CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
CITY HALL ANNEX
TUESDAY
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 Bob Hoog
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 informed the
audience that the Sheriff’s Office apprehended the suspect involved in a
robbery earlier that day at the Coastal Gas Station.
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. City Council Regular
Meeting Minutes of
Mayor Randels asked if any member of Council, staff
or interested parties desired to remove any of the Consent Agenda items for
discussion.
Ms. Roberts stated that she
would contact the City Clerk related to non-substantive corrections to the
minutes.
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Hoog and seconded by Mr. Petsos to
Approve Consent Agenda Item No. 1. 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:
2.
Motion to Approve: Change Order
to the North Central Ditch Stormwater Improvement Project.
Mayor Randels stated that this
change order was for a project located at
Mr. Pekar explained the
elements of the Central Ditch project as follows: to place culverts in the
ditch, to install a swale on top of the ditch, thereby allowing infiltration
with pick up points treating the water in a linear fashion as it flowed around
past Wendy’s and out to the Indian River Lagoon. From a quality standpoint, this was the only
straight run outfall of the five in the City with minimal filtration. In
review, on the east side on some properties the elevations ran as low as
two-feet and from four to six-feet on the west side which resulted in an
unbalanced situation.
Mr. Pekar then explained a
two-fold plan to: 1) to build up a portion of the ditch, and 2) to slide the
culverts to the high side up to where the City has a piece of property of about
one-quarter acre. He explained further
how the water would drop into a detention pond to capture water to about
7-feet. This pond would capture about
four to six tons of sediment per year that typically go out the lagoon. This would take the low side of the drainage
ditch and bring it in on-grade with a by-pass for the major storms that would
be culverted back to
Mr. Pekar stated that the ditch
has up to two to three feet of organic matter; however, after its removal, some
material had to replace it. Mayor Pro
Tem Hoog asked what mechanism would be used to clean out the retention
pond. Mr. Pekar replied that they had
access to the sewer line in order for City employees to provide some
cleaning. He stated that it would
require maintenance every three to five years.
Mr. Petsos inquired about the slope.
Mr. Pekar stated that due to the limited size of the land they intended
to enclose the property on three sides with chain link fencing. Mr. Petsos pointed out that the slope would
make maintenance more difficult.
Mayor Randels asked Mr. Pekar
to point out the location to the audience.
Mr. Pekar pointed out that discussion included from the bottom of
Mr. Pekar explained that the
pipes could be extended depending on the available funds; however, they cost
$100 per foot and the expense was a consideration. Mr. Nicholas noted how most of the
residential development occurred on the east side with warehouses on the west
side and he asked if they were providing drainage retention on the west
side. Mr. Pekar affirmed that drainage
retention had occurred on the west side.
Mr. Nicholas questioned the diversity on the east side compared to the
west side and he encouraged the developing property owners to build up the
bank. Mr. Pekar explained that on any
City review all of the building pads were elevated up seven- to eight-feet.
Mr. Nicholas inquired how this
was impacted by Mr. Randy May’s aggregate project. Mr. Pekar replied that Mr. Mays’ aggregate
would flow to the west and would be treated on his property. Todd Morley, Building Official, informed that
a construction permit for a 16-foot sight and sound barrier had been authorized
for Mr. Mays’ project. Mr. Nicholas
expressed his concern with the lack of progress on this project. Mr. Morley stated that the permit was issued
by the date specified by the Council and the permit has a six-month
timeline. Ms. Roberts asked if the pond
was anticipated to be full of water most of the time. Mr. Pekar affirmed to Ms. Roberts that it would
with an elevation of approximately one to minus seven-feet.
Ms. Roberts asked if this were
an opportunity for the City to add value with an aerated pond. Mr. Pekar replied that the area was actually
too small for a stormwater park and was not conducive to pedestrian traffic.
Ms. Roberts said that the area appeared to be developmental property and she
stated that the City might want to plan ahead for potential residential
development. Ms. Roberts mentioned that
some of the City’s retention ponds may or may not have aeration and the still
water brings in other things. Mr. Pekar
replied that they could run electricity from the Lift Station in order to make
this happen or possibly even solar power.
Mayor Randels stated that this was not in the grant and would require
City funding.
Mr. Ratliff informed if the
property were ever developed then they could look at developing the pond
area. Ms. Roberts asked if the property
would attract mosquitoes in its proposed state.
