CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
CITY HALL ANNEX
THURSDAY
August 9, 2007
7:00 PM
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
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 Bennett Boucher
City Clerk Susan Stills
Building Official Todd
Morley
BOARD MEMBER INTERVIEWS:
The interview was conducted after the Approval of the Consent Agenda
Items.
Carol Delano – Recreation Board
Ms. Delano affirmed that she
answered all of the questions true and correct to the best of her ability. Ms. Delano stated that she truly loved the
City and desired to make a difference although she had no past experience. Ms. Delano stated that she lived in
Ms. Delano informed that she
accepted the position related to her studies as a teacher. Mr. Petsos expressed
that Ms. Delano served in a front-line capacity at
Hank Dinenno – Recreation Board
Mr. Boucher requested to place
a Resolution to appoint Mr. Dinenno to the Recreation Board on the next City
Council Agenda of August 21st and also to conduct his interview at
that time since the Recreation Board was in need of members. Council agreed by consensus. Mayor Randels informed that a Resolution to
appoint them both to the Board would appear on the next City Council Agenda of
August 21st.
CONSENT AGENDA:
1.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of July 17,
2007.
2. City Council Special Meeting Minutes of
July 31, 2007.
3. Resolution No. 2007-19; Appointing Lt. Hugh Evans as a
Regular Member of the Business and Cultural Development Board.
Mayor Randels asked if any member of Council, staff
or interested parties desired to remove any of the Consent Agenda items for
discussion.
No request was made to remove any item for
discussion.
A motion was made by Mr. Nicholas and seconded by Ms. Roberts to
Approve Consent Agenda Items No. 1 through 3.
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:
4. Motion to Approve: Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an
Adopt-A-Shore Agreement for
Mayor informed that the City received a letter from
Keep Brevard Beautiful requesting to allow the Residence Inn to adopt
A motion was
made by Mr. Petsos and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Hoog to Authorize the Mayor to
Execute an Adopt-A-Shore Agreement for
5. Motion
to Approve: An Appeal of the Community Appearance Board’s Decision –
Ms. Roberts stated that she was
bringing this item before the Council as a concerned citizen and had to recuse
herself from the vote. Ms. Roberts
explained that Enterprise Rental Cars presented this Application to the
Community Appearance Board on July 16th; however, subsequent to the meeting,
other options were made available of which was the Board was not aware. Ms. Roberts suggested that Council recommend
for Enterprise Car Rentals return to the Community Appearance Board with these
options.
Mr. Carlos Montanez of
Enterprise Rental Cars informed that there were several questions that came out
of the meeting. Mr. Montanez explained
that
No. (3). He said that the option to use
a vertical sign would require further review and Enterprise would want two wall
signs.
Todd Morley, Building Official,
explained that per parcel of land, a property might have: two ground signs and
one wall sign, or two wall signs and no ground signs. Ms. Roberts mentioned that the Community
Appearance Board agreed to a sign of 3-feet by 15-feet. Ms. Roberts referred the optional examples
that Enterprise could use and she recommended that the Community Appearance
Board review those options.
Mr. Montanez explained that if
the firm came before the Board again, their signage would be delayed for two
additional weeks. Mayor Randels
clarified that the original request met the requirement that the Board approved. Mr. Montanez stated that Enterprise was in
Agreement with the Board’s approval; the wall sign parallel to the street and
the pole sign.
Ms. Roberts explained how a
corporation that presents to the Community Appearance Board did not present all
of their options before the Board makes a decision. Ms. Roberts asked a member of the Community
Appearance Board to comment. Mr. Petsos
asked Mr. Montanez if Enterprise had ordered their sign. Mr. Montanez replied that he stopped the
order upon receipt of the Notice of Appeal.
Mr. Randy Wasserman,
Chairperson of the Community Appearance Board, explained this as a test of the
Appeals system since to date no Appeal had been made, even on a denial. He
thanked Ms. Roberts for contributing value to the process. Mr. Wasserman cautioned on retroactive
concerns applied to the evidence presented to the Board under sworn testimony
and approved by the Board. He
highlighted the meeting and stated that the Board allowed for two signs and one
smaller than the originally submitted 80-square-foot pole sign.
Mr. Wasserman stated that his
hesitancy to reactively set higher standards which could lead to an Appeal and
adverse judgment. Mr. Wasserman pointed
out that the City code related to Appeals referred to the denial and not an
approval of a Board decision. He also
stated that in order to support an Appeal; one would need to prove that the
testimony provided was false. Mr.
