CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
CITY HALL ANNEX
TUESDAY
May 1, 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
Mayor Randels called for a
moment of silence in recognition of Ms. Nancy Hanson’s passing, the City’s
first and only Recreation Director. Ms.
Hanson served the City securing grants for school playground and ball field
equipment. Ms. Hanson worked for the City for almost 29 years. Mayor Randels agreed with Mr. Boucher’s
remarks at Ms. Hanson’s memorial, that it was a sad day for the City. Ms.
Hanson will truly be missed.
Mayor Randels requested that
when 10:00 P.M. arrived, the Council would take time to acknowledge comments
from the audience.
Mayor Randels called on Mr.
Jim Tuggle of Waste Management, Inc. Mr.
Tuggle thanked the Council, staff, and audience for an opportunity to address
the Council. Mr. Tuggle informed that
the City of
Mr. Boucher reminded Mr.
Tuggle of the satisfaction survey that was due as part of Waste Management’s
one year anniversary implementing the Cart system. Mayor Randels noted the need for dumpster
deodorizing. Mr. Tuggle replied that if
Mayor Randels would provide the specific information, he would address the
issue himself. Ms. Bea McNeely asked if
a day was provided yet to collect the old trash receptacles. Mayor Randels replied that perhaps either not
enough advertising was done for the collection day or some people may have
decided to keep their receptacles. He
recommended that Waste Management notify the City and advertising would
occur. Mr. Tuggle informed that Keep
Brevard Beautiful did pick up some receptacles; however, he would notify Larry
Weber of the need for another pick up.
A resident informed on how
trash was not picked up due to parked cars in front of the pick up area and
this was an inconvenience to the driver.
She stated that renters were the predominate violators. Ms. Roberts
asked if the City needed marked parking opportunities. Mayor Randels responded that such parking
exists at the beach ends. The resident cited
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. City Council Regular
Meeting Minutes of April 17 2007.
2. City Council Special
Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2007.
3. City Council Special
Meeting Minutes of April 10, 2007.
4. Proclamation for
National Public Works Week.
Mayor Randels asked if any
Council member, staff or interested party desired to remove any of the Consent
Agenda items for discussion.
Ms. Roberts questioned if the
City planned to do any significant activity in honor of its Public Works
employees. Mayor Randels replied that in
some times past the Public Works Department was opened to the public; however,
with the Public Works Director’s departure, it might not occur this year. Mr. Boucher responded that he would address
Ms. Roberts’ issue.
The City Clerk made note that
she cited the typographical corrections pointed out by Mayor Randels and Ms.
Roberts in the April 17th Regular Meeting Minutes and the April 17th
Special Meeting minutes.
A motion was made by Mr. Nicholas and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Hoog to
Approve Consent Agenda Items No. 1 through 4 with corrections noted in the
April 17 Regular Meeting Minutes and the April 17, 2007 Special Meeting Minutes. 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.
CONSIDERATIONS:
5. Motion to Approve: First Responder
Agreement with the Board of
Mayor Randels
explained that each year the County enters into an Interlocal Agreement with
the municipalities to reimburse the cost of materials used by Advanced Life
Support. Mr. Boucher stated that the
Port Unit would receive its share as well as the City its share. Mr. Boucher noted from County Fire Chief
Farmer how in light of Property Tax Reform the City was cautioned not to
include this funding into the subsequent year’s budget.
A motion was made by Ms. Robert and seconded by Mr. Petsos to Approve
the First Responder Agreement with the Board of
6. Motion to Approve: 2008 Cape Canaveral
“Images in Art” Festival at
Mayor
Randels informed that this the Business and Cultural Development Board’s first
Art Festival. Ms. Joanne Muncey,
Business and Cultural Development Board member, replied that she enjoyed the
festival and she expressed that the vendors were of high quality and she received
positive feedback from some of the vendors.
Ms. Dianne Marcum, Vice Chairperson of the Business and Cultural
Development Board, reported on the festival as a venue to draw attention to
A motion was made by Mr. Nicholas and seconded by Mayor pro Tem Hoog to
Approve the 2008 Cape Canaveral “Images in Art” Festival at
7. Motion to Approve: Purchase and
Mayor Randels stated
that the proposal on the Kabboord properties was $1,825,000 for the five
Kabboord lots and the three Marder lots.
