Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAB Minutes 1-20-2016COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES January 20, 2016 A Meeting of the Community Appearance Board was held on January 20, 2016, at the Cape Canaveral Public Library, 201 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairperson Randy Wasserman. The Secretary called the roll. ROLL CALL: Randy Wasserman Chairperson Angela Raymond Joseph Mathes Bob Nienstadt Mary Jo Tichich MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT Jen Nix Assistant City Attorney David Dickey Community Development Director Patsy Huffman Board Secretary Assistant City Attorney Nix swore in all audience members who were planning to speak.at the meeting. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None NEW BUSINESS: 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes —November 12.2015. Motion by Mrs. Raymond, seconded by Mr. Mathes to approve the Meeting Minutes of November 12, 2015. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 2. Per Section 2-171 the Community Appearance Board shall elect a Chairperson and Vice -Chairperson, by maiori vote, at the first meeting held in January. Mr. Wasserman requested that item #2 be moved to the last item due to the turnout for Item #3 All Board Members were in favor of this request. Community Appearance Board Meeting Minutes January 20, 2016 Motion by Mrs. Tichich, seconded by Mrs. Raymond to recommend Randy Wasserman continue as Chairperson. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. Motion by Mrs. Tichich, seconded by Mr. Mathos to recommend Bob Nienstadt as Vice Chairperson. Mr. Nienstadt accepted. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 3. VFW Wall Mural — Review and action reeardine a Level 11 AUmtication consistent wi Mr. Dickey presented Staff's report/photos showing the painting depicted on each side of the building. Staff explained this item consists of a Level II review for the use of a wall mural. Code Enforcement Staff notified the VFW Post that the City Code of Ordinances did not allow the newly painted wall mural. However, Sec. 94-6 (g) of the Code does allow for a process by which a wall mural could be approved. The process involved the review and approval of the Community Appearance Board. When evaluating a Level 11 application, Sec. 22-42 of the City Code identifies criteria that must be considered. Note that these criteria were established to evaluate both Level I and Level II applications; so they may not all apply to the subject request. Criteria include: 1. The plans and specifications of the proposed project indicate that the setting, landscaping, ground cover, proportions, materials, colors, texture, scale, unity, balance, rhythm, contrast and simplicity are coordinated in a harmonious manner relevant to the particular proposal, surrounding area and cultural character of the community. 2. The plans for the proposed building or structure are in harmony with any future development, which has been formally approved by the City within the surrounding area. 3. The plans for the proposed building or structure are not excessively similar or dissimilar to any other building or structure which is either fully constructed, permitted but not fully constructed or included on the same permit application, and facing upon the same or intersecting street within 500 feet of the proposed site, with respect to one or more of the following features of exterior design and appearance: a. Front or side elevations; b. Size and arrangement of elevation facing the street, including reverse arrangement; or c. Other significant features of design such as, but not limited to: materials, roof line, and height or design elements. 4. The plans for the proposed building or structure are in harmony with the established character of other buildings or structures in the surrounding area with respect to architectural specifications and design features deemed significant based upon commonly accepted architectural principles of the local community. 5. The proposed development of the building or structure is consistent and compatible with the intent and purpose of this article, the Comprehensive Plan for Cape Canaveral, and other applicable federal, State or local laws. Community Appearance Board Meeting Minutes January 20, 2016 6. Within the C-1, C-2 and M-1 zoning districts, any exterior building or roof color used shall be well designed and integrated with the architectural style of the building and surrounding landscaping in order to create a subtle and harmonious effect and promote aesthetic uniformity within the district. Bright or brilliant colors shall not be permitted except for use as an accent color within the C-1, C-2 or M-1 zoning district. Staff recommended approval of the Level II review of the use of a wall mural. Motion by Mrs. Raymond, seconded by Mr. Mathos to recommend approval of the application per Staffs recommendation. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 4. Cape Canaveral Aerial Adventure — Review and action regarding a Level I application Mr. Dickey presented Staffs report/photos. This item consists of a Level I application for the construction of an aerial adventure park. Staff pointed out the different structures, adjoining properties, and their uses. The property is zoned C-1, which allows outdoor recreation as a permitted use. The proposed project sits on a 1.41 -acre parcel that has access on AlA and Cape Shores Circle. There is an existing structure, which will be converted to house the ticket counter, restrooms, waiting lounge, and merchandise area. Operating hours will be from 9:00 am to dusk and will employ approximately fifteen (15) people. The parcel contains a large number of specimen trees, which are proposed to be maintained. Parking will be located on the south and west sides of the property. All City development standards will be implemented during the site plan review phase. The applicant has indicated that a stormwater permit is not required due to no additional impervious surfaces. Sec. 2242 (c) of the Code establishes certain criteria that the CAB must consider when evaluating an application. In general, the criteria are to gauge whether a project is in harmony and consistent with the surrounding natural and built environment. The parcel is located within the N. Atlantic Avenue commercial corridor, which has been developed in a commercial manner with various retail and office uses. Sec. 2242 of the Code includes the specific standards that must be considered. They include: • The plans and specifications of the proposed project indicate that the setting, landscaping, ground cover, proportions, materials, colors, texture, scale, unity, balance, rhythm, contrast and simplicity are coordinated in a harmonious manner relevant to the particular proposal, surrounding area and cultural character of the community. • The plans for the proposed building or structure are in harmony with any future development which has been formally approved by the City within the surrounding area. Community Appearance Board Meeting Minutes January 20, 2016 • The plans