Wasserman stated that for future applications, the Board would attempt to bring
to the forum the most complete options possible related to corporate signage.
Mr. Nicholas asked if there was
a process for the applicant to request reconsideration. Attorney Garganese affirmed. Mr. Nicholas stated that an Appeal was
generally based on an Applicant’s dissatisfaction. Ms. Roberts stated her concern, as a
resident, was that the Community Appearance Board did not have a complete
presentation in that it did not include all of the corporate examples possible.
Mayor Randels stated that there were no grounds that the Applicant could not
have the signs since he met the requirement.
Mr. Walter Bowman, Community
Appearance Board member, stated that the Board considered the signage based on
the evidence presented. The Board used
its authority to adjust the size of the signage presented. Mr. Bowman concluded that only two signs were
allowed under the City code and if the Board had had what was presented this
evening, then they might have chosen the two walls signs using one of these
examples.
Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that
the Applicant worked with the Board, and if the Board agreed on something and
the Applicant accepted it, then there was no point of discussion. Ms. Roberts stated that the community was not
well served since the Board did not have full disclosure of all of the options
from the Applicant; therefore, she presented an Appeal to Council.
Mr. Wasserman stated that the
burden of proof was difficult in ascertaining if the Applicant was
knowledgeable of all possible options or if it were mere ignorance on his
part. Ms. Roberts stated that the
information was available on the Enterprise web site and staff could provide
the additional research in support. Mr.
Wasserman pointed out how extended research was outside of the scope of the
Board making a decision on what was presented.
He stated that the applicant had the burden to present a complete
package. Mr. Wasserman concluded that
the Board could only ascertain that what was being presented was harmonious;
however, the Board could not force an Applicant to comply.
Mr. Petsos commended the Board
on their decision that provided for a reduced sized, sign that was set back
further on State Road A1A. Mr. Roger
Combs commented that when a corporation applied to a Board, he did not believe
the City had a right to pursue options aside from those presented as long as an
Applicant met the City’s code requirement.
Mr. Dobson stated his objection to research in advance of the
meeting.
Mr. Wasserman reminded that
Florida Municipal Home Rule did successfully guide appearance standards. Ms. Roberts stated that the Board appeared to
have struggled with the Application review and the corporation in good faith
could have presented the other options.
In closing, Mr. Wasserman stated that the decision was a cooperative
effort between the Board and Mr. Montanez.
A motion was made by Mayor Randels and seconded by Mr. Petsos to Deny
an Appeal of the Aggrieved Party related to the Enterprise Rental Sign. The vote on the motion carried 4-0 to Deny the Appeal
with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem
Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For, and Ms.
Roberts, Recused.
SITE
PLAN:
6. Motion
to Approve: Consideration of Mermaid Key Site Plan –
140 Condominium Units and 25,800 Square Feet of Commercial.
Mayor Randels reviewed that the Planning and Zoning Board recommended the
Site Plan on June 28th with (7) conditions.
The City Council first heard the Site Plan on July 17, 2007 and added
(2) conditions: 1) the Unity of Title be prepared and executed on the south
commercial parcel and, 2) the Applicant would bear all costs associated with
the vacation of the existing sewer easement and the dedication of the proposed
relocated sewer main easement, as well as design and installation change orders
for the force main replacement.
Mr. Boucher informed that the City had discussions with St. John’s River
Water Management District related to wetland on the property and the need for a
Mitigation Plan. Jeff Ratliff,
Stormwater Administrator, was available for any questions from the
Council. Mr. Boucher stated that
although the project was a proposed phased development, the
Project would need to remain in progress in order to keep the Site Plan
active.
Attorney Tim Pickles 3490 North US 1, Cocoa addressed the Council on
behalf of Mr. Martin Greene, Mermaid Key LLC.
He stated that this application was presented in February, approved by
the Planning and Zoning Board in June and still with the City Council in
August. Attorney Pickles read from the
City code related to Site Plans concluding that the City Council shall make a
final decision if the Applicant has met the requirements. He concluded that Mr. Greene would apply for
extensions as necessary.
Mr. Martin Greene, Mermaid Key LLC, affirmed his intent of a phased
project with a completion date of 2012 constructed in two to three buildings at
a time. He explained that there was six
months of site work anticipated first.