He explained the offer and counter offer process concluded with Mr.
Kabboord’s acceptance of the City’s counter-offer for $1.825 million. Mayor Randels informed that Mr. Kabboord had
a deadline for an answer; however, the City Attorney would draft the
documents. The City was responsible for
the Title Insurance; however, the seller was responsible for the Broker’s fees
as well as the property appraisals. The
Seller would also pay for the Environmental Report. The City has until May 22nd to
determine the feasibility of the Environmental Report.
Ms. Roberts asked
when Dr. Storts would move from the premises.
Mr. David Kabboord responded that Dr. Christine Storts would be out of
the premises by June 1. Mr. Kabboord
announced that he had the Environmental Report available. Mr. Nicholas stated that this was his first
time viewing the contract and he preferred a Workshop to discuss the contract
details. Mr. Nicholas stated that the
process was expedited and the Council was considering an approximately $2
million purchase.
Mr. Boucher informed that the City closed the fiscal year with a little over $6
million in the General Fund Reserves with $1 million towards paving and the
$1.825 million would come from that fund.
Mr. Boucher stated with the Florida League of Cities Bond program, the
City was seeking 4.5 percent. The League performs a statewide needs assessment
in order to leverage the bond cost that was especially helpful to small
cities. Mayor Randels explained how the
Council received the contract on March 23rd and by April 3rd
negotiations began as the reason for the expedited turnaround. Attorney
Garganese explained further that the due diligence agreement would
expire on May 22nd; however, much of the due diligence was already
performed. The Sellers were giving the
City a survey, the Environmental Report was received today, and the Title work
was anticipated within the next few days.
Attorney Garganese stated that the Council had another three weeks, if
the Council were to approve the Agreement this evening. Attorney Garganese clarified that the Council
had until May 22nd to complete the due diligence and ensure that it
was suitable for its purposes.
Attorney Garganese replied to Mr. Nicholas that the price was accepted at
$1,825,000 and the Seller was paying some of the due diligence costs. Mr. Nicholas asked how much the City was
putting down to bind the contract.
Attorney Garganese replied $15,000 to bind the Kabboord property, but
Mr. Kabboord had a $5,000 deposit for the other contract which the City would
reimburse at closing. Attorney Garganese
explained that the City had until May 22nd under the contract to
complete its due diligence and if it were not suitable for the City’s purposes,
then the City would seek its earnest deposit and cancel the contract. Attorney Garganese replied to Mr. Nicholas
that all other costs were due at closing which was due no later than June 12th,
and unless there were some title problems of which the City were unaware, the
closing would occur before that time.
Mr. Petsos reminded of how obtaining the property connected with the
Council’s previous Workshops for a campus design of City Hall. Mr. Nicholas
summarized that the City would consider purchasing the property to relocate the
Sheriff’s Office, which would connect the City Hall complex, but separate the
Sheriff’s Office and City Hall buildings.
Mayor Randels explained that some selling points for the property were:
1) the land was available at this time, 2) the City was dealing with one
seller, 3) high visibility from State Road A1A, 4) easy access for the public
and the Sheriff’s Office staff, 5) the City would also have an overflow parking
lot on Polk Avenue, 6) the property connects the campus design, 7) many of the
City’s service calls were on the east side of State Road A1A, 8) no temporary
quarters were needed for the Sheriff’s Office while a new building was
constructed, 9) 24-hour service calls, and 10) this would also allow for
transfer of City Hall staff during the new City Hall construction.
The City Attorney and City Manager would work with Mr. Kabboord on the
property transaction.
A motion was made by Mr. Nicholas and seconded by Ms. Roberts to Approve
the Purchase and
DISCUSSION:
8. Central
Mayor Randels explained how this survey brought out
how legislators among several counties envisioned growth. He reported that the committee, My Region,
began discussion as early as August 2002.
