HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAB Request 12-01 Beachwave - 8801 Astronaut Blvd.This packet contains:
Please note that Community Appearance Board approval does not relieve an applicant of compliance with other requirements:
Sec. 22-41. Compliance with other code provisions.
The requirements of this article are deemed supplemental of, and in addition to, all other applicable codes adopted
by the city including, but not limited to, the land development regulations, and all fire and building regulations,
Approval of plans and specifications by the community appearance board shall be construed only for the limited
purpose of complying with this article, and in no way shall the applicant construe such approval as evidence of
compliance with any other applicable city codes and regulations.
GAAdmin\FORMS=MMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD APPLICATIONS.doc. 1105
c, o1 I N IT 1' Al'I" E A RA N 02-k II_ D
APPLICATION & GENER...,�L INI,(_)RM �'�k 7 F 10 "N
1-0 BE C"ONIFLE FLD M AITLWANT
TL 7 of R -C (I hest yrj — -Z '.,/ j
1/15/'('--"- e6r--
Pi�Oj,�ct
LegLi I I) �-,sc i- 11) t I ori Sec: t I o i-)o�� 11'shil) 2.4-
Lot(s) o (:� k
Parcel—__
SUbdivi"S'lorl:
(S) of*Proper
Ov,:ner(s) Adch-ess:
c Fax--:
Applicant 'N'Lm-ic:
�I)phcani Addis,�-,:
D'.
(Office Use Only)
Is application complete,: Y e q ILI'
I If no, date application retLI-Irned to
Date/Time Board will consider request:_
Fee Paid: (�tesm 0
Application Fee
QP11cation He -vie -wed key :_rat
Date Re -vi e -7;e d : ibi 15
-3-
LEVE L, I I
& WdUstrial projects over 850 scb A,
4 or inore residendal units
Commercial fences and 4 or more residential units
REJUIRED INFORNIATION
Vicirnty \Jap locating all zoning classifications
( i 0 C o 1:) i s )
For nev,,, (.ic-velopmom Of UlArnproved proper,,y,
a rendered concept plan depicting,. in detail,
lockon uFlw-i,dscap;iiig an(I aril t1he ckment.s
on the site. (10 (`—opies)
AT S N (0
N SI"/
All prelbWary cicvaLionis- (W copies)
Animurn of three colored photographs of site --\V
and My, including surrounding properdes.
Sample Of aCtUal maverials, textures, and colors
KdAting location oNoW [Including: roofing,
banduy, buktings, walls. signs, garAge doors, railings
-rinn, rnaii-, Cntrance doors. and fellcingqvalis )
(Ma-" lr)e prose!lLed Lit tho m,"'2ting. (10
-5-
pit
Brevard County Property Appraoio%--r-- Online Real Estate Property Card
Page I of 2
General Parcel Information for 24-37-15-00-00817.0-0000.00 Trim Notice
Parcel Id:
24-37-15-00-
22-.J!
1
NhallrohL)
I
A—cd,�Ll
I
Millage
lCode:
2.f,-!dQ
I
Exemption:—
I
Use
3500
00817.0-0000 00
M, 12.
i JI
Agricultural
$0
$0
Code:
- — ----------- -
Site
8801 ASTRONAUT BLVD, CAPE CANAVERAL 32920 Tax
2441264
Address:
Acct:
$2,180,960
" Site address information is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for E9-1-1 purposes; this information
may not reflect community location of property.
T,ix iffl'ormation is avafl able at Elie M-evard Cmmt
web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
Owner Name: XTREME FUN LLC
Second Name:
,Mailing Address: 185 COCOA BEACH CSWY
lCity, State, Zipcode: ICOCOA BCH, FL 32931
Value Summary
Abbreviated Description
Stili PT OF RECLAIMED LANDS AS DESC
Name: IIN ORB 3064 PG 2885 1
Land Information
* This is the value established for ad valorem purposes in accordance with s.193.01 1 (1 ) and (8), Florida Statutes. This
value does not represent anticipated selling price for the property.
'"I Exemptions as reflected on the Value Summary table are applicable for the year shown and may or may not be
applicable if an owner change has occurred.
