Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAB Minutes 2-28-2012CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD FEBRUARY 28, 2012 MINUTES A meeting of the City of Cape Canaveral Community Appearance Board was held on February 28, 2012, in the Cape Canaveral Public Library, 201 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Randy Wasserman, Chairperson, called the meeting to Order at 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Randy Wasserman Joyce Kelley Rosalie Wolf Walter Bowman OTHERS PRESENT Kate Latorre Barry Brown Susan Chapman Andre Anderson Kendall Keith Chairperson Vice Chairperson Assistant City Attorney Planning & Development Director Board Secretary Planning Design Group Planning Design Group All persons giving testimony were sworn in by Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney. NEW BUSINESS Approval of Meeting Minutes: October 5, 2011 and February 15, 2012. Motion by Joyce Kelley, seconded by Rosalie Wolf, to approve the meeting minutes of October 5, 2011 and February 15, 2012, as written. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 2. Request No. 12-01 - Beachwave Complex, 8801 Astronaut Blvd. - David T. Menzel, Applicant. Barry Brown, Planning & Development Director, stated his name for the record. He advised the Board members that he had placed a hand-out at their seat, which read at the top Article III - Community Appearance Review, and he advised that this is the Section of the Code this Board does its duty. He called their attention to Section 22-42 (C) Conduct of Hearing Approval or Denial. He noted that, as a matter of review, the last sentence of that paragraph states that the Community Appearance Board may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the application only after the consideration of the six (6) criteria are complied with. He brought their attention to paragraph (1), which read that the plans and specifications of the proposed project indicate that the setting, landscaping, ground cover; proportions; materials; colors; textures; 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. He brought the Boards attention to paragraph (4), which read that: Community Appearance Board Meeting Minutes February 28, 2012 Page 2 of 13 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 principals of the local community. He advised that the Board is evaluating, reviewing and making recommendation on the elevations in their packet based on the current adopted Code Section 22-42, and the elevations are projected on the screen. He called the Boards attention to his memorandum dated February 23, 2012, and advised that the last two (2) paragraphs of the memo should have been deleted. He explained that in drafting the memo he failed to delete those two paragraphs from the previous meeting. Brief discussion followed. Barry Brown further advised that the first item on the Agenda is the Board's review of a retail building to be constructed on the Jungle Village/Traxx property at the corner of A1A and Central Blvd. He explained that the proposed building is a single story building comprised of four (4) units; the primary tenant is a Beachwave beachwear outlet that sells souvenirs, beach apparel, etc. He noted that other Beachwave stores are located in Cocoa Beach. He pointed out that the proposed building is 26 ft. high at the parapet and 35 Y2 ft. high at the top of the roof, and Staff has identified the following deficiencies with the architectural design: 1) The building is disproportionately tall for a single story retail space; 2) Too much of the wall area is window and therefore, too much glass; 3) There is a lack of architectural design creating a rather bland monolithic appearance that is not to human scale; and 4) The north, south, and west elevations lack sufficient architectural treatment. He advised that the deficiencies identified can be remedied by lowering the building height, and/or designing the building to have the appearance of a two story structure. The window area, and/or glass area, can be reduced and window treatments added. It was obvious that the building is designed to maximize the window area; and therefore, window signage, while sacrificing appropriate architectural design. This is a prime example why the City needs to adopt architectural design standards. At this time, he introduced the City's expert witnesses, the City's consultants from Planning Design Group, Kendall Keith and Andre Anderson, who would give the Board their evaluation of the elevations. Kendall Keith, Planning Design Group (PDG), 930 Woodcock Road, Orlando, Florida, stated his name and address for the record and informed the Board of his qualifications as an expert witness. He testified that he possesses a Bachelor's Degree in landscape architecture, a Master's Degree in urban planning; he has been practicing as a landscape architect and planner for approximately 24 years. The last 20 years of which have been in the State of Florida, and has been privately consulting since 1999, working for development interests in local government; and prior to that he was the Chief of Urban Design Planning for Orange County. Community Appearance Board Meeting Minutes February 28, 2012 Page 3 of 13 Motion by Joyce Kelley, seconded by Rosalie Wolf, to qualify Kendall Keith as an Expert Witness. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. Kendall Keith advised that he did not have a formal presentation, as much as he had images to talk about and discuss. He explained that prior to being hired by the City, PDG had performed some work in the City for a property nearby, and as part of that work they familiarize themselves with the Envision Cape Canaveral project that the City had embarked on a few years earlier, and PDG is now under contract with the City. He advised that Mr. Brown asked them to take a look at this specific submittal, and discuss their concerns with the proposal. He advised that they had one meeting with the project architect, where they discussed some of their concerns. Mr. Brown had mentioned the size of the glass on the building, and they are not suggesting that glass is a bad thing. In fact, this is an area we have people walking up and down A1A and staying at the hotels, so you want glass in the building. However, this style building, where the glass is about 18 ft., high seems out of proportion with the rest of the building. He pointed out that the Code addresses the project being harmonious with the character of the community and surrounding development. In this particular case you have to work it back, because this is really the first new proposal located directly on A1A, of commercial retail development in a while. So outside of the developments of the hotels that have been built, PDG had to go back to the Envisioning Cape Canaveral to get a sense of what the City wants to see in this area. The Board members viewed the front elevation that would be seen from AIA, and the North elevation they would see looking straight at the building. One of the concerns discussed, was why is there so much glass on this building that looks out of proportion with this style of building. The Board viewed some of the other projects of Beachwave, and other similar style retail. What they saw was the expanse that comes with the attraction to draw attention to the merchandise being sold. In addressing those specific concerns of scale and proportion, there are some nice features including: the detail in the barrel tile roof, and color scheme which are appropriate to the architectural features. He advised that at Mr. Brown's request, they looked at what could be done with the expanse of the glass to change it, and make it look different, as well as the East side of the building, the concern with the monolithic approach, and the lack of detail. He projected on the wall for the Boards consideration some rough ideas of how they might approach it differently using the exact same building footprint, not changing the overall structure of the building, only changing some elements of the fagade, to make the building more of an appropriate scale and proportion. He suggested adding some additional and simple architectural features to address the concerns, by adding a base detail of masonry; different color; adding vertical details that break-up the large window expanses in a column; and off -set from the face of the building, which would provide a little more detail along different expanses. He explained that they added horizontal banding, because when you have a building this size it is suggesting that it is a two-story building. They suggested adding awnings to define the openings to give the building a more human scale. He suggested that another alternative would be to shrink the building. The Board viewed a drawing showing how the building would look with the height reduced by 5 ft. Community Appearance Board Meeting Minutes February 28, 2012 Page 4 of 13 He clarified that these ideas will address this building style in a different manner and addresses Staffs concerns. Kim Razenka, Attorney representing the Applicant, Extreme Fun LLC, asked Kendall Keith various questions in which he responded. He agreed that PDG was paid by the City under contract of which encompasses PDG to have reviewed the plans; the contract provided for general planning consultant services; the contract is not specifically for the A1A Economic Opportunity Overlay District; the contract does include the draft overlay guidelines under separate proposal, and purchase order. Many of the suggestions he made this evening are included in the draft dated 01/2012 - A1A Economic Opportunity Overlay District (Applicant's Exhibit A); he had three issues with this proposal - the expanse of glass, the monolithic approach, and the lack of detail on the back side or the south side of the building; there were no other issues. He read Article III of the Code that was handed -out earlier by Mr. Brown to the Board members; there is nothing in that Code that specifically states that the applicant shall not have expanse of glass, monolithic approach, or lack of detail; there is nothing right now in the Code that references the required type of architecture or design, not making a building look like a two-story, or awnings being suggested for architectural detail; human scale is also not mentioned in the Code, as it exists now; the character of the community is a mixed architectural style in this area; there are several buildings in the area that have large glass and large monolithic style walls. He has seen people walking down Al A along the narrow sidewalks right next to the road in that particular area, because of all the hotels; it is part of the City's design criteria to make it a pedestrian friendly area in this particular part of the City; he was not aware of any definitions in the Code that tells an applicant about architectural principals, architectural standards, or cultural character; the Envision Cape Canaveral document that was adopted identifies both A1A and Central Blvd. as being key components to the future development and redevelopment of the City and refers to it as the future town center area; and the visioning encompasses a one mile square area of the City. Walter Bowman asked Andre Anderson and Kendall Keith who authorized them to assume the Board's responsibilities. Kate Latorre replied that they were here on behalf of Staff to provide testimony on the application. Walter Bowman voiced his opinion that the Board should adjourn, because the Board is not responsible for anything anymore as Staff has assumed their responsibilities. Barry Brown clarified