The committee made projections that resulted in a report using
transparent overlays to depict growth within a base of seven counties. Mayor
Randels pointed out that 51 percent of the
Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that the City’s
Comprehensive Plan already brought out some of the survey’s points. The survey was the result of what was
occurring in the
Ms. Roberts brought out that one of the items to
address was care of the ocean and
Mr. Randels reviewed some of the County’s water sources. Ms. Roberts summarized this as an opportunity
for the City to address: 1) caring for our oceans, 2) looking at de-salinzation
opportunities, 3) referring to item 3(b), the Business and Cultural Development
Board’s concern of museums, public art and historical perspectives, 4) the
City’s view of rapid transportation capability coming to Cape Canaveral from
Orlando. Ms. Roberts stated that some of
the longer-term issues on the
9. Administrative Appeals Related to the
Zoning Code of Ordinances.
Mayor Randels explained that the item was related to Administrative
Appeals from City Code Section 110-334.
Ms. Roberts stated that the concern came to her from the northeast
section of the City. She expressed their
concern that the City Council was not part of the process related to the Appeal
of the Building Official’s decision on the Coastal Fuels issue. Ms. Roberts referred to Section 110-187 and
asked the Council to address the issue from an historical perspective to
provide explanation to the community and if there might be some consideration
of a different process to involve Council either before or after the issue
would reach the Board of Adjustment.
Attorney Garganese explained that prior to the Municipal Home Rule Powers
Act of 1974 all municipal authority was expressly stated in the Florida
Statutes, which address this Board, called the Board of Adjustment, and
provided certain authority for the Board.
After the Municipal Home Rule Powers Act was adopted, the municipalities
were provided Home Rule. Most municipalities
simply carried forward the statutory schemes into their municipal
codebooks. The Board of Adjustment would
commonly serve as a separate Board that hears Appeals of the interpretation of
the zoning code. In summary, it was somewhat of a statutory relic and certainly
within the Council’s power to change that scheme.
Ms. Roberts expressed how the elected officials at this point were not at
liberty to hear citizen concerns.
Attorney Garganese explained that the Building Official makes the
interpretation and renders a decision and the Board of Adjustment hears the
Appeal. Attorney Garganese concluded
that only the Council has the legislative authority to change its laws. Ms. Roberts expressed the concern of those in
the northeast section of the City to the Council and she asked to hear other
Council members’ views.
Mr. Nicholas replied that the Board of Adjustment followed the various
guidelines as set forth by the Council.
He stated that the Council might want to review the Appeals subsequent to
the Board, rather than to have the City Council sit as the Board of
Adjustment. He also pointed out the
subsequent increased workload. Mr.
Nicholas stated that he could understand the citizen concern; however, for some
other aspects he expressed this as more detail that the Council might not need
to become involved in and the Council relied on the expertise of the Building
Official. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog expressed
that the Board was astute in the zoning laws and he did not choose to interfere
in their judgments unless Ms. Roberts would like to see a Council member bring
a decision back where there was not agreement.
He did not believe that they would make any decisions that were
detrimental to the City. Mayor Randels
affirmed that the City Council or the Planning and Zoning Board could request
an Appeal to the Board of Adjustment.
However, Mr. Nicholas expressed he was speaking of an Appeal from the
decision of the Board of Adjustment, otherwise a next step after the Board of
Adjustment prior to proceeding to Circuit Court.
Ms. Roberts explained that any group that makes an Appeal of the Building
Official’s decision, then citizens should have the right to express their view
to the Council as their elected officials.
Although they were not taking away anything from the voluntary Boards,
they felt that issues of importance should come before the elected officials.
Mayor Pro Tem Hoog cautioned on the additional workload. Ms. Roberts asked the City Manager on the
number of times the Board had met. Mr. Boucher replied that there were few
Special Exceptions and Variances to date.
Mr. Petsos clarified Ms. Roberts expressed concern that citizens’
preferred to have the Council’s input as their elected officials. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog explained that he attended
most of the Board meetings and he informed that many people might not leave the
meeting satisfied with decisions.
Ms. Roberts stated that she desired to have the Council as some part of
the process. Mr. Nicholas concluded
to place this item on an Agenda and to have the City Attorney draft some
language to address the Appeals process.
Discussion occurred on setting the fees.
The Building Official stated that the zoning fees required
adjustments. Mr. Boucher stated that
City staff would review the fees associated with this process.
10. North Atlantic Avenue Roadway
Improvements.