Mr. Pekar replied that any enhancement to the water body would encourage
the fish. Mr. Nicholas pointed out that
minerals and other small fish would take care of the mosquitoes. Mr. Pekar replied to Mayor Pro Tem Hoog that
a diversion structure would allow for a water table to exist at all times. Mr. Pekar stated that at
Mr. Petsos questioned Mr. Pekar
about the bank elevation. Mr. Pekar
replied that around the banks of the pond he anticipated up to elevation
four. Mr. Pekar explained that they
would look back to the hydraulic gradients all the way back up to the north to
keep the flow back to two to two and one-half to be sure that the structures
and outfall were sized so that the hydraulic gradients keep the water down for the
designed storms. Mayor Randels concluded that the City’s Stormwater
Administrator recommended the change order.
Mr. Pekar explained to Mayor Pro Tem Hoog that two minimum permits were
required: the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permit and another from St. John’s River Water
Management District. Mr. Pekar also
stated that the engineer’s would also perform the subsequent certifications
after project construction. Mr. Petsos
pointed out that the project had $18,000 remaining in its budget. Mr. Ratliff concluded that any additional
funding could be used toward any additional construction.
A motion was made by Mr. Petsos and seconded by Ms. Roberts to Approve Change Order to the North Central Ditch Stormwater Improvement Project
in the Amount of $9,040. 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.
3. Motion to Approve: Comprehensive Plan – Evaluation and
Appraisal Report – Letter of Understanding.
Mayor Randels explained how the
Evaluation and Appraisal Report [EAR] preceded the City’s Comprehensive
Plan. Todd Peetz, City Planner,
clarified that the EAR was performed every seven years. Mr. Peetz then explained the two-fold reason
for the Letter of Understanding as: 1)
public meetings were held in August of 2006 and January and March of 2007 and,
2) there was quite a bit of input from the public for inclusion into the Plan
and the Department of Community Affairs was concerned with the community’s
comments. Mr. Peetz stated that items
were ranked in order of concern at the City Celebration held at
He reported that density and
height were numbers one and two; third, was shoreline erosion and dune
protection; fourth was transportation and road development due the changes
subsequent to development. Mr. Peetz
made note that development guidelines and appearance were lower on the list
although people did want the City to appear attractive. He also reported that affordable housing was
lower on the list due to increased housing costs. He informed that the City had done much to
provide parks and the community was supportive.
Mr. Peetz informed that City Hall,
Mr. Peetz replied to Mayor
Randels that staff was looking to transmit to the Florida Department of
Community Affairs [DCA] at the second meeting in July. He reported that the Planning and Zoning
Board meeting would meet to review the front portion data analysis. Council could review the document at its
second meeting in July. Once the
document was transmitted in July, then DCA would review it for 60 days, the
document would return some time in September with an anticipated adoption in October
or early November. After adoption DCA
takes 45-to 60-days to find the City sufficient. Mr. Peetz informed that his firm hired
someone who was formerly from the DCA to assist with this part of the
process. After the 45 to 60 day, the
City has 18-months to update the Comprehensive Plan consistent with the EAR
with up to a 6-month extension. Mr.
Peetz clarified that the Future Land Use Map was an essential component of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Roberts expressed her
concern that the Visioning Session, the Redevelopment Plan, and this work
product were not integrated in the Letter of Understanding. Ms. Roberts stated that we need to know how
many people participated in this, the number of comments submitted, and how
they were organized to include frequency analysis according to each topic. Ms. Roberts stated that she was speaking on
process and approach and something such as this reflects what the Council was
representing on behalf of the community.
Ms. Roberts requested ample time for deliberation and perhaps a Workshop
would permit Council to review the community’s input.
Mr. Peetz responded to Ms.
Roberts that each County and City was required to have a School Concurrency
Element especially due to a school within City limits. Mr. Peetz informed that
Ms. Roberts stated that the
document was reflective of a City as well as Council planning document. Mr. Peetz responded that the Letter of
Understanding was merely to document the community participation of the public
workshops. Mr. Nicholas explained how as
Council continues through the Comprehensive Plan process, then more in-depth
discussion would occur on specific elements.
Ms. Roberts stated that she desired to register her concerns and she
suggested a change of process and to have more planning before arriving at this
stage.
Mr. Peetz stated that DCA
requested the Letter of Understanding.
