CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
CITY HALL ANNEX
THURSDAY
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 Bennett Boucher
City Attorney Anthony Garganese
City Clerk Susan Stills
Building Official Todd
Morley
City Planner Todd
Peetz
Mayor
Randels announced that the Ron Jon Presentation would occur at the City Council
Meeting of
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 asked if an interview was planned for two of the Recreation Board
Members applicants prior to appointing them to the Board.
Ms.
Roberts asked the Chair if he would use the discussion Parking Board in order
for the Council to return to items that arise during the meeting.
Ms.
Roberts referred to the last page of the August 9th Meeting Minutes
and clarified that, “she asked for answers to some questions related to
A motion was made by Mr. Nicholas and seconded by Mr. Petsos to Approve
Consent Agenda Item No. 1 as amended.
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.
RESOLUTIONS:
2. Motion
to Adopt: Resolution No. 2007-19; Appointing Regular Members to the Recreation
Board.
Mayor Randels explained that the Resolution would
appoint two Regular Members and one Alternate member. He stated that there was a lack of a quorum
due to several resignations.
Mayor Randels read Resolution No. 2007-19 by title.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CAPE
CANAVERAL, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA; APPOINTING
TWO REGULAR MEMBERS AND ONE ALTERNATE
MEMER TO THE RECREATION BOARD OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA;
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Robert Lefever, Acting Recreation Director, explained
how Eileen Kendret would be appointed as Recreation Member due to the removal
of two Regular Members since the last meeting.
Mayor Randels clarified that there were three Regular Member positions
and two alternate positions available on the Board. Mayor Randels re-read the Resolution
inserting the names Carol Delano, Hank Dinenno, and Eileen Kendret as Regular
Members to the Recreation Board.
BOARD
MEMBER INTERVIEWS:
Hank Dinenno
Mr. Dinenno affirmed that all of his answers to the
questions on his application were true and correct to the best of his
ability. Mr. Dinenno stated that he
desired to get involved and he had been involved with the Little League for
many years. Mr. Dinenno is currently
Vice President of the Little League. He
has lived in
Eileen
Kendret
Ms. Kendret affirmed that all of her answers to the
questions on her application were true and correct to the best of her
ability. Ms. Kendret stated this
opportunity as something helpful for the community. She informed that she is Secretary to the
Kiwanis Club and she could help to identify the needs of youth. Mr. Petsos and Mayor Pro Tem Hoog commended
Ms. Kendret for her concern for youth, her thoroughness, her efficiency, and
diligent work with the Kiwanis Club. Ms.
Roberts informed that Ms. Kendret was instrumental in obtaining a rug for the
young reader’s room at the Cape Canaveral Library. Mayor Randels clarified that the Resolution
would state that all three people would become Regular Members
Mr. Petsos acknowledged Ms. Carol Delano in the
audience and noted that all three of the Board applicants were involved with
the City’s youth.
A motion was made by Mr. Petsos and seconded jointly by Mayor Pro Tem
Hoog and Ms. Roberts to Adopt Resolution No. 2007-19. 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. Resolution No. 2007-20; Appointing the Final Replat of Villa
Cielo Townhomes; John
Mayor Randels read Resolution No. 2007-20 by title.
A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA; APPROVING THE FINAL REPLAT OF “VILLA CIELO TOWNHOMES”; AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND THE CITY CLERK TO CERTIFY THE REPLAT; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
Mayor Randels stated that the
Planning and Zoning Board recommended the Replat on
Mr. R. Lamar Russell,
Vice-Chairperson, of the Planning and Zoning Board asked if there was any
documentation that defined the rights of a unit dweller in a townhome. Todd Morley, Building Official, stated that
these were individually platted lots with no common property. Mr. Russell stated how previously there was
documentation to delineate the rights of each individual homeowner. Ms. Roberts pointed out the concern related
to common walls. Mr. Russell explained
that there was a common roof with the rights related to each owner in
common. Mr. Morley explained how in the
past the parapet extended at least 18-inches above the roof and there were
several examples around the City. The
roof was still within the centerline of the party wall; so, a person could have
changes to one townhome unit that did not apply to the other unit. Mr. Russell
re-stated that there were rights and responsibilities in the past that applied
between the townhome owners.
Attorney Garganese asked if
there was a common wall. Mr. Butler
affirmed that there was a common roof and wall.