Mayor Randels referred to a depiction of the North Atlantic Avenue
Roadway Improvements and he summarized that one option called for a scaled back
sidewalk to gain roadway for widening, and the other option would make the
street a city street and discourage all other traffic except for local
traffic. Mr. Boucher was seeking
discussion and input from the Council.
Mr. Petsos expressed his preference for the two-lane roadway. Mr. Petsos stated that this was a design
similar to Ridgewood Avenue and he expressed the importance of the stop signs
to allow for the ability to turn into adjacent roads and allow for a true
community feel in a roadway. Mr. Boucher
reported that the County was at 30 percent in identifying the existing
conditions.
Mayor Randels reported that the County estimated $1.366 million to
construct a three-lane roadway allotting $200,000 to St. John’s for
drainage. Mayor Randels replied to Mr.
Nicholas that the engineering was performed from Central Blvd. heading
north. Mr. Nicholas stated that all
work, although performed in phases, needed to be done as one road. There was some discussion on burying the
utility lines. Ms. Roberts mentioned a
Workshop to gain community input. She
pointed out, given the popularity of North Atlantic Avenue, that the two-lane
road was favorable. Ms. Roberts
expressed her appeal with an additional option that would continue to preserve
the beauty of North Atlantic Avenue as a pedestrian and bikeway and this would
continue to preserve its aesthetic value.
Mr. Nicholas pointed out that there was much development in that area
and unfortunately, the development would continue. He commented on the projected increased
traffic with the condominium conversion in Oak Manor versus that of the
previous mobile home park.
Mayor Randels read from a letter from Ms. Trudy Golday, of 8646 North
Atlantic Avenue. Ms. Golday expressed
her contest with expanding the roadway and stated how the traffic along North
Atlantic Avenue needed to slow down, not speed up due to bicycles and
pedestrian traffic. She noted that there
were no curbs and imminent danger to pedestrians. Ms. Golday pointed out how trucks destined
for the Port also traveled the road. She
concluded that a two-lane road with a bike path on one side and a walking path
on the other, curbs to offer a slight buffer to traffic, a speed limit of 25
miles per hour, stop signs similar to Ridgewood Avenue, and only local trucks
were her recommendations. Ms. Golday
asked the Council not to agree on a highway for North Atlantic Avenue.
Ms. Roberts stated that a two-lane approach might help with some of the
safety aspects. Mayor Randels suggested
a traffic light in front of Villages of Seaport and Portside Villas to serve
some 900 residents. Ms. Roberts stated
that another critical juncture was Shorewood Drive and North Atlantic
Avenue. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog made note of the
need for a turning lane. Mayor Randels
summarized that perhaps wider and faster was not a plan and resident input
would assess what the community desired.
Mr. Boucher replied to Mr. Nicholas that the City did not desire to
assume the road until the County completed its funding for the improvements.
Mr. Nicholas stated that interested citizens needed more
information. Mr. Boucher reported that
Council requested at a previous meeting to review a warrant study for stop
signs and the locations identified were: Shorewood Drive for a three-way stop
and Harbor Heights and Oak Lane as a four-way stop. Mr. Nicholas stated that he
would like to see a community workshop to present the compiled
information. Mr. Boucher responded that
once he obtained feedback from the County Traffic Engineers he would have data
available, and then he would proceed with a town meeting to gain community
input.
11. Resort Dwelling Units.
Mayor Randels requested to designate time to
conclude discussion on this issue in order to accommodate general comments from
the audience.
Mayor Randels reported that a serious safety
situation existed in that the City staff did not have the authority on the
premises for purposes of inspection.
Therefore, certain safety regulations exist with transient properties,
which were not a permitted use. Mayor
Randels explained that the City did not have a Code to address the issue as a
permitted use. Mr. Nicholas clarified
that the Council, or the City, did not create the problem but brought it to
light. Mr. Boucher explained that the
State and City staff wants some clear direction on how these types of uses
would be allowed or not allowed in the community. He stated that the City could enforce the
issue; however, enforcement would occur at staff’s own risk. If the Council were to make it permissible,
then staff would have done enforcement for nothing and upset people. Mr. Boucher explained further that the City
acknowledged, whether it was a permitted use or not, safety was the
concern. There was no way to ascertain
if the property met code and unaware persons were innocently left in harm’s
way. Mr. Boucher summarized that there
were two enforcement mechanisms: 1) if they were not permitted uses, then close
them down, or 2) if they are permitted uses, then regulate them and allow them
to come up to the life/ safety standards.
