BUSINESS & CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
March 19, 2008
A Regular Meeting of the
Business & Cultural Development Board was held on March 19, 2008 at the
City Hall Annex,
Chairperson Muncey called the
meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
INTERVIEW: Prospective
Board Member John W. Craig
Ms. Muncey advised that Mr.
Craig was out of the country and unable to attend this meeting. Members agreed to table this item until the
April 16, 2008 meeting.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES:
1. Regular Meeting of February 20, 2008
Moved by Mr. Peterson,
seconded by Ms. Marcum to approve the minutes of January 16, 2008. Motion to approve the minutes carried
unanimously.
In response to Ms. Marcum’s
questions, Ms. McIntire responded that (a) there was no report on the
Memorandum of Understanding Between the Cocoa Beach Area Chamber of Commerce
and the City of Cape Canaveral (MOU) and (b) there was no report on the
business survey.
Moved by Ms. Marcum, seconded
by Mr. Peterson to recommend that the City Council defer action on the business
survey. Chairperson Muncey asked for
discussion.
Ms. Marcum presented that the
board had prepared a draft business survey over one year ago and there had been
no action taken by the City to date. She
did not see a strong value in it at this point in time. Mr. Anderson presented that the mission statement
of the board, as outlined in the ordinance, called for the board to
periodically survey the businesses to understand their needs and
interests. A community survey was
prepared two years ago by UCF in order to gain a sense of the types of
businesses and amenities preferred by the residents. He said it was a valuable piece of work that
has influenced some of the thinking within the City. The plan was to proceed with a follow-up
survey with the businesses; however, it has not gone forward. He agreed with Ms. Marcum and Mr. Peterson
that there were more important issues and with the current economic climate and
drastic changes taking place, there would not be much value to a business
survey at this time.
Motion carried unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS
Action: Review
Section 110-331, Permitted Uses Within C-1 Low Density Commercial District with
City Planner
Mr. Todd Peetz introduced
himself. He explained that this item,
along with the business survey, came up in code review. City Council felt that the B&CDB should provide
input on this section prior to the council finishing this portion of the code
review. He distributed copies of
commercial uses for
Mr. Peetz presented that
Mr. Peetz advised that the
City of Cocoa Beach had (17) permitted uses; however, they had uses that
Mr. Peetz advised that the
City of
Mr. Peetz advised that the
City of
Mr. Peetz advised that the
City of
Mr. Peetz advised that one of
the things that came out of council’s review of the code was a suggestion from
the Redevelopment Plan which was to utilize the community survey and list the
permitted uses by preference and periodically update the survey. This would then serve as a marketing tool and
would let potential investors/developers know the types of businesses that were
preferred by the residents.
Ms. Marcum asked the process
for an individual who wanted to open a certain type of business that was not
included under permitted uses. Mr. Peetz
responded that the City would attempt to fit the business into an existing
category; however, there may be some “gray areas” that would need further
research. Ms. Marcum noted that some of
the other cities were very concise in their definitions of permitted uses;
whereas,
Mr. Anderson asked what the
board was trying to achieve this evening.
Mr. Peetz responded that council was requesting that the board review
the current list of permitted uses to determine if the list was adequate, prioritize,
make additions and/or deletions, and forward its recommendation to
council. The board’s recommendation
would be based on the board’s opinion and feedback from the community survey.
Mr. Peterson asked if council
did away with special exceptions along the A1A corridor. Mr. Peetz affirmed and said this was
addressed in paragraph 10 within Section 110-334 of the code.
Ms. Marcum presented that the
community survey was directional and not a statistically accurate survey. It was a good guide, but she did not feel the
City should define the code around the survey.
Council Member Roberts
presented that the intent of the community survey was to help give council
additional feedback and the leverage from the survey gave the board the ability
to update the ordinance. She said
council only had the ordinance for reference when an investor/developer
presented a proposal. It was important
for the board to update the uses, if necessary, and prioritize. She also stressed that council needed this
board’s input regarding mixed use.
Ms. Muncey thought the
previous action taken by the board had satisfied the City Council. Mr. Anderson added that the board had, in the
past, forwarded unanimous recommendations to the City Council to adopt
provisions to allow mixed use development within the City, where appropriate,
and he was unsure as to what more was being asked of the board.
Council Member Roberts
presented that this board had a creative opportunity to help steer the future
of business development within the City.
She presented that council took action on the resort dwellings because
of the Mission Statement. She pointed
out that there were a number of rental companies in the City and several
additional hotels were coming into the City.