Ms. Roberts stated that since March the Council could have had
discussions and could have had reflections and time for what would to into the Letter. She wanted to go on record with her
concerns. Mr. Petsos stated that the
letter was inclusive of what the city residents desired to see and in July
there would be more time for additional discussion from the Council. Ms. Roberts stated that she was more
concerned with the exclusion of some of the comments from the community. Mr. Peetz assured that all of the comments
that were registered at the public meetings would be included in the
Letter. On a final note, Ms. Roberts
expressed the need for one other step in the process to allow Council to review
such planning documents prior to submittal.
A motion was made by Mr. Nicholas and seconded by Mr. Petsos to Approve the Comprehensive Plan – Evaluation and Appraisal Report – Letter of
Understanding. 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.
4. Motion to Approve: Designation of a Voting Delegate for the
Mayor Randels stated that
traditionally the Council sought a delegate to vote during the League business
meetings at the Florida League of Cities Annual Conference. Mayor Randels recognized that he, Mayor Pro
Tem Hoog, Mr. Petsos, and Ms. Roberts would attend the Conference. Mayor Randels nominated Mayor Pro Tem Hoog as
the Voting Delegate. Mr. Nicholas asked
if there were need for an Alternate. Mayor
Randels responded that an Alternate was required this year.
A motion was made by Mayor Randels and seconded by Mr. Petsos to
Approve the Designation of a Voting Delegate for the
Florida League of Cities Annual Conference Inserting the Name Bob Hoog. 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.
5. Motion to Approve: Local Option Gas Tax – Amendment to the
Interlocal Agreement with
Mayor Randels explained how
this was a mechanism for the County bond funding for local roads. Mayor Randels
reported that in 1986 the City received $182,090 and he clarified that the
funding was used for road-related items only such as street lights, road repairs
and cleaning ditches. Mayor Randels also
reported that this year if the City agreed to the extension the City would
receive $262,000. He stated that the tax was renewed in 1988, 1991, and 2001. Mayor Randels informed that this extension
continued until
August 31, 2037. Mayor Randels stated
that this would allow the cities that opt-in to receive a portion of the
six-cent gas tax.
Mr. Boucher reported that the
City was projected to receive $262,000 and the County’s percentage since
inception was 47.14004266 percent. Mayor
Randels explained that the cities received 53 percent which was divided based
on each city’s population and he informed that cities that did not use their
funding forfeited it. Mayor Randels
stated that
Ms. Roberts pointed out that
the population was based on the City’s 10,317 in population and expressed her
concern that the beachside communities might not be receiving their fair share
from the County due to under-representation.
Mayor Randels affirmed that the 10,000 does include the seasonal
residents. Mr. Boucher informed that the
population census came from the
Mr. Nicholas questioned if the
formula for calculating the percentage was State law and he suggested
addressing this with the State legislature. Mr. Boucher informed that
Mr. Boucher responded that the
Board of County Commissioners desired to discuss this issue at their July 10th
meeting. Mr. Boucher stated that the
County was reluctant to amend its 47 percent portion. Mr. Boucher informed that the Amendment would
proceed regardless of full consent due to agreement from the larger
communities. Ms. Roberts requested a Coalition of the beachside communities on
issues of common concern in order to present these concerns effectively to the
County.
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Hoog and seconded by Mr. Nicholas to
Approve Local Option Gas Tax – Amendment to the
Interlocal Agreement with
ORDINANCES:
Second Public Hearing:
6. Motion to Adopt: Ordinance No. 04-2007;
Amending Chapter 110, Clarifying the Intent of the R-1, R-2, and R-3
Residential Zoning Districts, Defining the Terms “Resort Dwelling” and “Resort
Condominium” at Second Reading.
Attorney
Garganese distributed the most recent Draft of the Ordinance dated
Attorney
Garganese proceeded to Page 7. A Preliminary Non-conforming Certificate
procedure that would establish for resort dwelling and resort condominiums that
received Site Plan approval yet have not been constructed or that have already
filed a Site Plan proposing resort condominiums by
Ms.