Mr. Petsos asked how the City could address them
coming up to life/ safety standards within a time line. Todd Morley, Building Official, clarified
that the City’s mechanism for enforcement was the Code Enforcement process. The City could send the Code Enforcement
officer out there with a Violation Order.
Mr. Morley explained that the permit for a Certificate of Occupancy
related to use was necessary. He then
questioned why he would lead a property owner to apply, if the property was not
permitted for the zoning district. Mr.
Nicholas questioned if adopting the ordinance would resolve the problem.
Mayor Randels explained that the item was for
discussion purposes and the Ordinance would then proceed to the Planning and
Zoning Board for review. Attorney
Garganese affirmed that this was the process.
Mr. Nicholas stated that in order to address the life/ safety issue,
then adopting this or another ordinance was the step to attainment. Mayor Randels explained that the Draft
Ordinance in discussion was dated March 27th. Basically it clarified the intent of
providing for resort dwelling in C-1 zoning and established a non-conforming
status for resort dwelling in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zoning. At a previous meeting a motion was made to
send the Ordinance to the Planning and Zoning Board; however, it failed on a
vote of 2 to 2.
Mayor Randels reviewed some of the Draft option
language as: 1) grandfathering non-conforming properties and the number of days
to come into compliance, 2) another was to provide another cut-off date other
than November 21,2006, 3) also, referring to page 6, changing the time to come
into compliance from 90 days to 180 days to get the Certificate of Occupancy,
and 4) referring to the top of page 7, also changing the time to come into
compliance from 90 days to 180 days in order to get everything done. Mayor Randels stated “grandfathering” was a
major issue and regardless of circumstances, everyone would need to follow the
same rules. Mayor Randels clarified that
the Council was only addressing four units or less. Mr. Nicholas expressed his desire to keep the
process moving.
Mr. Lamar Russell, Planning and Zoning Board
Vice-Chairperson, questioned if the Council intended to vote on the subject.
Mayor Randels clarified that the Council would only discuss the matter at this
time. Mr. Boucher stated that the
Council could by consensus forward the matter to the Planning and Zoning
Board. Ms. Roberts referred to Page 7
and requested to add to the Mayor’s list, “shall lose its non-conforming status
should one of the following occur.” Ms.
Roberts stated that this was not protecting the City from the sale of the unit
or from transition to a family member.
Mayor Randels referred to Section 110-485 which related to the Resort
Dwellings as non-conforming uses, specifically page 7, top of page, paragraph
D, “any resort dwelling shall lose their non-conforming status if,” and the
provision listed such instances as, “if the resort dwelling is abandoned, if
the Division of Hotels and Restaurants of the Department of Business and
Professional Regulations revokes the dwelling license for any reason, or if the
license expires or lapses at any time.”
Ms. Roberts stated that the language was included in
a previous version and she asked why the provision was eliminated. Attorney Garganese explained that the
provision was in a previous version and discussion brought out how to make the
Ordinance more enforceable and what could be done to make that happen and he
recommended eliminating that provision.
Ms. Roberts stated it a major issue to eliminate the provision. He
responded to Ms. Roberts that the City could incur a major legal issue with an
attempt of enforcement. Ms. Roberts
stated that the next use of the property through transfer would not be a
permitted use.
Attorney Garganese explained that once the use
becomes non-conforming, if the Council were to adopt the Ordinance, terminating
the non-conforming status would be subject to requirements that were laid out
in case law. If you connected the
termination of the non-conforming use to the ownership of the property, the
City would have a problem enforcing that provision. Attorney Garganese stated that he could
provide specific case law. Mr. Petsos
asked if the City could include an amortization schedule. Attorney Garganese affirmed and stated
amortization schedule was related to time and not ownership. Mr. Petsos stated that one of the Drafts
recommended an amortization schedule if not the amount of time. Mayor Randels
clarified that the Council attempted to discuss what was defensible and
revocation based on time was defensible.
Mayor Randels made note for the Board to discuss an amortization
schedule.