Attorney Garganese stated that in order to protect the future owners
there were documents that needed to be submitted that would be recorded with
the land to protect the interest of the future owners. The document should be submitted to the
Building Official for review. Attorney
Garganese stated that the document would be recorded with this Final
Replat. Ms. Roberts suggested this as a
Parking Board issue.
Mayor Randels asked if the
submittal of a common wall and roof Agreement would become a condition of
Approval. Attorney Garganese affirmed
that the Plat would be recorded with those documents submitted in a form
acceptable to the City. Mr. Russell
re-stated that Association Agreements, which delineated the owner’s
responsibilities, were a past requirement.
Mayor Pro Tem Hoog pointed out
that the parapet through the roof separated the individual ownership. Ms. Sandy Young informed that her friend was
impacted by this same rule in which she replaced her roof and she asked if her
friend could retroactively submit for retribution from their neighbor for a
roof replacement. Mayor Randels replied
that the City could not apply this action to a past event.
A motion was made by Mr. Petsos and seconded Mr. Nicholas to Adopt
Resolution No. 2007-20 with the Conditions that the Applicant would Submit an
Acceptable Shared Common Wall and Roof Agreement to the City. 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 Adopt; Resolution No. 2007-21; Approving the
Preliminary Replat of
Mayor Randels read Resolution
No. 2007-21 by title.
A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY OF
Mayor Randels explained this as 5-townhome units on
the northeast corner of
Mr. Russell commented on how the Preliminary Re-plat
was a three-step process. During the
Preliminary Re-Plat, the Council would review, 1) correct lot identification,
2) Site Plan review, at this point the Council could address the property use,
and 3) a Final Re-Plat based on any adjustments. Mayor Randels asked if a Tri-plex required a
Site Plan review. Mr. Peetz replied to
Mayor Randels that four or more units required a Site Plan review. However, three units or less would require a
Preliminary Replat and a Final Replat.
Ms. Roberts stated how Council’s involvement at this
stage lent itself to a Community Redevelopment Director who could address some
of the broader community issues at the onset of the process. Mayor Randels stated that those duties were
related to zoning. Mr. Russell stated
further that the Site Plan review was the time for an in-depth review; however,
the City code dictated what could be constructed.
A motion
was made by Ms. Roberts to table the item until the applicant was present. The motion failed for lack of a second.
Attorney Garganese explained that the zoning would
dictate what type of uses could occur and the regulations for the lot
sizes. He stated that the Council could
ask at this stage how the developer planned to use the lot. Attorney Garganese agreed with Mayor Randels
that the zoning regulations do govern.
He stated that Development Agreements would address issues in the
beginning. Ms. Roberts requested to place Development Agreements on the Parking
Board.
Ms. Roberts expressed that her understanding of
Council’s role was to ask the broader questions earlier in the process and not
to simply approve the recommended plan.
She replied to Mr. Nicholas that the questions were not to challenge an
owner’s property rights. Attorney
Garganese clarified that the discussion of Development Agreements should
include the language “when appropriate” within the Development Review Process
on the Parking Board.
Ms. Angela Preston asked if there were a minimum lot
size for re-platting. Mayor Randels
affirmed and also informed that there was a distinction between residential and
commercial re-platting. Mr. Nicholas
clarified for Ms. Preston that re-platting changed the dimension of the lot;
however, rezoning changed the use of the zoning district.
A motion was made by Mr. Petsos and seconded Mr. Nicholas to Adopt
Resolution No. 2007-21. The vote on the
motion carried 3-1 and 1 Abstain with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, Abstain; Mr. Nicholas,
For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For, and Ms. Roberts, Against.
DISCUSSION:
5. Installation
of Stop Signs on the
Mayor Randels explained that
the intention was to install stop signs along the
Ms. Roberts questioned if the
item was on the Agenda for discussion purposes only. Mr. Petsos replied that with Council
agreement action could be taken. Mr.
Petsos stated that the reason he requested this item was to provide community
protection and he proposed two stop signs for speed and traffic reduction. Mr. Petsos explained how speeding was
deterred due to the stop signs on
Ms. Roberts stated that a
Workshop in the Fall would allow for more input from the community related to
the larger picture for
Ms. Kathy Miller asked if the Council were discussing “STOP” signs. Mayor Randels clarified that the City had
funding for stop signs; however, other items, such as road widening, would
require additional funding. Ms. Miller stated
that any present action to deflect the truck and traffic from using
Ms. Ruth Anders stated that this also would deter residents from using the road as
well. Ms. Anders suggested a sign
prohibiting trucks of a certain size. Mayor Randels informed that State Road
401,
Mayor Randels explained how the
residents pointed out that the City’s north and south road plan with turning
lanes permitted a straight thoroughfare to the Port. Mayor Randels affirmed to Ms. Anders that the
City had performed a traffic study.