He stated that the first occupancy level would begin in 2009. Mr. Petsos questioned if the City could seek
a Development Agreement since this was a phased development. Attorney Garganese affirmed.
Ms. Roberts addressed information related to the condominium documents
and a permit request from the St. John’s River Water Management District
[SJRWMD]. Ms. Roberts also stated her
concern that when the Site Plan was proposed it was not presented as a resort
condominium. Attorney Pickles replied
that the Site Plan was for a residential condominium. However, the City’s Ordinance provided the mechanism
for Mr. Greene to apply as a resort condominium. Any consideration outside of the City’s code
was an incorrect application of the City Ordinance.
Ms. Roberts represented her concerns that the Applicant did not provide
the Planning and Zoning Board with all of the information to make
recommendations to the City Council. Ms.
Roberts stated her belief that the Council had a broader role to represent the
interests of the community as it relates to the interpretation of the Ordinance
and the carrying out of the community’s interest. Attorney Pickles clarified that the Council
would make a decision within the parameters of the Ordinance.
Ms. Roberts stated that she tabled the Approval at the City Council
Meeting on July 17th based on: 1) there was a question related to
condominium documents, 2) the application presented to the Planning and Zoning
Board did not present the project as a resort condominium project, and 3) there
was permit work with the SJRWMD that was not apparent to the Planning and Zoning
Board. She concluded that there was not
full disclosure and that the City needs more time to deliberate on the actual
intent of this development.
Attorney Pickles stated that the condominium records, in Draft form, were
in place for the permit related to SJRWMD that sought to ascertain that an
Association would be present to enforce the terms of its permit. Mr. Petsos informed that the documents were
very thorough and concise and Page 14 referred to 30-day rentals. Attorney Pickles informed that the documents
were submitted to the SJRWMD not the Department of Business and Professional
Regulations [DBPR].
Attorney Pickles stated that the documents could not be submitted to the
DBPR until the Site Plan was approved.
At the time they were submitted to the SJRWMD for the purpose of
establishing stormwater intentions, the City had not finalized its Ordinance on
resort dwellings. Mr. Nicholas asked if
there were issues related to mitigation since St. John’s was mentioned several
times. Mr. Ratliff would address this
question.
Ms. Roberts stated her concern that the Planning and Zoning Board did not
have the full disclosure as presented to the Council related to resort
dwellings. Attorney Pickles requested to
establish for the record if the Council was using becoming a resort condominium
as a basis for their decision and he did not believe that that was
appropriate. Ms. Roberts responded that
the full disclosure was not made to the Planning and Zoning Board. Attorney Pickles stated that the Site Plan
was an overlay of development on a given parcel of land based on certain
criteria not its potential use.
Mr. Boucher pointed out that the Supplementary District regulations in
Section 110-491, required two spaces per living unit. Mr. Morley replied that the project was
reviewed as two per unit. Todd Peetz,
City Planner, informed that at this time there was nothing in the code related
to parking for resort dwellings. Mayor Pro
Tem Hoog stated that the parking requirements should come into consideration if
he should apply for a Resort Condominium application.
Mayor Randels informed that Mr. Greene received information from Mr. John
Juliana from the SJRWND related to mitigation: 1) a drainage ditch, and 2) a
pond. Mr. Greene informed that SJRWMD’s
provided stringent regulations. He
referred to the City’s drainage ditch project and he asked if he could use the
funding toward the drainage ditch between his properties versus sending it to
the Miami Corporation. Mr. Greene
informed that SJRWMD provided a strict checklist related to this mitigation
project.
Mr. Ratliff informed that SJRWMD expressed their favor with the project
and in their work with Mr. Greene’s staff.
Mr. Greene informed that he responded “no” to the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Commission related to adding any docks, boat launches, or changing the
area related to the manatees. His civil
engineer would reply on any permissible pipes running into the canal.
Mr. Greene stated that the Planning and Zoning Board was thorough and he
stated there was nothing undisclosed.
Mr. Greene also reminded that the mitigation funding was available to
the City. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog thanked Mr.
Greene for seeking the mitigation-funding venue and said that the City would
continue this practice with developers in the future.
Mr. Nicholas questioned if the recreation area issues was resolved. Mr. Moe Ledeaux,
President of the Treasure Island Club thanked the Council for hearing
from their Association. He stated that
Treasure Island Club prepared through their Attorneys a list of issues related
to walls, fences, boundaries, docks, water rights, and easements. Mr. Ledeaux presented a copy to Council
members.