Council was looking for guidance through the ordinance. The City had the potential of becoming a
service city to the port and
Mr. Anderson presented if
this board was being asked to offer its views on permitted uses, uses to
exclude and prioritization of uses, the board would need to have an objective
basis on how the board would do this rather than just based on personal
preferences. The board would need clarification
from council as to their vision for the City.
He presented that the community survey was a useful tool which gave some
idea of desired businesses by several hundred people, but the businesses were
not prioritized. For the board to
prioritize the permitted uses, there would need to be agreement on some
objective criteria; such as, what do the residents of City think they
want? what types of uses might have the
greatest employment impact? what types
of uses would create the greatest tax base? what types of uses leave the
smallest carbon footprint? should the amount of same type of uses be limited? Without objective criteria, recommendations
from this board would be purely subjective.
In response to Mr. Peterson’s
question of what exactly was being asked of this board, Mr. Peetz replied that
at council level, there was thought that, perhaps, some uses should be added
that the City had not thought about and/or moved over to the Special Exception
or Prohibited categories and they looked at this board for feedback. The first task of this board would be to
identify the permitted uses and the second task would be for the board to
decide if they wanted to prioritize the uses and, if so, how should this task
be accomplished.
Mr. Anderson did not feel
that the prioritization of uses should be within the code, but rather included
in some sort of strategic marketing plan where it would have some practical
meaning.
Council Member Roberts
presented that the code was not proactive and council was in a reactive
mode. She said businesses continued to
come into the City without any strategic guidance from the City.
Ms. Muncey, personally, did
not feel qualified to state what types of uses should or should not be
included, and she would be more prone to look at whether or not a business was
a “green” business that would be healthy for the City. She added that the board’s recommendation for
these types of businesses was already included in the Redevelopment Plan and
maybe all the board had to do was re-announce this recommendation.
Mr. Peetz said the board
could state they were not prepared to move forward at this evening’s meeting
until more direction was received from council; i.e., should the City be more
focused on tax base? employment? need? green business concept? Ms. Muncey would like someone to confirm or
reaffirm what the board has already recommended in the Redevelopment Plan.
Ms. Joyce Hamilton, resident,
presented that due to the economy, the board may want to look at things that were
going to bring money into the City to help support the residents who lived here
because the City did not want to continue taxing them. Direct financing would be done through
business tax, sales tax, and impact fees.
These businesses should be architecturally pleasing and conserve green
space, and Mr. Peetz was asking the board to provide City Council with some
ideas on the types of businesses that might accomplish this. She provided the board with Sheldon Cove’s mixed
used project proposal that outlined such things as how many jobs and how much
income their project would create. Ms.
Hamilton informed there was going to be a town hall meeting on April 3rd
at 5:30 pm in the library to discuss the height issue.
Board Member Peppers felt
what the city planner was requesting was “doable” for this board; he was not
requesting that the board rewrite the ordinance, only review the permitted uses.
Mr. Peterson opined that the
businesses should monitor themselves.
Mr. Peetz informed that the
P&Z Board was becoming more and more active regarding mixed-use. A representative from the Florida
Redevelopment Association was scheduled to attend a future P&Z
meeting. He also informed at the last
meeting, the elements of mixed use were discussed: façade treatment to the
building, parking, pedways, types of shops, and retail on ground with
residential on top. The board had tasked
the city planner with breaking out all the different types of uses and
functions of a mixed use district as well as taking pictures of existing
regional mixed use districts. This
information would then be presented at a P&Z meeting and this board and the
Community Appearance Board would be invited to attend and choose what elements
of mixed use the boards preferred so that an illustrative code for mixed use could
be created to help people understand what the City was trying to achieve.
Mr. Peetz advised that two
issues would be discussed at the aforementioned public meeting on April 3: (a)
height along A1A and (b) theme for the City as recommended by the Community
Appearance Board.
Ms. Marcum referred back to
Ms. Hamilton’s comment regarding maximizing value given that the City has such
limited space together with the comment made by Mr. Peterson regarding large
buildings that are left unattended when there was no longer a use, perhaps an
addition to the code could be that a building could not be vacant for a certain
period of time or the City would demolish.
She asked Mr. Peetz if this would fall under “blight” as contained in
the Redevelopment Plan. Mr. Peetz
responded that a vacant building was blight.
The City could demolish if the building was in disrepair/public safety
issue/nuisance. However, if building was
structurally sound, that would involve property rights issues. Mr. Anderson summarized the enhanced
authority, including demolishing vacant buildings, afforded a Community
Redevelopment Agency (CRA).
