledge. Attorney Garganese
replied to Mayor Randels that if the Council chose to address the extension,
the Council would be unable to address the original construction permit.
Ms.
Roberts asked for a broader letter to address the specific concerns from Mayor
Randels or the City Manager to convey the community’s concerns with
environmental impact in a local community.
Attorney Garganese replied that her points were valid and one could
effectuate a change. Ms. Roberts replied
that if the City went on record then the City would have presented a consistent
position. Attorney Garganese reminded
that the deadline of April 13th was a jurisdictional deadline and
the City would not have another time to address. Attorney Garganese explained the process and
said that the State Agency would make the decision at the Administrative level
and typically a notice of intent was published and respondents were given 21 days
to submit a petition. Attorney Garganese
explained further how the details in that the case would proceed to an
Administrative Law judge and DEP could either make the recommendation or ignore
it. He stated that he could evaluate
further and return to the Council with a more complete brief discussing the
standards, processes, and procedures.
Ms.
Roberts suggested a Resolution complimented by the letter to outline the City’s
broader and specific concerns and state the City’s position in this immediate
situation either from Mayor Randels on behalf of the Council, or from the City
Manager. Mr. Boucher informed that the
Council would need a Special Meeting to Adopt a Resolution. However, Mayor Randels clarified that if the
Council denied the extension it would not have much effect. Mr. Petsos agreed
to a Resolution and also asked for the Council to consider the three-page
letter. Mr. Nicholas suggested a
Special Meeting on Tuesday, April 10th at 5:30 P.M. Ms. Anders reiterated the Committee’s request
was for the City’s substantiation of its facts stated in their letter. The City Manager and the City Attorney
would proceed to draft the resolution.
Ms.
Roberts requested a letter of concern addressing the broader issues to the
Secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog requested to take the
Resolution to the Board of Directors of the Space Coast League of Cities for
support to get DEP to notify local jurisdictions during their permitting
process. Mr. Petsos suggested forwarding
a letter along with a copy of the Resolution. He also requested an unsigned
Resolution for the Mayor Pro Tem to take to the Florida League of Cities. Council agreed on drafting a letter as well.
Ms. Joyce Gresham, of
Ms. Barbara Morrison, of
Ms. Annie Tannenbaum,
Mr. Dick Biel, of
Ms. Gail Duncan,
Mr. John Johanson,
A motion was made by Mr.
Nicholas and seconded by Mr. Petsos to call for a Special Meeting on Tuesday,
April 10th to Adopt a
Resolution in Support of the Letter in Opposition to the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection. The vote on the motion carried 5 - 0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, For;
Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For and Ms. Roberts, For.
2. Motion to Approve: An Authorization to Negotiate the
Purchase of the Kabboord and Marder Properties.
Mayor Randels explained that
the City had an offer to purchase the named properties. Mayor Randels stated that the Council sought
two appraisals for these properties. He
explained that the City planned to use the properties for facilities expansion. Mayor Randels pointed out that the location
had high visibility, easy accessibility and was available for purchase. Mayor Randels questioned if there were any
interest in seeking an offer. Mr.
Boucher replied that the property owner made a publicly disclosed offer of $2
million; however, the appraisals were kept at the Council’s discretion and
could be used for a counter offer. Mayor
Randels sought consensus from the Council.
Mr. Nicholas asked if the
Council planned to demolish the existing building on the property. Council members concurred. Mr. Boucher informed that he provided a site
layout of how the Sheriff’s Department could be configured. He reported on 1.146 as the acreage. Ms. Roberts proposed that the City
counteroffer with $1.5 million. Mayor
Randels stated that the offer was within the appraised value. Mr. Petsos agreed with Ms. Roberts
offer. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog referred to
the Stottler property and pointed out its renovation points.
Ms. Roberts pointed out that
the temporary use of the Kabboord property would provide temporary residence
for staff during the City’s campus renovation.
Mr. Boucher replied that his last offer from Stottler, Stagg on February
16, 2007 was $1.65 million with an additional $1 million for renovations. Mr. Nicholas stated that a new building had a
probable cost of $2 million. Mr. Petsos
pointed out that there was more anticipated renovation on the Stottler property
than $1 million. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog replied that the City was seeking to
purchase another piece of property without resolution to any plans.