Roberts questioned how the $100 filing fee applied. Attorney Garganese replied that there were
two different fees: 1) an existing unit required a $100 fee, and 2) those units
that were not constructed were required to obtain a Preliminary Non-Conforming
Certificate for $100. Then proceed
through the Building Department permit process and pay an additional fee in
order to get a Building Permit to build a resort condominium unit in compliance
with existing building and fire codes. This would address the City’s several
existing Site Plans. So their additional
fees would occur at a later time; however, the upfront fee would recognize
those Site Plans for purposes of this Ordinance and process their request for
future resort dwellings and resort condominiums.
Ms.
Roberts asked if each owner within existing condominiums would need to apply for
this Certificate. Mr. Boucher replied
that it depended upon how they were licensed.
He explained how those units under a management company would handle the
fee for the units and the others that were individuals would require
notification and arrangement for inspections and certificates under the
Code. Ms. Roberts questioned if the City
would subsequently receive one from the owner.
Mr. Boucher responded that they would be constructed for that occupancy,
which was resort condominiums, and if the developer keeps the units under one
manager then they would either be managed singly or as a group under this
provision. Ms. Roberts inquired if the $100 fee would apply to each individual
unit. Mr. Boucher affirmed. Ms. Roberts then asked about how this would
apply to the time-shares. Attorney Garganese explained that the $100 fee would
apply per unit, not per owner and for a time-share the fee was divided among
the number of owners.
The units not yet constructed were subject to the Building Permit process which
included inspections.
Attorney
Garganese proceeded to Page 8 and noted the change to Sub-paragraph (i) related
to the Certificate of Non-Conforming Status.
The intent was to assure that a person who had filed a Site Plan
application but was not approved yet; the person would need to demonstrate that
the application was in full force and effect in order to obtain this
Non-Conforming status. The Ordinance
reads, “If the Site Plan was filed but not yet approved before
Mayor
Randels pointed out that the changes in discussion were on Pages 6, 7, and
8. Mayor read the second sentence in
Section 110-332, Item (15), for clarification, “Resort condominiums satisfying
the Certificate of Occupancy and zoning requirements for a hotel, motel under
the City Code shall be regulated as a principle use under Section 110-332(4)
Hotel, Motels. Attorney Garganese
explained that if someone desired to be a residential unit then they would need
to obtain a Special Exception; however, they would need to obtain one for the
C-1 zoning district which applied to the
Mayor
Randels referred to Page 7 of the June 18th draft and clarified that
a $100 per unit fee would be charged to ensure that the unit was in compliance
with building and fire codes. However,
if the unit was under construction, then the expectation was to build to the
existing code as it was being constructed.
Attorney Garganese replied that the $100 file applied to preserve the
right to build as a resort condominium or resort dwelling and obtain the
Preliminary Non-Conforming Use status permit; however, subsequent building
permit fees still applied. Ms. Roberts
inquired about the time line and asked if Chief Dave Sargeant stated that the
number of days was dependent upon the number of permits submitted. Ms. Roberts referred to the timeline and made
note that 30-days from the permit application. Attorney Garganese clarified
that the one-year began from the day that an applicant filed their Notice of
Intent.
Ms.
Roberts reviewed for clarity on the timelines.
Ms. Roberts stated that there were 30-days from June 19th on
the filing and after those 30 days to submit the life/safety plan. Ms. Roberts questioned how long for the Fire
Department’s review. Chief Sargeant
responded that a condominium building might take up to 60-days to come up with
a plan. Ms. Roberts stated her intent
was to review the timeline in light of when the 365 days began. Ms. Roberts stated that 30-days from June 19th
everyone interested would need to submit their filing fee of intent and 30-days
from that time they would need to give the Fire Chief a life/ safety plan. Chief Sargeant replied that 365 days was left
open to extension.
Attorney
Garganese clarified that the one-year began the day that the Notice of Intent
was filed. Ms. Roberts continued review
of the timeline and said after the Fire Chief reviews the life/ safety plan, and
then the applicant needed to submit a detailed plan within 90-days of
review. Chief Sargeant affirmed. Chief Sargeant clarified that the initial 30
days was the most important period. Ms.
Roberts stated her concern with persons left in an unsafe condition during the
timeline process between the Notice of Intent and the Life/ Safety Plan. Mayor
Randels concluded that people had the first 30 days. Lamar Russell, Planning and Zoning Board,
referred to the Board’s notes which outlined that there was an initial 30 days,
then 90 days for plans and specifications up to one-year with allowable
extensions. Attorney Garganese clarified
that the timeline began 30 days from the Notice of Intent; however, the Notice
of Intent should be filed within 30 days of the effective date of the
Ordinance.
