Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOA Minutes 5-30-2013City of Cape Canaveral Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes May 30, 2013 A Board of Adjustment Meeting was held on May 30, 2013, at the City of Cape Canaveral Public Library, 201 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Arvo Eilau, Vice Chairperson, called the meeting to Order at 6:00 P.M. The Secretary called the roll. MEMBERS PRESENT: Arvo Eilau Vice Chairperson Paula Collins George Sweetman Douglas Raymond MEMBERS ABSENT: Dennis Jenkins Chairperson Linda Brown OTHERS PRESENT: Susan Chapman Secretary Barry Brown Planning & Zoning Director Kate Latorre Assistant City Attorney Lamar Russell Ex Officio Member & Chairperson of the P & Z Board All persons giving testimony were sworn in by Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney. NEW BUSINESS 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes: March 28, 2013. Motion by Paula Collins, seconded by George Sweetman to waive the reading of the minutes and to approve them as written. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 2. Interview & Recommendation to City Council - New Board Members Candidate, Melinda M. Jester. Melinda Jester was not present at the meeting. 3. Motion Re: Variance Reauest No. 13-04 - 200 Madison Avenue - authorizina a Fence to be Six Feet (6') in Height to be Installed within 25 feet of a Public Right - of -Way, Rather than a Fence no More than Four Feet (4') in Height, per Section 110-470 (a) (1) of the City Code of Ordinances - Daniel M. Coon, Property Oivn Pr Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes May 30, 2013 Page 2 of 4 Barry Brown explained the request, described the property, surrounding uses, zoning, and advised that Staff recommended approval. He noted that Staff was considering changing the Code requirement for a fence greater than 4 ft. in height to be set back a minimum of 25 ft. from a right-of-way. The Board members reviewed and discussed the Variance Worksheet. Daniel Coon, property owner, answered the conditions for entitlement to the requested Variance. Discussion was held regarding the proposed location of the 6 ft. fence in relation to the existing sidewalk and property line. Motion by Douglas Raymond, seconded by Paula Collins to grant the Variance with the stipulation that the fence be set back a minimum of 2 ft. from the property line. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 4. Motion Re: Variance Requests No. 13-01 - 8801 Astronaut Boulevard - Kim Rezanka, Authorized Agent for Xtreme Fun, LLC, Property Owner - Authorizing the following: 1) To Allow a Location Variance for One (1) of Tenant #2's Wall Signs to be Located on the Front of Tenant #1's Tenant Space for a Total of Three (3) Wall Signs on Tenant #1's Storefront, Rather than Two (2) Wall Signs as allowed per Code Section 94-99 and 100. 2) To Allow a Size Variance for Two (2) Ground Sims Located on a Corner Lot to have a Total of 205 Square Feet, Rather than the Maximum of 150 Square Feet as allowed per Code Section 94-64 (c). Barry Brown explained that Request #1 was for a location variance to allow one (1) of tenant #2's wall signs to be located on the front of tenant #1's tenant space for a total of three (3) wall signs on tenant #1's storefront, rather than two (2) wall signs allowed per Code Sections 94-99 and 100. He summarized that the property owner is constructing a retail building that will have three (3) tenant spaces to be occupied by a Beachwave beach wear & souvenir store, gaming arcade, and a restaurant. The Board members reviewed and discussed the Variance Worksheet and a floor plan which identified the tenant spaces. Barry Brown explained that because the amount of signage being requested was in proportion with the size of the building and matched the particular architectural design of the building Staff recommended approval. Kim Rezanka, representative for Mosh Gal, property owner, addressed the location Variance for a wall sign. She testified that the design of the building allows for three tenant spaces, but only two tenants have frontage along SR AIA; tenant space #2 faces W. Central Blvd. and has limited visibility to be on the frontage of the building facing SRAIA; and the building facade along SRAIA is designed to allow uniform and symmetrical signage to make the building facade more visually appealing. Additionally, the Code is overly restrictive and ambiguous, and other buildings in the City are allowed more wall signage than appeared to be provided for in the Code. Also, the Code is not drafted to Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes May 30, 