Ms. Roberts expressed that if
the Council was seeking to retain a government campus, then the Kabboord
property was more advantageous. Mr. Boucher announced a Council meeting
with Architect Design Group [ADG] on April 17th at 5:30 P.M.. Mr. Boucher explained their intent to combine
the existing area and they were working with the City’s existing property with
a plan that would allow for more community type uses. He also explained how removing the Sheriff’s
Office from the configuration would allow for the public use spaces. Mr.
Boucher stated that ADG was working on campus plan concepts.
A motion was made by Ms. Roberts and seconded by Mr. Petsos to Approve
an Authorization to Negotiate the Purchase of the Kabboord and Marder
Properties for $1.5 million. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as
follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr.
Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For and Ms. Roberts, For.
DISCUSSION:
3. Resort Dwelling Units.
Mayor Randels stated that discussion would prohibit Resort Dwellings in
the R-1, R-2 and R-3 zoning. Todd
Morley, Building Official explained that the Florida Building Code has four
different residential occupancy classifications. He explained that R-1 referred to residential
structures that were primarily transient of 30-days or less, R-2 referred to
residential structures that are primarily permanent but multi-family, R-3
referred to the traditional single-family home and R-4 referred to child-care
and assisted living facilities. The
Florida Building Code requires that a change of use require a Certificate of
Occupancy for the new use. So, basically
if there were structures used for transient properties, then these properties
required a permit for the new use. Mayor
Randels disclosed that he met with one of the Investigators at the Florida
Department of Business and Professional Regulations.
Mayor Randels addressed the required change of occupancy
classification. He pointed out that
discussion was focused on the R-1 through R-3 categories within the Florida
Building Code. Mayor Randels explained
how 12 people home could legally occupy the occupancy load at 1,800 square
foot, and a 2,400 square foot home could permit 16 people. Mayor Randels informed that a new building of
4,600 feet would allow up to 30 people.
He stated that structurally those units did not have fire and safety for
the type of occupancy. He informed that the City was referencing the 2004
Florida Building Code. Mayor Randels
informed that there were currently seven to eight properties that would need to
request a change of occupancy classification.
Mayor Randels sought the Council and the Building Officials input on the
issue. Mr. Morley deferred to the City
Attorney for review.
Attorney Garganese referred to his memo to the Council. The purpose of the proposed ordinance was a
zoning regulation. It accepts the
Statute of resort dwellings and includes it in the City’s zoning code. It would then be listed in the C-1 zoning
district as a principle use. Because the
State of Florida issued seven to eight licenses, the Ordinance provides a
grandfathering provision that allows those seven to eight properties to apply
to the City Manager for grandfathered-in status; however, in order to be
grandfathered-in there were certain requirements. First, the properties needed to be in the
R-1, R-2, or R-3 zoning district; second, the resort dwelling had to be in
existence on November 21, 2006, which was the date of the first reading of one
of the Draft ordinances; third, they need to demonstrate that they were
licensed by the Division of Hotels and Restaurants of the Florida DBPR requirements; fourth, they have to
demonstrate that they have paid applicable transient rental taxes which were
applicable for payment under Florida law, and lastly, they also needed to demonstrate that the resort dwelling was
in compliance with the Certificate of Occupancy requirements within 90 days of
the effective date of this ordinance.
Attorney Garganese pointed out that City Code required a new Certificate
of Occupancy on changing occupancy use classification. There were serious life safety issues because
different fire and building code requirements apply to each use classification
set forth in the Florida Building Code.
The City was unaware if those resort dwellings licensed by the State of
The Ordinance requires that the City Manager make the Administrative
Approval for acceptance of the type of use and any individual who believes that
they can meet grandfathered status would be required to complete an application
and submit it to the City Manager within 30 days of the effective date of the
ordinance and provide the necessary documentation. If the grandfathered status was granted, that
grandfathered status could go away at some time in the future. The Ordinance provided that if the resort
dwelling was abandoned pursuant to the non-conforming use provisions of the
code it would go away and the use would then comply with the current
regulations.