Mayor
Pro Tem Hoog stated that he shared Ms. Roberts’ concern with the timeline. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog expressed the need for
expeditious review. Chief Sargeant
stated that review would depend on what was submitted. However, if a volume of plans were submitted,
consequently, more time was required. Applicants
would be notified that they would be required to shut down with the exception
of the three allowable times for rental in any one year. Chief Sargeant however assured an effective,
yet expeditious review. He replied to
Mayor Pro Tem Hoog that he did not foresee the need for a full time person for
these inspections. Mr. Morley added that
the 90-day period was the date of the technical drawing submittal and the
building and fire department review would commence; however there was ample
time before the 365 day mark was met.
Mr. Morley responded to Mayor Pro Tem Hoog that as long as a good faith
effort was made to comply, then he and the Fire Chief would want to encourage applicants
by allowing for an extension.
Ms.
Roberts referred to Page 8 and pointed out where an owner would be shut down in
operation until they were approved.
Attorney Garganese replied that they may be long term rentals and not
operating a resort dwelling or resort condominium without a license. Ms. Roberts wanted to ensure that anyone
considering an application was aware that until they were approved and until
the met the requirements, they could not be operational. Attorney Garganese
stated that until they have the requisite Certificate of Occupancy that meets
all the building and fire requirements and the license by the State, they cannot
lawfully operate. The Section states
that no one could operate unlawfully while trying to obtain licensure and
Certificates of Occupancy.
Mayor
Randels also referred to Page 8, subsection (4) and made note that as long as
the owner attempts to make a good faith effort to obtain the required licensure
they would need to notify the City to seek an extension. Mayor Randels proceeded to read Item No. (i)
on Page 8 “ If a site plan was filed, but not yet approved, before
Mayor
Randels then read Item No. (iii), on Page 8.
Ms. Roberts stated that there were many more changes since the June 14th
Draft and she clarified as a point of order, that the Mayor was only reviewing
the changes since the June 14th Draft. Mayor Randels affirmed that the Council would
also review the changes since the June 5th meeting. Attorney Garganese stated that he would
express any changes since the First Reading.
Ms. Roberts stated her concern to hear Council’s review of any changes
that occurred during the First Public Hearing and not just the changes made
between the Draft of June 14th and June 18th. Attorney Garganese explained how during First
Reading there was discussion over those Site Plans that were already approved
yet not completed. The City had such a
Site Plan in which the applicant was considering a resort condominium type
project. Therefore Subsection (5) was
added to address just that situation in which Site Plans were approved but
units have not been constructed and Site Plans that have been submitted and
were in the application process but were not yet approved.
Attorney
Garganese explained how Subsection (5) created the procedure for where if an
applicant has a Site Plan that has been approved or a Site Plan that has been
filed by
Once the
Preliminary Notice of Non-Conforming Status was issued, then a Final
Certificate of Non-Conforming Status would be issued in order to have a resort
dwelling or resort condominium. However,
three conditions apply: 1) only applies
to Site Plans that were filed but not yet approved , 2) at the time the
dwelling or condominium receives an initial Certificate of Occupancy from the
Building Official, the unit shall meet the building and fire code standards
applicable to a resort dwelling or resort condominium, and 3) within 30 days of
the Certificate of Occupancy, an applicant must obtain a license from the State
of Florida and a Final Certificate of Non-Conforming Status from the City
Manager.
Attorney
Garganese stated that there were two special circumstances that addressed a
vested rights issues: 1) those Site Plans that have been approved yet the units
have not been constructed, and 2) those applicants that already have a Site
Plan submitted to build resort condominiums yet have not completed the
process. This gives them an opportunity
to preserve that right to have a resort condominium or resort dwelling. Attorney Garganese clarified that the
provision addressed a vested rights interest expressly in this Ordinance
involving Site Plans that have been approved or were in the application
stage.
Attorney
Garganese clarified that the other change established
Mr.