*** The additional exemption does not apply when calculating taxable Value for school districts pursuant to amendment
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.coiiilaspISliow_parcel.asp?acct=2441264&geii=T&t... 2/14/2012
20019
2010
2011
Acres: 5
*'Market Value
$2,180,960
$1,871,840
$1,822,200
Site Code: 340
Total:
Agricultural
$0
$0
$0
Market Value:
Assessed Value
$2,180,960
$1,871,840
-1
$1,822,200
Non -School:
Assessed Value
$2,180,960
$1,871,840
$1,822,200
School:
Homestead
$0
$0
$0
Exemption:
** Additional
$0
$0
$0
Homestead:
lk* Other
$0
$0
$0
Exemptions:
*',",','Taxable
Value Non-
$2,180,960
$1,871,840
$1,822,200
School:
I
* I,"," Taxable
$2,180,960
I
$1,871,840
$1,822,200
Value School:
* This is the value established for ad valorem purposes in accordance with s.193.01 1 (1 ) and (8), Florida Statutes. This
value does not represent anticipated selling price for the property.
'"I Exemptions as reflected on the Value Summary table are applicable for the year shown and may or may not be
applicable if an owner change has occurred.
*** The additional exemption does not apply when calculating taxable Value for school districts pursuant to amendment
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.coiiilaspISliow_parcel.asp?acct=2441264&geii=T&t... 2/14/2012
Brevard County Property Appy miser-- Online Real Estate Property Card000m, Page 2 of 2
Sales information
Official
Sale
Deed
""'* Sales
**" Sales
Physical
."wwwwww
Roof Roof
Type I Mater.
Records
Sale Date Amount
Type
Screening
Screening
Change
Vacant/Improved
Book/Page
1-91 02, L)3
03
Code
Source
Code
11991 1 91
5305/1185
5/14/2004 $2,500,000
W..Q
09 1 1
0121
L)j
1
3260/0726
1/1/1993 $531,700
N -N.
2
GO-CART TRACK
I
1
3082/1280
9/30/1990 $450,000
w 1F,
0
1291
0
0
3064/2885
6/30/1990 $360,000
WD
0
0 0
93
21
**" Sales Screening Codes and Sources are from analysis by the Property
Appraiser's staff. They have no bearing on the prior or potential marketability of the
property.
I
Buil ling Inforination Jl11!n kliot.os Drawbin
PDC
#
Use
Code
Year Story
Built Height
Frame
Code
Exterior
Code
Q
Interior
Code
."wwwwww
Roof Roof
Type I Mater.
Floors
Code
Ceiling
Code
1
3500
1991 10
03
03
0
1-91 02, L)3
03
03
21�2f(,!L)
Porch Basements
11991 1 91
LD.,
03
Q..2
09 1 1
0121
L)j
Building Area Information
PDC
Base
Garage
Open
Car
Screened
Utility
Enclosed
FENCE
Bonus
RV RV
Tol
#
Area
Area
Porches
Port
Porches
Rooms
Porch Basements
Attics
Rooms
Carport Garage
Ba
DOCK ROOF
340
WOOD DECK
340
COVERED PATIO
48
GO-CART TRACK
2
GO-CART TRACK
I
Ar
1
9364
0
1291
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0 0
93
21
4321
01
01
01
01
01
01 01
01
01
01 01
4
Extra Feature Information
Extra Feature Description
Units
GOLF COURSE
36
WALL
408
LIGHT POLES
9
FENCE
32
FENCE
1700
FENCE
320
PAVING
32455
COVERED PATIO
2134
COVERED PATIO
128
WALL
816
FOUNTAIN
2
DOCK ROOF
340
WOOD DECK
340
COVERED PATIO
48
GO-CART TRACK
2
GO-CART TRACK
I
LDa?�_Lll.yi!iesl FL,�Dlots,.]
tU(L,,,ak)LL0 U, rwr!UmA1j_,J
https://www.brevardpi-opei-tyappraiser.coii-ilaspIShow_l)arcel.asp?acct=2441264&gen=T&t... 2/14/2012
January 5,ZOl2
To: City OfCape Canaveral
Planning Department
Attn: Barry Brown
From: David TMenzel, President
IVIAI Architects trigineers, in
Ref: Beach Wave Complex
Per your e mail attached are the following:
1. 2- ] dimensional renderings depicting the north, south, east and west elevations.