Mr. Anderson, personally,
thought it was not the intent of this board to be unresponsive to issues;
however, the board has had genuine concerns and questions about what exactly
the board was supposed to do and the methodology. He said there was some frustration from the
board’s perspective regarding all the time that was put into the Redevelopment
Plan and so many times in the past few months, the board has been asked for
recommendations. He said the question
was, “has anyone read the Redevelopment Plan?”
Discussion followed regarding
the need for a genuine strategic planning exercise and visioning session by
City Council. Council Member Roberts
advised that the City Council and department heads conducted annual visioning
sessions in conjunction with the upcoming budget, and this year’s session was
facilitated by Leadership Brevard.
Ms. Muncey asked the city
planner what he was expecting from the board this evening. Mr. Peetz reiterated that council was
requesting that the board review and comment on the current list of permitted
uses and forward its recommendation to council.
Even though it was not an agenda item, Mr. Peetz was also requesting
that the board review and comment on the current special exceptions and forward
its recommendation to council. He said
council felt this board had the pulse of the business community and could
assist council redefine both of these lists.
Ms. Muncey polled members and
they agreed to proceed and review the lists.
Mr. Peetz clarified for
members that Special Exceptions were permitted uses; however, they needed to be
reviewed more closely for compatibility issues; such as, noise and traffic
generation.
The board unanimously
recommended the following revisions to Permitted Uses, Sec. 110-332:
Add: cultural facilities such as art studios,
museums and galleries as Item (16) (cultural
facilities should be a separate defined use and removed from (6)
Add: “private schools” to
(14)
Add: “upscale boutique/bed
& breakfast quality dining” as Item (17) (this would be an upscale, quaint establishment with a quality
restaurant open to the public – would add value to the City)
Add: “recreational rentals” to
(1) (small apparatus such as bicycles)
Add: “water recreation” (8) (this would allow for commercial
transactions involving kayaks, sailing, fly fishing; apparatus would then be
taken to a launch area on the
The board unanimously
recommended the following revisions to Special Exceptions, Section 110-334
Add: Wireless equipment to
(2) – would allow City to go wi-fi in the
future
Members thanked Mr. Peetz for
his guidance.
OPEN:
Images in Art Update – Ms. McIntire presented that Ms. Rudzitus attended
last evening’s council meeting and the outdoor entertainment permit was
approved; inspection of tents will be performed by the fire department on
Friday, March 28. She reported
approximately 40 artists had signed up and felt there may be as many as 50 on
event days. Poster was on the City’s
Home Page and at various City locations; Council Member Roberts was provided
posters for distribution in her community.
Press releases have been sent to Florida Today and Hometown News and
notice has been posted on the BCA e-calendar.
Ms. McIntire presented she was interviewed by Channel 31, the arts
channel, and the interview would be aired approximately ten times prior to the
event. Channel 31 broadcasted from
Members inquired if the port
would be interested in advertising the event on their digital sign before
arriving at the overpass. Ms. Marcum
will provide staff with the contact information for the gentleman recently
hired by the port in the capacity of an environmental director. She said he may wish to have a table and
distribute environmental literature.
Ms. McIntire reported she had
not received any responses from the schools that participated in the annual
student art show. Mr. Ray Osbourne was
participating in the event.
Ms. Marcum suggested for next
year’s event contacting local writers to see if they would have any interest in
having book displays.
Ms. Muncey and Ms. Marcum
volunteered to distribute posters.
MOU: Ms. McIntire
reported this was moving forward and would not return to the board. The city manager and Mr. Harris would be
working together and finalizing the agreement.
Ms. Marcum presented it was
important for the board to understand what drives the revenue of the City as
this information would help the board make better informed business
recommendations. Members unanimously
agreed to invite the city manager and city treasurer to attend the April 16th
meeting to provide an orientation of revenues sources (property tax, sales tax,
gas tax, impact fees, etc) of the City.
This information will enable the board to understand how a certain type
of business can generate value to the City.
Mr. Peterson requested that Branding
be placed on the April 16 agenda as a discussion item.
Mr. Anderson advised he would
be out of town for the next two months and would be back for the June meeting.
Ms. Marcum asked if the board
needed a follow up from the city manager regarding the decisions made this evening
on the marketing video. Members were
uncertain of the target audience: the
business community or the residents/tourists.
Ms. Muncey concluded that the
board was requesting that the city manager review the workshop minutes,
reconsider the feasibility of moving forward with the video and providing his
feedback to the board.
There being no further
business, the meeting adjourned at 9:26 pm.
Approved this _______________
day of _____________, 2008.
________________________________
Joanne Muncey, Chairperson
ATTEST:
___________________________
Kim M. McIntire, Secretary