Boucher informed that when the Certificate of Non-Conforming Status was filed
it would be recorded with the Brevard County Clerk of Court and attached to the
property. Ms. Roberts referred to Page
2, the last WHEREAS clause and made note of the last sentence in which Mayor
Randels stated for the record to strike the letter “s” from dwellings. Ms. Roberts asked if the practice of “exchange”
related to time-shares was addressed. Ms. Roberts referred to the previous meeting
in which Mr. John Grandlich of the Ron Jon Cape Caribe Resort stated that the
owners have the right to use it, exchange it, or rent it. Mayor Randels pointed out that the previous
meeting minutes state that the Association was licensed under Florida Statutes
Chapter 721. Mr. Grandlich informed that
an exchange was not a rental in that there was no transfer of money.
Attorney
Garganese explained that a time-share operating under its legal business
practice allowed for the exchange practice.
Ms. Roberts expressed that there might be other opportunities for the
use of the exchange practice such as with a residence and explained how this
was also a form of transient use. Ms.
Roberts pointed out that this question arose from the community as it related
to the use of international exchanges. Mr. Petsos replied that he did not think
there were enough interest to reach a threshold to become a resort dwelling and
if residences were exchanged it was usually for more than a month at one
time. Ms. Roberts suggested a depiction
of the timeline for the community. Mayor
Randels referred to the depiction as submitted from the Planning and Zoning
Board in the packet.
Mayor
Randels read Ordinance No. 04-2007 by title.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA,
AMENDING CHAPTER 110, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES; CLARIFYING THE
INTENT OF THE R-1, R-2 AND R-3 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS; DEFINING THE TERM
"RESORT DWELLING;"DEFINING THE TERM "RESORT CONDOMINIUM;"
PROVIDING FOR THE LOCATION AND REGULATION OF RESORT DWELLINGS AND CONDOMINIUMS
UNDER CONDITIONS STATED HEREIN; AMENDING THE SUPPLEMENTAL ZONING DISTRICT
REGULATIONS TO RESTATE THAT ANY RENTAL OF A DWELLING UNIT SHALL BE FOR A
MINIMUM OF SEVEN (7) DAYS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; INCORPORATION INTO THE CODE; SEVERABILITY; AND AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Ms. Helen Filkins stated that this was a sad day for her
since 33 years ago the City voted to become low density, residential
community. Ms. Filkins expressed how she
watched the
Mr. Kohn Bennett, of
Ms. Sandy Trudeau of
Mayor
Randels asked Ms. Trudeau if she could meet with the Building Official, the
Fire Chief and the State Representative to resolve her issue. Ms. Trudeau requested a special amendment for
her circumstance. Attorney Garganese
clarified that Ms. Trudeau was asking the Council to waive the building code
requirement for her situation and he advised the Council against such an action
that was in direct contradiction to the building code requirements for life/
safety. Ms. Trudeau explained how she
was subject to financial losses and potential litigation due to breaches of
contract. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that
her third story was not in compliance with the law. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that he was not in
support of any waivers and stated that she had a right and it was up to her to
use that right. Council members
expressed their disapproval with Ms. Trudeau’s request. Council members explained that the previous
amendment was made for un-constructed units. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog requested for
staff to be expeditious in their review.
Ms. Roberts expressed how what was fair and equitable would apply to any
and all applicants.
Attorney
Garganese referred to Page 9, in Section 110-486 related to Section 110-332 (4)
and requested to exclude “hotels and motels”. Ms. Roberts stated that she read
the provision as more being restrictive.
Discussion followed on the intent of the City Attorney’s proposed
change. Mr. Bennett pointed out that
resort condominiums were a new definition, kept in C-1, and they should be able
to operate daily within the intent of C-1 zoning with a resort condominium
license. Mr. Bennett expressed
agreement with the restriction for residences on a lot in the C-1 zoning
district; however, he agreed with Ms. Roberts on the overly restrictive aspect
of the City Attorney’s proposed change. Ms. Roberts called for a Point of Order
to hear the City Attorney’s intention. Attorney Garganese clarified that it was
not his desire to add a provision to the practice of a less than 7-day rental
in any other zoning district outside
of C-1 zoning.
Mr.
Petsos stated that he preferred to see the Ordinance remain as submitted. Mr. Nicholas referred to the zoning map and
noted the amount of commercial zoning on the west side of
A motion was made by Ms. Roberts and
seconded by Mr. Petsos to extend the meeting until 10:30 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.
Mr.
Boucher advised Council to have the Planning and Zoning Board review the
smaller units. Council decided to vote
on the City Attorney’s amendment. The
City Attorney recommended striking the language, “excluding the C-1 zoning
district,” and inserting, “excluding hotels-motels.” under Section 332,
Sub-paragraph (4), Hotels-Motels. Mr.