that it is Staffs responsibility to present the application to the Board. Kate Latorre clarified that the Board will hear testimony and evidence, and will render a decision based on the criteria in the Code. She advised that Staff chose to use their professional planning consultants to help analyze the application on their behalf. Walter Bowman questioned why Staff was trying to make the building look like a two-story building? He explained that this was a particular design for this type of structure serving this type of business. He advised that he has designed several of them within a six to ten mile radius, and he did not understand why Staff was now challenging the design. He did not believe the building looked bad at all, and commented that a lot of glass is not a problem. Chairperson Wasserman thanked him for his comments. Community Appearance Board Meeting Minutes February 28, 2012 Page 5 of 13 Randy Wasserman read a portion of the Code relevant to this particular proposal and surrounding area. He advised that the Code includes plans for proposed buildings, or structures, be in harmony with any future development. He recalled an application a few years ago with an assisted living facility (ALF), located just around the corner from this property. He advised that each time the Board meets they look to previous requests. Kendall Keith advised that he is familiar with that property, because just before PDG contracted with the City, they were working for that applicant. Randy Wasserman asked Kendall Keith to speak of the qualities between this application, and the ALF in relation to architectural design and harmony. Kendall Keith responded that the ALF was a different use, which affects the style and appearance of the architecture; the location of that project cannot be seen from A1A; the colors are similar to this proposal; the roof style is also similar; the ALF is a four-story building close to the 45 ft. height limit, which is entirely different from this request; the approach to the ALF building has a porte-cochere with an awning and is intended to look like a one-story, which is very much different than this proposal; and the ALF has a different scale to it at the ground floor than what is being proposed for this project. Rosalie Wolf asked that because the proposed project is within the general vicinity of the ALF, if he felt that this proposal will be harmonious with that project. Kendall Keith answered that they are both very similar. He did not believe the buildings need to be the same styles. The difference is that the scales of the buildings are dissimilar. David Menzel, President of MAI Architects and Engineers, Melbourne, Florida, representing the property owner, advised that his client is a very successful retailer and has a successful business model. The picture of the building is proportionately correct for a building that is retail on a major highway. He understood what Staff is trying to accomplish, but the reality is that this is a retail building, located on a major highway, next to a gas station, across the street from the entrance to a major industrial area. He commented that down the road, probably in visible site, is the largest and tallest dry boat storage building in the eastern United States. He understood compatibility, but this type of business has to have physical exposure. He advised that the proposed building is 120 ft. long. He explained that if the building was 10 ft. tall, which would be tall enough, it would not be seen. He agreed with Walter Bowman that to make it look like two stories it should look real, not fake. He further explained that the business model, with the glass, may not be what everyone would agree too, but it is a successful model that sells the retail product that his client is trying to sell at that location. He is replacing a go cart track that is losing money, with a retail building based on his other buildings, which will be successful. To try and make it an urban retail harmonious building is going to be a financial failure, because it is unproven in this area, and that is a burden that his client will not take, and did not feel he should. He advised that what has been presented to the City is a building that they have done that is similar, maybe not as much glass, maybe not as tall, or maybe not as long, but every building is its own entity based on the use that is within it. This building is what his client needs to sell his product. They tried to make it blend -in. He advised that the example they used for this building is similar to a Beachwear building located in the downtown Clearwater in the middle of that City. He believes Staff has some good thoughts, but for the City to try and Community Appearance Board Meeting Minutes February 28, 2012 Page 6 of 13 run this man's business based on what they feel the City needs will ultimately doom him to failure. He commented that Staffs major plan is to move it to the street and cut back on the parking, but everybody drives to where they are going. Some people walk, but not a lot, not enough to carry a business this size. People have to see the building. Part of seeing the building and selling the product is exactly what they are showing. That is what they are selling, and what they are asking for, no more. They believe they have met all the requirements the City has asked. In the City asking to make a drastic change to this building is basically getting involved in this business, and he did not believe that is what the Board was here for. He was following what his client wants. The design is what he needs to sell his product. Being next to a gas station it is very hard to create a human scale. He did not believe the canopy over the gas station has any human scale. He is hoping this project could move forward. He asked the Board to keep