2013 Page 3 of 4 address a multi -tenant building with this configuration and use of space. She explained that most units in a multi -tenant building have storefronts that face the primary frontages. The building has one unit that does not face SRAIA; and therefore does not have wall signage available to be seen from the primary frontage. She noted that the building was designed to meet conditions of the site and not criteria of the City's Sign Code. In closing, she advised that the requested Variance is the minimum necessary to accommodate the desired sign for tenant space #2. The granting of the Variance would be in harmony with the intent and purpose of the City's Zoning Code; would be in harmony to make the building more visually appealing; will allow proper signage for the tenant space that does not have frontage along SRAIA; and would not be injurious or detrimental to the neighborhood or public welfare. Discussion followed. Barry Brown advised that Request #2 was to allow a sign on the primary frontage (SRAIA) to be 150 sq. ft. and a sign fronting Central Blvd. to be 55 sq. ft. He explained that the Code allows a typical commercial parcel to have one ground sign with a total sign area of 150 sq. ft.; corner lots are allowed two (2) ground signs, one on the primary road frontage and another on the secondary frontage. He advised that Staff supported the request, because while it was appropriate to have a smaller size sign on the secondary frontage, it was not necessary to require signage on the primary frontage to be smaller to accomplish it. Kim Rezanka, representative for Mosh Gal, property owner, addressed the size Variance for a Ground Sign. She clarified that this Request was to allow for a corner lot to have two ground signs with a total of 205 square feet instead of 150 square feet. She testified that there are multiple businesses on the property that are not all located in the same building. While the office for the "putt -putt" is in the Beachwave building, the "putt - putt" functions are a separate business from the Beachwave building and the Code does not address this situation. She explained that this is a corner lot and the Code allows for less sign area on a corner lot than a lot with two street frontages. She advised that the Code is ambiguous and leads to unequal application, because a corner lot can have two signs, one on each street front, but the total sign area for both signs cannot exceed 150 sq. ft.; however, a lot with two street frontages that is not a corner lot can potentially have up to twice the sign area. If a corner lot chooses to have two signs it is denied the ability to have the maximum amount of signage on the primary frontage and therefore cannot have the same sign area that other lots enjoy. She noted that this property owner could split the lot and create a separate lot for the putt -putt, which would potentially allow for four (4) ground signs (two on SRAIA and two on W. Central Blvd.) rather than the two desired by the Applicant. She advised that granting the Variance would not confer privileges denied to other similarly situated lots in the same district because the Applicant could split the lot. Additionally, if a corner lot has two signs, the Code denies corner lots the same sign area on the primary street frontage that other lots enjoy. In closing, she advised that the reasons justify the Variance and the requested Variance is the minimum to accommodate the desired sign on W. Central Blvd. The granting of this size Variance would be harmony with the intent and purpose of the Code, it would allow proper signage for the multiple uses of the property, and would not be injurious or detrimental to the neighborhood or public welfare. Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes May 30, 2013 Page 4 of 4 Discussion followed. Lamar Russell, ex -officio member, reminded the Board that granting a Variance was supposed to lift a hardship. There was no hardship proven with this request. Discussion continued regarding appearance, and amount of proposed advertising. Motion by Douglas Raymond, seconded by Paula Collins to approve Variance Request 13-01, for both requested Variances. Vote on the motion carried by majority with members voting as follows: Arvo Eilau, against the I st part of the Variance and for the 2nd part of the Variance; Douglas Raymond, for; George Sweetman, for; and Paula Collins, for. OPEN DISCUSSION Brief discussion was held regarding the status of the proposed assisted living facility. Motion by George Sweetman, seconded by Douglas Raymond to adjourn the meeting at 8:08 p.m. Approve day of 2013. L) C* Susan L. Chapman, Secretary