Boucher clarified that this would maintain the status quo in the C-1
zoning. Mr. Bennett stated that the
amendment would not allow the newly defined resort condominium to operate as a
commercial activity. Mr. Boucher
referred to Page 6 and read how a resort condominium was permitted to operate. Attorney Garganese found suitable language to
make the amendment. Attorney Garganese
stated that the amendment could be connected to a permitted use. Ms. Roberts clarified that at a later time
the Planning and Zoning Board would address transient apartments, rooms, and
bed and breakfasts.
An amendment was made by Mr. Nicholas and
seconded by Mr. Petsos to the main motion to change the number of days from
“30-days” to “60-days” on Page 8, Item 5, Paragraph 5, Roman Numeral III,
for which the owner would be required to obtain licensure from the Department
of Business and Professional Regulations.
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.
An amendment to the main motion was made by
Mr. Nicholas and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Hoog to Amend Page 9, Section
110-486 to read, “It shall be unlawful for any person to rent a dwelling unit
for less than seven (7) consecutive days in any zoning district, excluding
hotels-motels under Section 332, Sub-paragraph (4) and Resort Condominiums in
the C-1 Zoning District.” 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.
A motion was made by Mr. Nicholas and
seconded by Mr. Petsos to Adopt Ordinance No. 04-2007 as amended at Second
Ms.
Roberts proposed to shift the sequence of the Discussion Items out of respect
for those audience members who were waiting to be heard. The Chair, hearing no other approval, decided
that there was no support to change the order and the meeting continued with
the next discussion item.
DISCUSSION:
7. Florida Cities of Excellence Awards –
Nominations.
Mayor Pro Tem Hoog considered a nomination for Mr. Bennett Boucher as
City Manager of the Year stating that he has been a City employee for 22
years. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog also nominated
Mayor Randels as Mayor of the Year for his 10 years as Mayor of his 20 years
tenure. Ms. Roberts requested to also
consider several other employees in the various nominating categories: Andrea
Bowers in Finance, Todd Morley as Building Official, Duree Alexander as
Employee of the Year, Jeff Ratliff as well as Robert Lefever. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog cautioned on too many
nominations from the same City coming to the selection committee. Mayor Randels expressed to submit the City
Manager’s name only. Mr. Petsos agreed
with the Mayor to nominate one person. Mr.
Boucher thanked the Council for the nomination.
A motion
was made by Mr. Nicholas and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Hoog to
A motion was made by Mr. Nicholas and
seconded by Mr. Petsos to extend the meeting to 10:45 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.
8. Administrative Appeals Related to the
Zoning Code of Ordinances. Rev.
Ms. Roberts thanked the audience members who
remained to discuss this issue. She
explained how the current process does not allow for City Council’s input prior
to or subsequent to a Board of Adjustment Hearing. Ms. Roberts stated that the
process also did not allow for the community input during a Hearing. Ms.
Roberts expressed how the City Council serves as the Board of Adjustment in
other municipalities and she proposed that suggestion to the Council. Ms. Roberts explained how as the Appeal
process stands in her understanding an Appeal of the Building Official proceeds
from the Board of Adjustment then to the Planning and Zoning Board and back to
the Board of Adjustment at the time of Appeal. Ms. Roberts proposed for the
Council to consider participating in the Appeals process or to consider
eliminating the Board of Adjustment and having City Council assume that
capacity. Ms. Roberts stated that there
was no system of checks and balances in the existing process or for community
input.
Mayor Pro Tem Hoog asked the City Manager why the
Council served as the Board of Adjustment in the past and under what
circumstance did that change. Mr.
Boucher responded that Municipal Home Rule might have allowed for the existing
Board of Adjustment to remain after 1972.
No Council prior to this one considered assuming those duties. Mr. Boucher replied that the Council had the
authority to serve as the Board of Adjustment.
Attorney Garganese affirmed that in other cities the Council takes that
authority. Mr. Petsos expressed that he always felt that City Council should
make the final decision. Mayor Pro Tem
Hoog stated that he did not desire to eliminate the Board; however, he would
agree to participate in the process. Mr.
Nicholas stated that the Board had expertise in the Zoning Code area. He expressed to retain the Board’s expertise;
however, the City Council would serve in the Appeals.