Further, the non-conforming use status could go away if the State of
Mr. Nicholas asked if this changed the seven-day rental requirement. Attorney Garganese responded no. Mr. Nicholas also asked if there was an
appeal to the City Manager’s decision as to whether the existing properties
were grandfathered-in. Mr. Nicholas
questioned why the decision was placed on the City Manager. He pointed out that there was an Appeal
process subsequent to the Building Official’s decisions. Attorney Garganese affirmed that there was an
Appeal process in zoning matters; however, he saw this as an Administrative
process. The City Manager would review
the documentation to ascertain that it complied with the Code. He stated that
the Building Official and the Fire Chief ultimately make the determination
related to the Certificate of Occupancy.
Mayor Randels informed that the individual has 90-days to comply with
the requirements. Attorney Garganese
reminded that the Construction Board of Adjustment and Appeals would hear an
appeal on a construction matter.
Attorney Garganese replied to Mayor Pro Tem Hoog that on the Certificate
of Occupancy the applicant has 90-days.
Mayor Randels questioned the Council on the matter of time. Mr. Petsos replied that it was not in light
of the life/safety issues.
Ms.
Jamie O’Donnell of
Ms. O’Donnell recommended adopting the regulations established by the State.
Mr.
Bjornar Hermansen, stated that the decision was beyond the Council’s
ability due to State regulations. He
explained that as criminal liability exists if there were loss of a life. Mr. Hermansen stated that the issue of the
number of people was irrelevant. He said
that life/safety was the predominate factor.
Mr. Hermansen pointed out that there were seven existing short-term
rental properties; however, he referred to an article in the Florida Today,
which stated that renters occupied about half of the households in
Ms.
Jacqueline Stevens stated that she purchased a home at
Mr. John
Johanson of
Ms. Stevens re-stated that she did not see the fairness of a
deadline. She stated that if the
Council’s intent was safety; she requested the opportunity to come up to
code. Mr. Morley responded that 90-days
was not practical to obtain a sprinkler system.
Mr. Tom Hermansen, of
Mr. Bjornar Hermansen pointed out that the City might first tell the
person how they would meet all of the criteria within the 90-day
requirement. He stated that the time
limit was not widely disseminated in the community. Mr. Hermansen outlined, as a person in the
transient dwelling industry, the current requirements to build a hotel as
transient dwelling was five-acres, 150-units minimum. He concluded that the Florida Building Code
was the regulating authority for the smaller transient dwellings as well and
Mr. Hermansen cautioned the City’s culpability related to life/safety issues.
Mayor Randels summarized that a State Official related to him how if a
resort dwelling operated as such then it should come up to the necessary
criteria for fire and safety. Ms.
O’Donnell stated that if the Council looked at those smaller transient
dwellings as small business people with economic strength in the community and
they should be allowed to come up to code.
However, the Council should not restrict the smaller operations. Mr. Nicholas replied that she was speaking of
operating a business in a residential zone.
Mayor Randels clarified that she had no objection if the smaller
operations met the criteria. Mr. Petsos
stated that he was opposed to placing a commercial industry in a residential
area. Ms. Stevens commented and pointed out
that there was apparent mixture of development within the City.
Ms. Roberts asked if this item would be placed on the next Agenda as she
had content issues. She expressed that
it was good to gain the audiences input and she asked if there would be any of
Council’s input on the draft ordinance.
Mayor Randels referred to the lateness of the hour. Attorney Garganese informed that the Council
would need to send the Ordinance back to the Planning and Zoning Board for
recommendation. Ms. Roberts referred to
Page 7 for the record and inquired of the City Attorney on transference of
ownership. Attorney Garganese stated
that he brought up in a previous meeting that he would remove the provision for
eliminating non-conformance status due to a transfer of property at the
Council’s direction. Ms. Roberts
responded that they could sell the property to someone else; however, the
intent was only with the life of those currently owning the property.
Mr. Petsos stated that the City Attorney expressed concern with the
defensibility of that in Court and he requested to return to the original
thought and address it by an amortization schedule. Ms. Roberts stated that
further discussion was needed and if the Council’s intent was phasing out
ultimately, then there needed to be provision for the phase out. Mr. Petsos stated that an amortization
schedule to be fair to the seven or eight existing properties and also to be
fair to the residents who came in earlier complaining about them operating
forever. He concluded that the Council
would need to phase them out eventually.
Ms. Roberts asked if the comments would be brought forth at the next City
Council meeting. Mr. Nicholas expressed
that the Council was prepared for a First Reading.