Mr. Werner Grewe suggested placing the stop signs at the most needed access points,
such as
Mr. John Anderson, Business and Cultural Development Board Chairperson, informed that
although the Board’s mission was the development of business, they had
discussed traffic restrictions during the Redevelopment Plan. He stated that what the City Manager was proposing
was a relatively inexpensive tactical issue that would have long-term strategic
value toward the City intent to prohibit high-speed traffic.
Mr. Boucher informed that of
the segment between
Mr. John Grandlich of Ron Jon’s Cape Caribe Resort asked for the Council’s intent in the
use of the stop signs. He stated most of
the Resort’s visitor’s ingress from
Mayor Pro Tem Hoog agreed with
how the residents along North Atlantic Avenue on the east side of the road have
difficulty accessing the road; however, he did not observe any traffic problems
along the west side of
Ms. Roberts stated for the
record that the Council would schedule a Fall Workshop related to the
AUDIENCE TO BE
HEARD:
·
Ms.
Ruth Anders addressed the Council and questioned the lack of response to E-mail for
Mr. Nicholas. Mr. Nicholas responded
that he did not use his computer; however, Ms. Anders could telephone him. Ms. Anders stated that she did not receive
any response related to the Board of Adjustment’s decision to be overturned
“void abnitio.” Ms. Anders also stated
that she sent another E-mail for a response related to the Board’s draft
cleared by the City Attorney.
Mayor Randels
replied that Ms. Anders’ letter was turned over to the City Attorney. Mayor Randels clarified that up to this time,
the Board has made no decision. Attorney Garganese informed that on Thursday,
August 23rd the Board would make a final decision. Ms. Anders also asked for the status of the
Development Review Process. Mayor
Randels replied that there was no final decision.
Ms. Anders stated
that she requested for the City Attorney to declare the Board’s findings Void
Ab Nitio {from the beginning} based on seven legal points in that Coastal Fuels
did not have the legal standing to Appeal.
Ms. Anders informed that she added statements to her most recent
document related to Mr. McMillin recusing himself since he was a Harbor Master
at the Port and might have financial interest in the tank expansion.
Ms. Roberts stated
her concern with the cultural norms of the City in not providing for a response
to questions and stated that the City does owe the community a response. Mr. Boucher responded that the E-mail was
addressed to the Council and this meeting was the first time that the Council
could hear her concerns in a public meeting.
Mayor Randels
explained that Public Meetings were the only forum for the Council to provide
direction to staff. Mayor Randels stated
that the Council could only make decisions in public and as a collective
body. Attorney Garganese stated that the
Board of Adjustment needed to complete their delegated duties under the Code on
this Application and render a Final Order.
Attorney Garganese replied that Ms. Anders’ use of void abnitio was
based on a
Ms. Roberts
questioned the right of the community to weigh-in through the Board of
Adjustment’s process or the Council’s normal business process. Attorney Garganese replied that any challenge
would proceed to Court and the City would then defend the Board. Ms. Anders related on the community’s
frustration over the public health, safety, and welfare due to the Coastal
Fuels tank issue. Attorney Garganese
responded to Ms. Roberts that the community would have no public input during
the Community Appearance Board meeting on Thursday, August 23rd.
Attorney Garganese
clarified that the Council could choose as large a role as it cared to in
amending the City code. Ms. Roberts
stated her concern that the Council did not schedule a meeting for continued
discussion of the Development Review Process and it was the only meeting not
scheduled during the previous City Council meeting. Attorney Garganese referred Ms. Anders to
City Code Section 110-40 related to the Board of Adjustment procedures.
Attorney Garganese
clarified for the record that he had a telephone conversation with both
Attorney Rick Torpy and Attorney Karl Bohne related to the rights of the public
to speak at a public meeting. He stated
that he disclosed, in fairness to the hearing process, Ms. Anders letter as
part of the record. Attorney Garganese
stated that he opined on the public’s right to speak in his Opinion
Letter. Mayor Randels responded to a
resident that the public would not have the right to speak at the Board
of Adjustment meeting on Thursday, August 23rd.