Electronic format version will be forwarded to you via e mail tomorrow.
2. STOexterior finish information defining the texture ofthe exterior finishes. All exterior
elements will b2finished \nthis product.
5. Color selections for the different building elements, Specific color codes are included
and locations of where the color will be used.
4. Full size SaDlp|8 Ofroof tile including color.
5. Sample of aluminum with color (white) to be used on all door and window frames.
6. Check for $3,050.00
Site Plan Application Fee = $ 750.00
Engineering review Fee = $2,300.00
Total $3,050.00
7. 1 complete set of civil drawings
111100k,
,01#01011�1
8240 Devereux Drive
Suite 100
Viera, Florida 32940
321-259-8900
321-254-4479 Fax
www.deanmead.com
February 1, 2012
Mr. Barry Brown
Community Development Department
City of Cape Canaveral
105 Polk Avenue
Cape Canaveral, FL 32920
Re: Site Plan Review for 8801 Astronaut Boulevard
Attorneys and Counselors at Law
Orlando
Fort Pierce
Viera
Gainesville
KIMBERLY BONDER REZANKA
321-259-8900 x6103
l(rezanka@deanmead.com
As you are aware, we represent Xtreine Fun, LLC, which has submitted to you a Site
Plan for review. We understand that the Site Plan Application was submitted in late November
of 2011, at which time you provided a "Notice of Pending Ordinance" to Dave Menzel. The
legality and propriety of that Notice is suspect, but that issue will certainly be addressed at a later
time.
Pursuant to your demands for additional information after the submittal, Mr. Menzel
provided renderings, exterior finish information, a roof tile sample and the Site Plan and
Engineering Review fees on or about January 5, 2012. At that time, you refused to accept the
$75.00 CAB review fee. Mr. Menzel advised that the Community Appearance Board ("CAB")
fee was available at any tirne, and requested a date for review before the CAB. No date have
been provided to Mr. Menzel or my client. Despite the fact that the CAB has four (4) vacancies,
my client has the absolute right for his Site Plan to be reviewed through the process established
by the City of Cape Canaveral.
Furthermore, more than fourteen (14) days have elapsed since Mr. Menzel provided the
additional requested information, and neither Mr. Menzel or my client has been provided written
comments from the building department, with the City's various department heads' comments.
Unless your City Code has been revised, the fourteen (14) days is specified in Chapter 110, Art.
VI, See. 110-223 (c), and it has not been adhered to by the City.
We hereby demand that written comments be provided immediately to Mr. Menzel, with
a copy to me, and that the Site Plan be set for hearing before the CAB and the Planning and
Zoning Board. If these hearings are not scheduled in the month ofFebruary, and proper notice
..... * ... * ....... ......... * .... * ...... * * ... *"*'*** ..... * .. .........
A Member of ALFA International - The Global Legal Network
1101)"0"
Mr. Barry Brown
February 1, 2012
Page 2
provided to allow the hearings to proceed, we will have no option but to advise Xtreme Fun,
LLC to authorize us to file for a Writ of Mandamus in the Brevard County Circuit Court.
We anticipate hearing from you in the near future regarding these requests.
Sincerely,
msumfl�'�
cc: David L. Greene, City Manager (via email)
Anthony Garganese, Esq. (via email)
David Menzel, MAI (via email)
Oshri Gal (via email)
",Awofth Al"ARRY911%
CONCEIN PLAN REQUIREA 1E M S
(1_,EVELS 161 11)
(RJ-,,'QtJRLD FOR THE ABN DEVELOPMEAR of I NIAWROM) PROPER V)
Dimensions and WenMhon OF 02 parcel.
Use of W: hudding(s), m"Camn WHd
(existin.c., and proposed).
3. Lucabon and alTallgeMOM Of HAMPPAU and immal ground cover,
T
Proposed ill��ress dr-ld ec:".'vess
P rc I i �'-n ", I -I a ry I a n' d s'- a p i in g 11.