Ms. Roberts stated that although the Council would like to hear from the
community, she requested time for Council discussion. Attorney Garganese advised that the Council
discuss the Ordinance exclusively without input in order to gain
consensus. Mr. Boucher clarified that
the Council would discuss the Ordinance at their Special Meeting on Tuesday,
April 17th at 5:30 P.M. The
Ordinance would then proceed to the Planning and Zoning Board.
4. Administrative Appeals Related to the Zoning Code of
Ordinances.
Ms. Roberts
recommended postponing this item until the next Regular meeting.
5.
Mayor Randels related that the City Manager requested a name for the
project. Ms. Roberts asked for the City
Manager’s input from the meeting held that day.
Mr. Boucher informed that he and the Recreation Director, Nancy Hanson, met
with the representative from Trust for
Ms. Hanson related how the park’s aesthetics were relative to a nature
center with four boat slips, an area for a canoe and kayak launch, and many oak
and palm trees. She stated that there were also many other grants to seek since
the park was on the water.
Mr. Nicholas explained how there was passive and active nature centers and he
did not desire to restrict the park. Ms.
Hanson replied that if it became a nature center, at a minimum twelve
educational programs were required. Mr.
Nicholas did not want to preclude having a building. Ms. Hanson assured that as long as the City
complied with what they required, she saw no opposition. Mayor Randels
concluded that the City Manager and the Recreation Director would name the
project and try to obtain as many points as possible for an active nature
center. Ms. Roberts mentioned to call
the park Canaveral Cove.
6.
Mr. Boucher deferred
this item to the next Regular meeting.
A motion
was made by Mr. Petsos and seconded by Mr. Nicholas to extend the meeting until
10:15 P.M. The vote on the motion carried
5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro
Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For and Ms.
Roberts, For.
AUDIENCE TO BE HEARD:
·
Mr. Douglas Wilhart, of
·
Mr. Lamar Russell made remarks on the evolving nature of the
Resort Dwelling issue.
REPORTS:
1. City
Manager
·
Mr.
Boucher announced that the Council decided on a Special Meeting for April 10th at 5:30 P.M. related to
the Resolution in support of letter prepared by Ms. Ruth Anders.
·
Mr.
Boucher announced a Workshop Meeting on April
17th at 5:30 P.M. for
Architects Design Group to present the City facilities plan.
·
Mr.
Boucher reported that on Tuesday, April 24th he contracted with Lead Brevard to facilitate the City’s Visioning Session for an all day
meeting beginning at 8:30 A.M until 5:00 P.M.
·
Mr.
Boucher scheduled a Sign Code Workshop on Thursday, April 12th at 5:30 P.M.
·
Mr.
Boucher reported that Street Paving was tentatively scheduled to begin the week
of April 16th. Paving
would occur on the Presidential
streets and
·
Mr.
Boucher noted that if the Council desired a Code Review Meeting they would need to schedule that for any open
date left in April or it would wait until May.
·
Mr.
Boucher thanked everyone for the successful Art Show over the weekend of March 31st and April 1st.
·
Mr.
Boucher announced the
2. Staff
City Clerk
·
No
report.
City Attorney
·
No report.
Building
Official
·
No report.
Recreation
Director
·
No report.
3. City Council
Ms. Roberts
·
Ms. Roberts suggested an interview of each
Council Member in order to help with the planning process asking the
Council’s top five priorities for brainstorming purposes prior to the Visioning
Session. Mr. Boucher replied that the
meeting required a group consensus; however, the Council could either submit
their input to him or directly to Kristen Baake or Geo Ropert with Lead Brevard.
·
Ms. Roberts asked if the discussion was for
one-year, five-years, or more. Mayor
Randels replied that the City was working on its Budget within a one-year time
frame. Mr. Petsos reminded the funding
could be earmarked however.
Mr. Nicholas
·
Mr. Nicholas stated that the City should go on
record with a letter of commendation to the Florida Department of
Transportation on the State Road A1A street paving.
Mr. Petsos
·
Mr. Petsos requested Council’s consensus for staff
to seek a rental car surcharge.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business
the Chair adjourned the meeting at 10:21 P.M.
________________________________
Rocky
Randels, MAYOR
________________________________
Susan Stills, CMC, CITY CLERK