in their thoughts that this project will bring people work. Randy Wasserman commented that business objectives are important. He asked if there were any elements to the alternatives that Staff presented that could be done without being drastically damaging to the business model, or the cost. David Menzel replied that when you look at the building you see a predominately single building that has an identity to itself. When you scale it down to look like two stories, like the one Staff presented, it looked like little buildings that fade into the background. The whole idea is to create something that is going to attract and draw people to the building. He used the Dinosaur Store in Cocoa Beach, and the Cocoa Beach Surf Company, as examples of buildings that draw people's attention. You have to create a product that does not look like everybody else, and it needs to have its own identity. The large glass and the large expanse create an image that there is a lot to offer, and that is the focus. He advised that they looked at all the alternatives and this is what his client wishes to build. They actually started with brighter colors, and they toned them down. He advised that he will not be able to change the owner's mind, but if the Board decides that it is something he should do he will present it to him. He advised that the owner has had a strong stance with this building all the way. The owner has a property that is economically depressed and this will make it profitable, which there are benefits the City will gain. If the City wants the front and back enhanced, he was sure there is something they could do there. He advised that the reason they did not do much with the back of the building is because it is not visible. He explained that the windows are designed for the functional success of the project. He advised that the back of the building is warehouse area for the products he sells. Randy Wasserman advised that the banding on the top of the building creates a nice outline. He explained that typically in most applications, structures are enhanced by a midline banding to some degree. He understands the column effect that Staff mentioned in some of the alternatives which makes it look like multiple buildings, but would the applicant consider banding? David Menzel responded that economically, the glass is cheaper when it's not 18 ft. tall, so he had proposed some banding and the owner took it out. The owner has a budget he is dealing with, and he believed that the owner feels that a big part of his retail success is the large glass. Randy Wasserman asked how banding would compromise the glass? David Menzel replied that the owner would have to answer that. He advised that Community Appearance Board Meeting Minutes February 28, 2012 Page 7 of 13 the owner actually modified the glass panels to allow for as much glass as possible. Joyce Kelley asked if there was a possibility that the glass windows could cause a traffic hazard. David Menzel responded that there were no statics that a building with large windows would cause that. He believed that whether the building had a band or not people would still look at it, because proportionately it is a large building. Randy Wasserman commented that he could not understand what a band would do in terms of so called damage to a business model. David Menzel asked what the significants was in not having it, and noted that there are five story buildings that are all glass from the ground level to the top? To a certain degree glass may be a sign of quality because of the significant cost. He commented that CVS and Walgreens are tall for a reason. They are tall so people can see them, and all have plenty of parking in front of them. Randy Wasserman believed that a band would complement the top of the building and that is why he saw a value in it. David Menzel verified that the air conditioners and equipment were located on the roof, and the parapets on three sides of the building would hide the equipment from view. Attorney Kim Razenka, representative for Extreme Fun, LLC, commented that Barry Brown began his presentation reading from Code Section 22-32 (C) (4), which was discussed earlier regarding the proposed building plans being in harmony, with the established character, with respect to architectural specifications and design features deemed significant based upon commonly accepted architectural principals of the local community. She advised that there is no way for an applicant in the City to know what those accepted architectural principals are. There are no written guidelines and are subjective. They don't know what significant means. The Board has a very unique function pursuant to the Code, and that is to encourage uniform architectural standards and cohesive community development consistent, with the intent and purpose of this article. It is not clear what the intent and purpose of this article is. There are no clear and definitive guidelines to guide anyone submitting a plan to them. The City is working on it, and has been working on it for a few months. Extreme Fun has been working on this project for almost a year, and has met with the City a number of times, and Staff has tried to encourage the owner to change the building. This is the building that Extreme Fun wants to build. David Menzel had explained why. Attorney Razenka advised that the owner does not want a band; he does not want to change anything. Since there are no clear standards in the Code, and the City's own expert has admitted to it, the applicant has no idea what to submit. Since there are no clear standards a court will hold that the applicant's property rights are superior to the City's vague and ambiguous goals. Kate Latorre emailed her today advising that the application is governed by two sections of the Code, which have been