Mr. Ledeaux stated that Mr. Greene informed him that he would review the
document with his Attorney as well. Mr.
Ledeaux also stated that Treasure Island Club would continue dialogue with Mr.
Greene. Attorney Pickles stated that he
could not answer if all of the criteria on the document were agreed to at this
time without subsequent discussion.
Mr. Nicholas asked if there were any plans on the developer’s part to
make improvements to the Recreation area.
Mr. Greene stated that he did not desire to disturb their peaceful
rights to the use that property until the last possible moment and for the shortest
duration of time. Mr. Greene summarized
that he would request minimal disturbance from his site engineer. Mr. Greene replied to Mayor Randels that
there were no plans for crossovers.
Mayor Randels stated that all conditions must be met within 90-days from
City Council’s Site Plan approval. Mr.
Boucher stated that the City should also receive a record copy of the Wetlands
Mitigation Plans from SJRWMD as an additional condition of Site Plan approval. Attorney Garganese explained how a
Development Agreement would allow to phasing their development project without
expiration of their Site Plan. Attorney
Pickles expressed that the applicant would be willing to pursue a Development
Agreement; however, the developer had met the Site Plan criteria. Mr. Boucher summarized for the record that
the Council reviewed this Site Plan as a residential condominium. An amended Site Plan would return to the
Council.
Ms. Roberts stated that the community was not informed of the Applicant’s
intent to apply as a resort condominium that was different from a residential
condominium. Attorney Pickles stated
that the Ordinance did not delineate a difference for purposes of a Site Plan
application. Attorney Garganese
explained that a Site Plan review related to the technical requirements of the
City code. He concluded that the Mermaid
Key project met the technical requirements.
Mr. Lamar Russell, Planning and Zoning Board Vice Chairperson, stated
that the Site Plan was reviewed in a technical manner based on a checklist
within the City code. Mr. Russell
explained that an application as a resort condominium would have also become
part of the technical review. Mr.
Russell summarized that the Site Plan was for a residential use in a
residential zone. He stated that if the
Council did not approve the Site Plan and proposed to send it back to the
Planning and Zoning Board, he requested to know what was yet required when the
Applicant met the criteria.
Ms. Roberts stated that the Planning and Zoning Board had, in her opinion,
a role beyond a technical review. Mr.
Russell stated that the SJRWMD permit came out during discussion and it was
added to the list of conditions. Mr.
Russell stated that all City meetings were open to the public and residents
were welcomed to attend and voice their concerns. Ms. Roberts stated that the community had the
right to weigh in on whether or not the Mermaid Key project was planned as a
resort condominium.
Ms. Sharon
Molinari of the Treasure Island Club condominiums questioned what the City
planned to do about the proposed traffic due to the Mermaid Key project. Mayor Randels replied that the Planning and
Zoning Board addressed all concurrency issues related to the project to include
traffic. Mr. Nicholas reminded that the
City had petitioned the State many times for a traffic light at the Columbia
Drive intersection; however, they were refused.
Mr. Boucher informed that the Florida Department of Transportation
preferred to observe the active levels of traffic prior to installing a streetlight. Ms. Molinari reminded of the two deaths that
occurred due to the lack of a traffic light.
Mr. Paul Stewart informed that he
was waiting for Mr. Greene’s development in order to purchase there. He reminded that Mr. Greene previously
brought a mixed-use development project to the Council that the Council
denied. Mr. Stewart requested that the
Council proceed to take action in light of his interest in a property purchase.
Mr. Boucher referred to the June 28th memo from the Planning
and Zoning Board listing the (7) conditions:
1) The sewer line from the south commercial building
needs an easement; and the sewer line needs to be relocated to save a 20” tree.
2) The lift station pump sequence shall be changed so an
alarm is activated if the liquid level rises above the lead pump “on” level and
before the liquid level reaches the lag pump “on” level.
3) The north and south fountain details shall be
redesigned, because the present 18” dimensions are incorrect.
4) Provisions shall be made for recycling containers at
each dumpster site.
5) A lighting plan for the streets and sidewalks shall
be submitted and approved by the City.
6) The City shall approve a shared parking easement on
the north parcel.
7) Cross access easements shall be provided on the north
and south parcels.