Ms. Roberts questioned the City’s enforcement
provisions and asked if there were a process in the City for businesses to
follow. Mr. Boucher explained what would
happen subsequent to a Fire Inspection in that duel enforcement would occur
between the City and the State. Ms.
Roberts questioned if the City had in its process a revocation of a
receipt. Mr. Boucher replied that a
Business License was not a revocation instrument it was a tax. Mayor Randels read the provision for
Non-Conforming Use from Section
110-197, Abandonment, which was the specific requirement in the Zoning code.
Attorney Garganese responded to Ms. Roberts that
Section 110-197 was the general provision in the Zoning code for termination of
Non-Conforming Uses. Without those
specific requirements in the Code, Non-Conforming Uses would be allowed to
continue and it was a City enforcement mechanism. Attorney Garganese reminded from a previous
meeting of the discussion to allow non-conforming uses to expire if there were
a certain number of code enforcement violations attributed to that
non-conforming use. This was something that the Planning and Zoning Board could
address. He explained a probable cause of loss for non-conforming status if it
rose to a certain level of egregiousness.
Attorney Garganese provided the example that if the City were to allow a
non-conforming resort dwelling and the resort dwelling could not operate within
public safety requirements imposed, then they would become a public safety
problem and would then lose the non-conforming status. Ms. Roberts asked if that was an appropriate
place for the City to add a Part D to take certain initiatives under certain
circumstances that exceed Abandonment and the State’s provision. Attorney Garganese affirmed. Ms. Roberts asked if this would be connected
to the chronic nuisance ordinance.
Attorney Garganese replied that it could be targeted to resort dwellings
and certain safety problems that may occur or, it could be connected in general
to all non-conforming uses. This matter
required further review.
Discussion concluded that a timeframe, such as
within three to six months, to apply for a resort dwelling license was
necessary for inclusion on page 6. Mr.
Petsos expressed his concern with allowing for additional operations and the
intent was to eventually phase-out operations.
Attorney Garganese phrased for clarification the Council’s desire for
the Planning and Zoning Board to consider a time frame to allow new resort
dwellings in the R-1, R-1 and R-3 zoning districts. Ms. Roberts clarified only for a short
time. Ms. Roberts expressed concern for
those residents who were not aware of the City’s intention in November and they
should be given period of time to make a decision.
Mr. Petsos expressed that the last point was would
the Council only allow Resort Dwelling in C-1 zoning. Mayor Randels related to a referendum that
voted for residential use only on the ocean and the Banana River. Mr. Nicholas
explained that there was a provision that large apartment complexes could have
commercial amenities and that was subsequently removed from the Code. He explained that the City went to subsequent
referenda on zoning density and building heights. The people voted for lower
density and limited building height. Lamar Russell related that the residents
desired to protect the shoreline, rivers and ocean. Mr. Nicholas informed that Royal Mansions
began to rent on a daily basis and in response to that the Council passed the
minimum seven day rental provision and Cape Winds which was constructed at the
same time, fell under the same provision.
Mr. Nicholas replied to Mayor Randels that before Royal Mansions there
was no provision at all for a time limit on rentals.
Mr. Boucher explained that the Council would need to
receive the results of the Planning and Zoning Board discussion. Mr. Boucher related that life safety codes
were paramount and staff needed direction, then City would respond
accordingly. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog
expressed that permitting at the State level was another fallacy, enforcing
their own rules and not communicating their intent to the City. Mr. Boucher related that the State
representative informed that the licenses were issued without the regional
office’s knowledge. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog
informed that the Fire Department was also not informed. Mr. Boucher related how the County shut down five
operations under dual enforcement. Ms.
Roberts emphasized her concern with Section D, Part II in that the
City needed a part in the safety issues to protect the community, regardless of
State requirements. Mr. Boucher replied
that the City could not revoke a State license.
Ms. Roberts said that the City did allow non-conformance.
Ms.