for the proposed building or structure are not excessively similar or dissimilar to any other building or structure which is either fully constructed, permitted but not fully constructed or included on the same permit application, and facing upon the same or intersecting street within 500 feet of the proposed site, with respect to one or more of the following features of exterior design and appearance. • Front or side elevations. • Size and arrangement of elevation facing the street, including reverse arrangements. • Other significant features of design such as, but are not limited to materials, roof line and height or design elements. • The plans for the proposed building or structure are in harmony with the established character of other buildings or structures in the surrounding area with respect to architectural specifications and design features deemed significant based upon commonly accepted architectural principles of the local community. • The proposed development of the building or structure is consistent and compatible with the intent and purpose of this article, the Comprehensive Plan for Cape Canaveral, and other applicable federal, State or local laws. • Within the C-1, C-2 and M-1 zoning districts, any exterior building or roof color used shall be well designed and integrated with the architectural style of the building and surrounding landscaping in order to create a subtle and harmonious effect and promote aesthetic uniformity within the district. Bright or brilliant colors shall not be permitted except for use as an accent color within the C-1, C-2, or M-1 zoning district. Materials used in the construction of the elements will be treated lumber and telephone poles. Mulch will be used under the elements and on any paths throughout the aerial park. Staff recommends approve of the Level I application with the following conditions: 1. Improvements will be consistent with the site plan. 2. Operating hours will be from 9:00 am to dusk, seven days a week. 3. Outdoor lighting will be limited to the parking areas and the primary structure, and will be internally shielded to prevent glare onto adjacent properties. The applicant presented a video to demonstrate this type of structure Discussion ensued to include other ventures of this type; family run business; types of materials; height of structure; clarification of the address; access to project; impact to adjoining property owners; type of obstacle courses; several levels of the structure are within the height requirements; Oak trees will not be removed and other trees will help provide a sound buffer; setbacks from the sidewalk; lighting; restricting hours of operation; signage and earth tone colors will be used. Assistant Attorney Nix clarified that when making amendments to Staffs recommendations, the Code must be applied, and to use the criteria provided by Staff and the applicant. Discussion ensued to include whether food and beverages are going to be available; parking materials; meeting ADA requirements and noise control. Community Appearance Board Meeting Minutes January 20, 2016 Motion by Mr. Wasserman, seconded by Mr. Mathos to approve Staffs recommendation with the exception of not limiting hours of operation. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 5. Mr. Dickey presented Staffs report/photos. This item consists of a Level B review for the installation of accent lighting. Due to concerns over the proliferation of LED lights in the City, Code Enforcement Staff recently delivered a courtesy letter to approximately 12 businesses regarding window lighting. rj[[. ?" kA ori �:+ Gk+r r /K The same criteria noted for item #3 above, applies to this application. Board Members have the option of attaching conditions to their recommendation. Staff recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. The Accent Lighting be placed in such a manner as to minimize light pollution, glare and light trespass onto adjoining properties. 2. The Accent Lighting be turned off at 1:00 a.m. 3. The Accent Lighting shall not flash or change colors more than once every four seconds. 4. The Accent Lighting shall meet maximum daytime and nighttime light level standards (as measured in nits) as established in Sec. 94-78 (e). The applicant explained the need for accent lighting. The lights will be white in color. Flashing lights will not be used. In addition, applicant is requesting accent lighting around a stationary sign on the building that Staff can administratively approve. Discussion ensued between Board Members and applicant to include reasons to extend the hours of lighting Motion by Mrs. Raymond, seconded by Mr. Nienstadt to recommend approval of Staffs recommendation with the conditions. After further discussion, a second motion with an amendment to condition #2 was as follows: Motion by Mrs. Raymond, seconded by Mr. Nienstadt to recommend approval of Staff's recommendation with conditions 1, 3, & 4 above and delete condition #2. Vote on motion as follows: Mrs. Raymond, For; Mr. Mathos, For; Mr. Nienstadt, For; Mr. Wasserman, For; Mrs. Tichich, Against. Vote on the motion passed 4-1. 6. Community Appearance Board Meeting Minutes January 20, 2016 This applicant received a letter from Code Enforcement Staff with the same criteria as noted above. Mr. Dickey presented Staff's report/photos. This item consists of a Level 11 review for the installation of accent lighting at the Church Street Center building. This parcel is located in a larger commercial corridor surrounded by vacant property and retail uses. Staff recommended approval with the following conditions: are and 1. The Accent Lighting be placed in such a manner as to minimize light pollution, gl light trespass onto adjoining properties. 2. The Accent Lighting be turned off at 1:00 a.m. 3. The Accent Lighting shall not flash or change colors more than once every four seconds. 4. The Accent Lighting shall meet maximum daytime and nighttime light level standards (as measured in nits) as established in Sec. 94-78 (e). The applicant explained the need to keep the lights on all night for security purposes. The lights are green and do not flash. Discussion ensued to include meeting the Code requirement regarding light levels as measured in nits; Attorney Nix gave clarification of the Code; adjustment of brightness of lights to meet Code requirements; accent lighting versus security lighting; advantages of having accent lighting and to base a decision on the intent of the application. Motion by Mr. Mathos, seconded by Mrs. Raymond to recommend approval of Staffs recommendation with conditions 1, 3, & 4 above and delete condition #2. Vote on motion as follows: Mrs. Raymond, For; Mr. Mathos, For; Mr. Nienstadt, For; Mr. Wasserman, For; Mrs. Tichich, Against. Vote on the motion passed 4-1. REPORTS AND OPEN DISCUSSION: ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Mr. Mathos, Moved by Mr. Wasserman, seconded by Mrs. Raymond to adjourn the meeting at 7:59 p.m. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. +A Approved on this 1(o day of 'Mk� 2016. 0 ri (,J Rand asserman, Clkairpe Patsy Huffman, Board Secretary��