discussed. One of which is that the proposed overlay standards that do not apply as discussed at the Board's last meeting of February 15th, which are not in effect, and do not apply. She advised that there is nothing in the Code about human scale, monolithic approach, or large windows. In reviewing Section 22-36, the only item that may apply to the elements does not apply, as this project is not located on the beach, ocean or the river. The project is located on a major highway in the City. Looking at the Code the standard seems to be compatibility, which is generally a standard that Community Appearance Board Meeting Minutes February 28, 2012 Page 8 of 13 everyone has heard; courts have a very difficult time explaining what compatibility is; and even the City's expert has said that there are many different styles in the City. In Mr. Brown's memorandum dated February 23rd provided to the Board, it talks about deficiencies, and so did Kendall Keith, but there is nothing in those deficiencies that are relevant to the Code, and it appears that they are using the A1A Overlay District Draft, not what is currently in the Code. She read the last paragraph of Barry Brown's memorandum, which states that "It is obvious the building is designed to maximize window area and therefore window signage while sacrificing appropriate architectural design". This is a prime example of why we need to adopt architectural design standards. She believed that Barry Brown would admit that there are no design standards currently in the Code and that he doesn't like the windows, which was apparent through this past year when her client met with the City. She referred the Board to Section 22-42, and pointed out that what is important is that it says that it is harmonious relevant to the proposal, surrounding area, and cultural character of the community. David Menzel had explained how large the building is and why it is necessary. The cultural character of the community is a mixed style. She pointed out that the City's expert testified that the ALF has a similar style and color; however, the scale is different, because it's a different use a residential zone. She advised that they meet the standard of not using bright colors, and for the level II review the applicant has met the criteria, and is compliant with the Code for the strict guidelines she had just referenced. Without any guidelines, the City can't take away Extreme Fun's right to build their building if there is nothing that says they can't build it the way they want to. She advised that she went to the Brevard County Property Appraiser's website and printed out pictures of ten buildings in the area to show and prove, by competent evidence, that there is a mixed style in the City (Applicant's Exhibit B). She discussed the Exhibit and advised that there are no uniform criteria. The Board members reviewed the Exhibits showing various building sizes; many buildings with large windows; the variety of colors and styles; and the lack of banding on various large buildings. She advised that Extreme Fun's building is both somewhat similar and dissimilar to existing buildings, the colors are compatible, the windows are similar to the windows on building around it, and the scale is similar to the buildings around it. She asked that the Board approve the building basically, because there are no written guidelines. The Board cannot apply the proposed guidelines to this building. The applicant's design is compatible with existing and surrounding development. This is the building the applicant wishes to build to be a successful business. If the request is denied, she requested written findings be issued by the Board for further appeal to the City Council. Walter Bowman, Architect, Engineer, Planner, and Board Member advised that he agreed with the majority of what was said. He did not agree with the applicant's judgment on the free aesthetics rule of the City. He advised that the Board does have aesthetic choices, and they have been tested by the rules they are governed by. Aesthetics is a choice. There will never be a clear statement. They are an aesthetic Board. He does not agree with the overlay district, and did not believe most of the Board does. He disagreed strongly with the effort to bring Al to a human scale with store fronts. He believed that the expanse of glass is well presented by David Menzel, as it was when he did his designs for this Community Appearance Board Meeting Minutes February 28, 2012 Page 9 of 13 property owner. He had some suggestions of what could be done to the building, and believed the Board will probably approve the request with conditions. As to the height, he agreed that the client has always wished to have a high building. He believed the height of the building could be adjusted and still has the impact that they want, by lowering all the towers, except the one at the entrance, and lowering the parapets to the current roof height. He noted that this may hinder hiding the air conditioners and equipment, but at that height it will not be seen with any consequence. He believed that the banding is a justifiable interest. He believed that the applicant's spokesman was correct in trying to bring some element to it. He proposed that they bring some type of banding across the front of the entrance, and it be extended to just the high windows in the bronze/yellow area, not the ones in the light tan. He noted that he had the same problem with the windows when he did them. The back portions of the building are bland, which could be resolved with stronger banding at the roof level as shown on the front, with possible wainscot banding along the lower area, possibly some vertical pillars spaced across the length to break it down in scale. He commented that the retail scale across the vast expanse of A1A was