Helen Filkins stated that she lived in Cape Canaveral for 37 years and also stated how
she was in favor of retaining a residential community. She expressed that the Council’s discussion
appeared in favor of resort dwelling units. Ms. Filkins informed that a
referendum in 1973 established that the City residents desired a residential
community. Ms. Filkins related on the concept of rental units and how it
started in cities such as Miami who began initiating rental property
provisions. Mayor Randels stated that
the State had already issued licenses and having met the qualifications, they
could renew them annually. Attorney
Garganese clarified that there were two issues: the State issued license and
the City’s zoning code. Ms. Roberts
pointed out one of the community concerns was addressing the four dwellings or
less. The larger issue was to set the
tone in the best interest of the City and set standards for rentals for 30 days
or less. Mayor Randels responded that in
all zones except Industrial, a seven-day rental provision existed in the
Code. Ms. Filkins questioned if that
could be rescinded.
Mayor Randels explained how an allowable zone was
sought. Ms. Filkins stated that many
people buy homes with intentions, such as renting the property; however, the
City did not have to accept those intentions.
Ms. Filkins expressed the concern of those who were adverse to
permitting rentals in residential areas.
She related on the positive comments that she has received regarding the
Cape Canaveral community. Ms. Filkins said that the Council should state what
they were for or against. Mayor Randels
explained that addressing zoning would allow for rentals in C-1 zoning. Ms. Filkins re-stated that Council’s
discussion appeared to express its favor on the issue. She re-stated the Council’s need to express
their intention. Ms. Filkins concluded
by relating on the City’s history and then stated how the City should name a
street after a notable resident Mr. Roger Dobson.
Mr.
Bjornar Hermansen of Merritt Island commended Ms. Filkins.
He then expressed his understanding with the Council’s intent to protect
people’s rights. However, he explained
that the Council would allow people to operate illegally. Mr. Hermansen used operating a bar in a
residential neighborhood as an example.
He stated that operating a resort dwelling was a life safety issue. Mr. Hermansen stated that once City officials
were aware of life threatening activities then the overwhelming evidence was
for the Council to take action. He
stated that the City was in serious contravention of Federal, State, and County
life/ safety issues. Mr. Hermansen
stated that even if the hotel industry were not required to take such
precautions, they would, due to the life/ safety aspect. Mr. Hermansen made note of how former Mayor
Frank Hoog did not desire hotels on the beach or the river, short-term rentals
and he questioned why his son was not of the same mind. Mayor Randels stated that he made not of Mr.
Hermansen’s statement on the Council protecting people’s rights to conduct an
illegal activity and that was not his intent.
Ms.
Jamie O’Donnell expressed how there were strong feelings on both sides of this
issue. She stated that if a person
desired to operate a short-term rental, then they needed to meet the life/
safety requirements as well as issue hefty tickets for illegal parking. Ms. O’Donnell stated how the Council should
place the issue on the ballot and allow the residents to vote for their
preference and let the people decide.
She stated that this would remove the Council from the decision. Ms. O’Donnell replied to Mayor Randels that
those properties in operation would come under an emergency measure and come
into compliance.
Ms.
Jacqueline Stevens, owner of 510 Tyler Avenue, expressed that the
purchase of a nice home was more beneficial to a community that was formerly
known as “crack” Canaveral. She briefly
discussed the rise of families a residential community that would subsequently
create a school tax burden. Ms. Stevens
stated that the Ordinance would not affect the apartment dwellings on her
street and she asked why the Council was targeting the small property
owner. Ms. Stevens stated that the Council
would make a greater impact if they would target the larger complexes. Ms. Stevens referred to the safety issue and
stated that the building codes in place did not apply to the residential
property owner. She asked if the
condominiums were required to abide by State regulations. Mayor Randels referred to the building code
and clarified that in moving from a permanent R-3 use to a transient R-1 use,
then more specific requirements related to life/safety issues applied.
Mr.
Lamar Russell, Vice Chairperson of the Planning and Zoning Board, explained how the
issue transformed from behavior issue to a quality of life issue. He stated that the Ordinance drafted was an
effort to change behavior. Mr. Russell
stated that zoning only changes development behavior, not personal
behavior. However, a nuisance ordinance
would change personal behavior. Mr. Russell stated that the Planning and Zoning
Board might not return the Ordinance in the same manner as it was received. Mr.
Russell related on the divisiveness of the issue.