Mayor Randels also read the three additional conditions:
8)
The
Unity of Title be prepared and executed on the south commercial parcel.
9)
All
costs associated with the vacation of the existing sewer easement and the
dedication of the proposed relocated sewer main easement, as well as design and
installation change orders for the force main replacement project, be borne by
the applicant.
10)
An
approved mitigation plan from the St. John’s River Water Management District
for the pond area classified as wetlands shall become part of the approved Site
Plan.
Mr. Greene informed that Ed Gardulski, former Public Works Director had
discussed with him the best place to install the sewer main; therefore, he was
aware of the intended placement and its cost.
Mr. Boucher clarified that the cost for any change orders related to
this project would be borne by the Applicant.
Mr. Greene made note that he would confer with Jeff Ratliff, Stormwater
Administrator, relating to the funding from the St. John’s River Water
Management District, in order to obtain his permit from the St. John’s River
Water Management District.
A motion was made
by Mayor Pro Tem Hoog and seconded by Mr. Petsos to Approve:
Consideration of Mermaid Key Site Plan – 140 Condominium Units and 25,800
Square Feet of Commercial Contingent Upon the (10) Conditions Within (90) Days
of the Approval. The
vote on the motion carried 4-1 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, For;
Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For, and Ms. Roberts, Against.
REPORTS:
1. City Manager
·
Mr.
Boucher thanked everyone who
participated with the National Night Out.
·
Mr.
Boucher announced the Space Coast League
of Cities dinner in Cocoa Beach on Monday, August 13th.
·
Mr.
Boucher announced the Florida League of
Cities Annual Conference on August 16th through August 18th.
·
Mr.
Boucher announced that the next City
Council Meeting on August 21st would occur at the Library Meeting
Room. The President of Ron Jon’s
would make a presentation.
·
Mr.
Boucher scheduled a meeting on Tuesday,
August 28th at 5:30 P.M. related to the Chronic Nuisance Ordinance
and the Civil Citation Program.
·
Mr.
Boucher scheduled an Evaluation and
Appraisal Report Meeting on August 29th at 5:30 P.M.
·
Mr.
Boucher reported the need for discussion on mixed-use development.
·
Mr.
Boucher made note that the Development
Review Process as also a subject left for discussion. [Ms. Roberts expressed her concern that a
date had not been set for this meeting.]
·
Mr.
Boucher scheduled a meeting on Thursday,
Sign Code on August 30th at 5:30 P.M.
2. Staff
Mr. Morley
·
Mr.
Morley announced that draft interior
plans were available for the new building and he encouraged the Council to
review and comment. He was in the
process of bidding out the work.
Todd Peetz
·
Mr.
Peetz and the City Manager would schedule
a date and time for a Mixed-Use discussion.
City
Clerk
·
No
report.
City
Attorney
·
No
report.
AUDIENCE TO BE HEARD:
·
Ms. Martha Hoffman, addressed the Council on the gazebo at
Center Street. She related that the
manatees were being harassed and the gazebo abused. Ms. Hoffman asked if there were anything else
that the City could do to secure the premises and she informed of how the
police were non-responsive to the residents concerns. She recommended signage and informed that
their Association was considering surveillance cameras. The concerned residents
requested to convey in some form that the park be used for its intended
purpose.
3. City Council
Ms. Roberts
·
Ms.
Roberts stated her concern for lack of
time to discuss the concerns from the
community as well as the Council.
Mayor Randels suggested providing the City Manager for two or three
items for the Discussion portion of the Council Agenda.
Mr. Nicholas
·
Mr.
Nicholas requested to revise the Agenda in
order hear Council Members comments in the beginning of the meeting.
Mr. Petsos
·
Mr.
Petsos requested to place on the Agenda the potential of stop signs on North Atlantic Avenue.
This would provide for public notice. Ms. Roberts asked if some of the questions
submitted earlier related to North Atlantic Avenue could be answered prior to
the discussion on the stop signs.
·
Mr.
Petsos acknowledged that the City web
site was under construction and thanked the City Clerk for her assistance
with N’Sync Data Systems on this project.
Mayor Pro Tem Hoog
·
No
report.
Mayor Randels
·
No
report.
ADJOURNMENT:
There
being no further business, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 10:05 P.M.
_________________________________
Rocky
Randels, MAYOR
________________________________
Susan Stills, CITY CLERK