Ms. Anders asked
the Mayor for clarification related to who would proceed to litigation. Mayor Randels stated that the next step in
the process was the Appellate Court.
Attorney Garganese stated that the Board would consider the Draft Order
on August 23rd and they would either approve the Draft Order or
amend it; however, there would be no re-arguing of the case. Ms. Anders summarized how the Board should
not have allowed Coastal Fuels a Vested Right to Appeal. Ms. Anders pointed out that the community
would only have 30 days following the Board’s decision to Appeal.
Attorney Garganese
explained the sequence of events for Mr. Nicholas as: 1) the Board of
Adjustment will issue its Final Order, 2) the Building Official and his
Attorney will review the final order along with Ms. Anders argument, and 3)
they will report back to the Council to explain what options if any the
Building Official has in this matter. An
Appeal from the Building Official would require authorization from the City
Council.
Mr. Russell stated
that the Council’s job was to uphold the law without interference in the Board
of Adjustment’s process. He stated that any comments back to the public should
be made after a decision was made. Ms. Roberts stated her disagreement with Mr.
Russell as well as her opinion that the community had not been given its due
process.
A motion was made by Ms. Roberts for the
City Council’s Consensus to Direct the Building Official to Request His
Attorney Karl Bohne to Evaluate the Council’s Appellate Rights and the
Council’s Right to Declare the Board’s Decision Void Ab Nitio and Also For His
Attorney Karl Bohne to Respond to the Seven Legal Points in Ms. Anders Letter
Dated August 20th. The motion failed for
lack of a second.
Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that he
took an Oath of Office to uphold the City’s processes and those processes
needed to take their course and for that reason he did not second the
motion. He added that afterward, Mr.
Morley had the right to return for an Appeal.
Ms. Roberts stated the community’s process was not taken in
account. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that
the concern was not represented by the community at large. While he sympathized with their concern, the
process still needed to take its course.
The City Attorney clarified that in his view the Council would not have
interfered with the process by evaluating what could happen after the Board
issues its Final Order. Mayor Pro Tem
Hoog pointed out that a Council action prior to the meeting might affect the
Board. Ms. Roberts stated her concern
with the Council’s responsibility as elected officials to respond to the
community and she was attempting to obtain a response during the Council
meeting.
There was no further public comment.
REPORTS:
1. City Manager
·
Mr.
Boucher announced the following meetings:
o
Tuesday, August 28th at 5:30 P.M.
– Chronic Nuisance and Civil Citation Program
o
Wednesday, August 29th at 5:30
P.M. – Evaluation and Appraisal Report
o
Thursday, August 30th at 5:30
P.M. – Sign Code
·
Mr.
Boucher announced that the Ron Jon
Presentation would occur at the City Council Meeting on Tuesday, September 4th.
·
Mr.
Boucher announced the First Budget
Hearing on Wednesday, September 5th at 5:30 P.M.
·
Mr.
Boucher stated that the Council would need
additional meetings to discuss the Evaluation and Appraisal Report.
·
Mr.
Boucher also stated that the Council would need additional meetings on the Development Review process.
·
Mr.
Boucher also announced an oncoming issue related to School Concurrency that would affect development.
·
Mr. Boucher
referred to two Memorandums from the Business and Cultural Development Board
and their agreement related to: the new
Community Development Director and budgeting for a
·
Mr.
Boucher informed that the Beautification
Board would work with the Recreation Board to acquire park benches around
the City.
2. Staff
Mr. Morley
·
Mr.
Morley reported on his revised draft of
the Building Department plans for the newly purchased building.
City
Clerk
·
Ms.
Stills reminded that the General Election
Qualifying Period would end as of
Recreation
·
Mr.
Lefever thanked the Council for the expeditious process in order to obtain new Recreation Board members.
City
Attorney
·
No
report.
3. City Council
Ms. Roberts
·
Ms.
Roberts agreed with Mr. Nicholas to
revise the City Council Agenda to accommodate hearing from the Council and
the audience prior to City business.
Mr. Nicholas
·
Mr.
Nicholas requested to revise the Agenda
format in order to hear from the Council and the audience for approximately
one-half hour at the beginning of the Agenda.
He suggested that this come before the Consent Agenda. Council members
agreed by consensus.
Mr. Petsos
·
Mr.
Petsos commended Robert Lefever on
the Summer Youth Program.
Mayor
Pro Tem Hoog
·
Mayor
Pro Tem Hoog suggested hear the City
Council and Audience comments prior to City business similar to what is
done in
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