Mr. Russell pointed out that there might be more
people affected then understood. He
stated that those affected have standing with the Court. Mr. Russell related how spot zoning could be
taken to Court. He explained that 500
votes could take a seat. Mr. Russell
described how 45-seconds changed a City Manager’s life and the same could
happen over this issue and subsequently change the Council. Mr. Russell pointed out the law of unintended
consequences and explained how a divisive Council filtered into divisive
Boards. He stated how a different
Council might not have the current Council’s intentions. Mr. Russell expressed
that the Board was also divided. He
explained how the Board might also have intentions differing from the Council. Mr. Russell asked if there were any way to
address the safety regulations and then address the nuisance regulation
portion. He concluded that zoning would
not enforce behavioral change.
Ms. Roberts expressed how there was a juncture in
the road to either preserve the City’s residential character or to become a
beachside community that allows for resort dwellings. She stated that there was a clear-cut path
that the Council could take and she expressed favor with Ms. Filkin’s
recommendation. Ms. Roberts stated that
she favored discouraging short-term rentals in residential zones. Ms. Roberts also expressed her concern that
the larger scope, the properties larger than five units, was not being
considered in the discussion.
Attorney Garganese replied that a zoning perspective
was within the Council’s purview. He
explained that using State definitions of certain types of uses, such as resort
dwellings was being used in the Ordinance.
However, there was another type of resort dwellings, resort condominium,
which applied to time-shares. Attorney
Garganese explained that the Council’s quandary was to decide where Council
wanted resort dwellings in the Code, until then a quandary existed related to
life/ safety regulations. Attorney
Garganese affirmed that the City and the State could enforce the life/safety
Codes; however, the decision was where the Council wanted the uses to occur.
Attorney Garganese clarified that the City Manager
had information relating to four units or less; however, addressing the larger
units required a substantial amount of information. Ms. Roberts summarized and related to Ms.
Filkins’ point of whether or not the Council’s intent was short-term rentals in
the City and if so, in what zoning district. Afterwards, the Council could address the
design of the implementation.
Mr. Petsos clarified that the Council was forwarding
the issue of four units or less to the Planning and Zoning Board. He also questioned if a referendum were a
property rights issue. Attorney
Garganese replied that generally a voter approved zoning Ordinance would be
treated the same as a Council approved zoning ordinance. The Courts would not make a distinction.
The
Chair called for a consensus that the meeting would continue past the
designated 10:00 P.M. conclusion time.
Council members agreed by consensus to continue to the meeting.
Mr. Petsos clarified that the Council was seeking
discussion from the Planning and Zoning Board and they were not mandating to
them. Attorney Garganese clarified the
issues for the Planning and Zoning Board to discuss as:
1) An
amortization Schedule;
2)
Elimination of Non-Conforming Status for Resort Dwelling if there were a
certain number of Code violations attributed to the Resort Dwelling, and
3) To allow
additional time for new resort dwellings to be licensed by the State in the
R-1, R-2, and R-3 zoning districts, with special emphasis that the additional
time be a short period of time.
Attorney Garganese affirmed to Ms. Roberts that the
nuisance ordinance language was covered in the code enforcement verbiage. Mayor Randels clarified that the Ordinance
was seeking permitted resort dwellings in the C-1 zoning district. Mr. Nicholas reminded that some of the issues
would not return to the Council. Ms.
Filkins also reminded that the Planning and Zoning Board was only a
recommending body and the Council had the final decision.
Mayor Randels stated for the record that it
was the consent of the majority of Council to forward the issue to the Planning
and Zoning Board for further review.
Mr. Boucher addressed the issue of the larger
multi-family units and stated that if 51 percent of a multi-family condominium
were short-term rentals, then the life/ safety requirements applied. Mr.
Boucher related from the Fire Chief that if they were inspected as a
residential condominium then they were acceptable; however, if they fell under
Chapter 509 for short-term rentals, then he had to agree with the State and the
units would need to upgrade accordingly.
On a final note, Ms. Stevens stated that she like others were entitled
to their opinion and she expressed that as a community, aside from this
divisive issue, there should not be expressed animosity among neighbors.
REPORTS:
Due to the
lateness of the hour, there were no reports.
AUDIENCE TO BE HEARD:
There were no comments from the audience.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further
business, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 10:15 P.M.
__________________________
Rocky
Randels, MAYOR
________________________________
Susan Stills, CMC, CITY CLERK