not going to achieve human scale at that distance. He believed they could utilize some additional landscaping mixed in along the sidewalk, in front of the building. Brief discussion followed among the Board members for clarification. Chairperson Wasserman opened the floor to public comment. Jack Gordon, resident of Puerto Del Rio, stated that he is extremely disappointed after living with the RaceTrac development that they are going to get a Beachwave Store. He disagreed with a few points. He believes they will be able to see the back of the building from Central, because if you look at the way the street turns coming from that direction, and when you come out you can see the back of the building. They can do a lot better with the look of the back of the building. He disagreed with the point that the building conforms to the ALF. Danny Ringdahl has spent a lot of money for architectural designs and plans, and he does not think the Beachwave store is compatible, or in the same class as the ALF. He understood why they needed the large windows, but has a hard time visualizing it because the "going out of business" banners are missing. He also disagreed that there are five story office buildings with a lot of windows; most do not have towels hanging in the windows. He believed the City can do better than a Beachwave. Art Spurrell, 8934 Puerto Del Rio Drive, Unit 401, and President of the Puerto Del Rio HOA, advised that he had similar concerns as Jack Gordon. He advised that comments were made this evening indicating that there is no clear standard of which to design buildings in this area. He submitted that the ALF was designed and bought -off, and the way that worked from him watching it was by somebody who wanted to provide a good business, as well as a project that is right for the community, and he would wager probably at least a dozen revisions in that process. He believed that the area was rezoned from residential to a modified use, and if you take the standard that was presented by Council it would lead you to believe that when you look around and see this building over here that is not Community Appearance Board Meeting Minutes February 28, 2012 Page 10 of 13 so good, and another building over there that is not so good, then it is okay for us not to be so good. If you follow that logic it takes you to the end point that nothing will get better. At some point somebody has to standup and say " I can do better than that and I will". The ALF was designed with that attitude, it was designed to be a first class facility, and it is what we need in our community. The community needs things that are uplifting. He advised that David Menzel stated that the building is designed for the functional success of the business, and believed he was absolutely correct, in that the people see the building and they sell the product, and what it does to the community doesn't matter. He advised that David Menzel had stated that the owner is a very successful business person. Art Spurrell questioned if he is so successful, then why are his other businesses that he sees are continually going out of business. He explained that the problem is when people come in to the City this is what they are going to see. He voiced his opinion that the other tourist retail Beachwave building looked like trash, and say frequently "going out of business sale". He submitted that the City wants an environment that uplifts the community, not advertisement that they are "going out of business", because we are shutting down the space coast, we can't make ends meet, and businesses are leaving. He stated that we want positive messages, not negative messages. He pointed out that they want the glass because they are going to decorate it with all sorts of things. If it was to stay like what they show, and they would agree that it will look like that, with the product being placed back away from the front windows, then he could support it, because when you look at it as submitted it is a decent looking building. You can quibble left or right. When you supper impose what the other tourist retail looks like all of a sudden you take what looks fairly nice, and you recognize that it's only a pig with lipstick on, and pretty soon the real character is going to show up. That character will be detrimental to the community and detrimental to their property values. His reference point is the ALF, which is designed to uplift the community, and as a result the quality that is there. All with the number of condominiums that are around and that raise property values, which allows property owners to spend more money on taxes, which he really did not mind because he loves living in the City. He thanked the Board and Staff for the hard work they do to make the City a wonderful place to live. Randy Wasserman commented that it was an interesting point about the use of the building, and the way it looks now, and the way it will look when in use. He confirmed that the Board can only consider the look of the building the way it has been presented. But the City's Planning & Zoning Board may be able to consider how the actual glass treatments are otherwise presented. Kate Latorre advised that advertising and signage is regulated by the Code to an extent, and usually becomes a code enforcement issue. She did not believe it would be an issue for Planning & Zoning. Walter Bowman commented that he would strongly support future modification to the Code for prohibiting the allowance of advertising in windows. He voiced his opinion that it was a shame they couldn't save the golf course he designed. Community Appearance Board Meeting Minutes February 28, 2012 Page 11 of 13 Assistant City Attorney, Kate Latorre, clarified for the record that the applicant bares the initial burden of showing that they have met all the