Ms. Roberts responded to Mayor Pro Tem Hoog’s
implication of additional meetings that she did not believe the number of
additional meetings would present a burden.
She re-stated her concern that the process did not allow for community
input. Ms. Roberts explained how if it
were decided that the Board of Adjustment process did not allow for public
comment except to a limited extent, then the impacted community did have a
right to be heard by the Council. Ms.
Roberts stated that the current process favors the applicant and did not favor
the community at large. Mayor Pro Tem
Hoog stated that the most recent hearing was established as a court hearing
which was the forum of an Appeal and therefore, public comment was limited. Ms.
Roberts replied that in this case in terms of appealing the decision of the
Building Official, in the interest of the public good and the broader community
in support of the Ordinances changes previously made, the Building Official
made his decision based on an incredible amount of community care and concern. However, that input was minimally heard. Such concerns were raised before the most
recent meeting. Ms. Roberts expressed
how the community in which she resides was appalled that City Council did not
participate in the Appeals process.
Ms. Roberts asked if the way the Board of Adjustment
operates was in conformance with the City’s own code. Attorney Garganese affirmed that it did. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog responded that the Appeals
process was specific to one subject only.
Mr. Petsos requested to have the staff review some options such as: 1)
whether the Council desired to serve as the Board of Adjustment, or 2) whether
the Council would use them as an Advisory Board and have the final decision
rest with the Council. Attorney Garganese stated that “pursuant to City Code
Section 110-33 once the Board renders a final Appeal, it would proceed to the
Circuit Court.” Attorney Garganese
explained the condition of why the result of the overturned Appeal would place
an issue before the Planning and Zoning Board.
Ms. Roberts emphasized that she desired for the
impacted parties to also have the right of Appeals and she preferred for the
Council to assume the duties of the Board of Adjustment. She did not think that the amount of business
was significantly burdensome. Attorney
Garganese explained the three options as: 1) the Board of Adjustment could
maintain their authority, 2) City Council could assume that authority, or 3) or
the City Council could serve as an Appellate body to hear any Appeals from the
Board of Adjustment. In addition, the
Council could also eliminate all and obtain a Special Hearings Master. Ms. Roberts emphasized how with regard to
hearing Appeals that the community, those impacted parties, have the right to
be heard. Discussion followed on how to include City Council in the Appeals
process. Attorney Garganese reported
that in another City the Board of Adjustment serves in a recommending capacity
to the Council. Mr. Nicholas suggested
returning to a Workshop meeting for discussion purposes and the Regular meeting
serving for taking action purposes.
Mr. Russell stated that the purpose of the Boards
were to alleviate some of the Council’s work.
He explained how this might also drive away members committed to their
work. Mr. Russell stated that Advisory
Board members reside into the community also.
Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that the Council removed some of the Planning
and Zoning Board’s authority in their review process which affected the Board’s
performance. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated
how he was in favor of being an Appellate Board to the Board of Adjustment but
not to eliminate a Board. He explained
to Ms. Roberts that the one meeting that she focused on was an Appellate
Hearing. As a point of order, Mayor
Randels concluded to have staff review the options related to the Board of
Adjustment. On a final note, Mr. Russell
stated that the when the Council removed power from the Boards, they remove the
leverage for the Board to perform their job.
Ms. Ruth Anders expressed agreement with Ms.
Roberts. Ms. Anders submitted a
letter to City Council related to the Board of Adjustment’s decision. Ms. Anders stated that her committee had
obtained a legal opinion from the City Attorney in order for citizens to gain a
right to be heard. Ms. Anders stated
that the Board of Adjustment’s final decision should be “void ab initio.” Ms. Anders concluded that the Board’s action
had no legal validity at any time.
Mr. Werner Grewe submitted a letter to the City
Council referencing Administrative Appeals related to the Zoning Code of
Ordinances Board of Adjustment of
Ms.
Annie Tannenbaum stated that the development was different at the time of the tank farm
development. Ms. Tannenbaum also
questioned the background of the Board of Adjustment Members.
REPORTS:
Due to the lateness of the hour, there were
no reports.
AUDIENCE TO BE HEARD:
There were no further comments from the
audience.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further
business, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 11:30 P.M.
__________________________
Rocky
Randels, MAYOR
________________________________
Susan Stills, CMC, CITY CLERK