requirements of the Code to submit the application, the required information in the packet has been provided, and they have met all the criteria in the Code, which the Board is guided by under Section 22-36 (C). The Board needs to weigh all the testimony of the City, all the testimony of the applicant, and all the evidence presented, and determine whether the applicant by competent substantial evidence has met their burden, but if not, the City had to present testimony that they did not meet that burden. If the Board feels that they have met the burden, then the Board can make a motion to approve, approve with conditions, or move to deny. Any conditions imposed on the approval have to be reasonable based on the criteria that the Board has to consider, and furtherance making it more consistent with the criteria in the Code. She noted that if there is a two/two vote on the motion the motion will fail. Motion by Walter Bowman, seconded by Joyce Kelley to approve the request, with conditions consistent with Article III - Community Appearance Review of the Code, Section 22-42 - Procedure (c) (1) (2) & (4), specifically calling to the setting and landscaping, groundcover, proportions, scale, balance, and a greater simplicity of design in a harmonious manner appropriate for what this Board judges and passes on. The conditions are as follows: 1) Reduce the parapets across the front. 2) Lower the towers, all but the one over the entrance. 3) Add landscaping around the base of the building, and sidewalk along the front of the building. 4) Provide a wainscot type treatment of dissimilar material below the windows. 5) Extend a horizontal band existing over the doors to a like band across the three expanses of tall windows to either side of the central entrance only. 6) Provide additional banding around the back of the building and vertical pilasters to break up the horizontal, and expanse of the stated warehouse area. Discussion on the motion followed for clarification. Walter Bowman depicted the specific conditions included in the motion by drawing on a copy of the elevations submitted in the packet, which would be made part of the executed Board Order. The Board members, Staff, and the Applicant reviewed the marked up elevations. The Applicant verified that he understood the conditions as stated and depicted on the elevations. Chairperson Wasserman asked if there were any comments or questions on the motion. Art Spurrell questioned if the air conditioners and equipment would be visible? Walter Bowman responded no. He explained that the sides of the parapet wall will still exceed the height of the air conditioners and equipment. Mr. Spurrell voiced his opinion that the parapet Community Appearance Board Meeting Minutes February 28, 2012 Page 12 of 13 wall should go all around the entire building. Walter Bowman disagreed. He voiced his opinion that there should be fencing or shielding installed close to the air conditioners and equipment themselves. Vote on the motion carried by a (3) to (1) majority vote as follows: Walter Bowman, for; Joyce Kelley, for; Rosalie Wolf, for; Randy Wassermann, against. 3. Interview and Recommendation to City Council - Potential New Board Members: Angela Raymond, Mary Jo Tichich, and Bob Nienstadt. Chairperson Wasserman thanked the applicants for their interest to serve on the Board. The Board members interviewed Angela Raymond. She advised that some places in the City could use a lot of work and encouraged the adoption of design standards; the proposed Beachwave was better than the pink elephant with glasses; the residents probably will not shop at Beachwave; she loves living in the City; she was an English professor, and involved in international programs, she is part of a university faculty, is civic minded, has been a trustee for 100 homes, and is in -tune to aesthetics. Motion by Randy Wasserman, seconded by Walter Bowman to recommend that Council appoint Angela Raymond to the Board. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. The Board members interviewed Mary Jo Tichich. She advised that she has lived in various communities and has a good eye for aesthetics and design; she is a volunteer at City Hall, and cares about the City. Motion by Walter Bowman, seconded by Joyce Kelley to recommend that Council appoint Mary Jo Tichich to the Board. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. The Board members interviewed Bob Nienstadt. He advised that this is the first time that he has lived in a small community and wants to get involved; he has good common sense; he has no aesthetic background; believed most of the residential was okay in the City; he does not like looking at the empty buildings along A1A; and is a boat Captain for Disney. Motion by Randy Wasserman, seconded by Rosalie Wolf to recommend that Council appoint Bob Nienstadt to the Board. Vote on the motion carried by majority with members voting as follows: Walter Bowman, against; Joyce Kelley, for; Rosalie Wolf, for; and Randy Wasserman, for. Walter Bowman stated that he was against the motion because Mr. Nienstadt did not have any experience in aesthetics. Community Appearance Board Meeting Minutes February 28, 2012 Page 13 of 13 OPEN DISCUSSION Barry Brown, Planning & Development Director, handed the Board members a copy of FDOT Scope of Services Multimodal Corridor Planning and Engineering Analysis dated November 10, 2011. He advised that the A1A Economic Development Overlay District Open House was a success. He further advised that if the Beachwave does not modify the plans according to the conditions it will be brought back to the Board. Motion by Walter Bowman, seconded by Rosalie Wolf to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p.m. Approved on this I day of cnuS—% , 2012. Randy Wasserman, Chairperson Susan L. ma , Board Secretary