, 1) ", ,
Unusual grading or slopes. il any.
Height, materials., colors, and kx'tion of' 'C*c-rwet �� 'all's,
Location, size and graphic content ofproposed exterior signs, outdoor
advebsing or other constructcd (dc nncnt,; mher than hibitaibk, spacc'
Such other architectural and engineering dam as ii'iay he request In
clarifv the presentation.
Size, sleight, mmWer of unw, and lunabn ol'prol,-.)osed all e:
struckwes.
11. Dimensions.
2 T o m I g i n s s a rca a
, nd percemage (la wed w saucnnvpaling and
landscaping.
-6--
CO."; "EPT PLAN ItEQ IREiW.EN rS (LEVELS I & II) - C'ontintied:
16. Zoning districts of neighboring properties:
North South East West
I %. Location of parks; canals, water,vays. boat slips; swimming pools,
recreation; dumpster and type of dumper screening, dune crossover.
fences/,walls, and signs (as applicable).
18. Sidewalks: existing proposed
19. Location and type of landscaping.
20. Total sgLiare footage:of building areas including: luring and under roof.
21. of parking spaces 7 of handicap spaces
w
APPLICATION FEE
wa
The application fee must be paid to the Cite of Cape Canaveral prior to scheduling for
the Community Appearance Board meeting (Section 96-;12).
FEE SCHEDULE:
LEVEL I
Y commercial & industrial projects 850 sq. ft. or less
9 1-3 residential units
6 all signs
O fences 1 to 3 residelitial units
a single family residential addition 850 sq. ft. or less
LEVEL 11
v ® commercial & industrial projects over 850 sq.. ft.
S 4 or more residential units
• commercial fences
If 3` 7 'T T TTT
$75.00
$75.00
$35.00
No Charge
$35.00
$75.00
$7.00
$75.00
No Charge
chance of exterior building or roof color upon commercial buildings or structures
within the C-1, C-2, and M-1 Zoning Districts on N. Atlantic Avenue & Astronaut
Boulevard.
NIEET[\G DATES AND TIME
The Community Appearance Board meets as needed on the 1st and 3rd :lklondays of each
month at 7:00 P.I. at the City Hall annex, I 1 I Polk .avenue, Cape Canaveral,
k completed application packet must be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m. on the Frida% prior
to the Board .agenda being published. (Please ,:heel: �%ith department staff for the last date to
submit the complete packet.)
''Ov
r
r ,r,
/
r �
�,,,�,�;�,�.,ti�,i,��',,., w
Sto Most Popular Finish Textures Collection I StoColor System
Finish products include:
- StOlit@ 1.0
- Sto Fine Sand
- StoSilco@ Lit 1.0
Sto Powerflex Fine
Sto Powerflex Silco Fine
Finish products include:
- Stolit@ 1.5
- Sto Medium Sand
- StoSilco@ Lit 1.5
Sto Powerflex Medium
Sto Powerflex Silco Medium
Page 2 of 3
Finish products inclu
- Stolit@ R1.5
- Sto Swirl
- StoSilco@ Lit R1.5
- Sto Powerflex Swir
- Sto Powerflex Silc(
4 a se
N
Mlow
sfifotRE
Freeform I
Freeform 2
Finish products include: Finish products include:
- Stolit@ Freeform - Stolit@ Freeform
- Sto Powerflex Freeform - Sto Powerflex Freeform
- Sto Powerflex Silco Freeform - Sto Powerflex Silco Freeform
(custom texture shown above) (custom texture shown above)
.....,...-Urnestone
Finish products include:
- Sto Limestone
Finish products include:,
- Sto GraniTex
Decocoat
Finish products l
- Sto Decocoat
htt,o://www.stocom.com/index.nl-in/eii/20091 I 04110/�f(-)Cnlor-',vQte.m/qtc)-i-noqt-noniiiqr-fini 1/S/7()17
J 0 B
SHEET NO. OF
CALCULATED BY
CHECKED BY
SCALE
C 9,f- A /P? t-, R
DATE
6)A�67P,g '(
it SW 63&5
BEACHWAVE COMPLEX
8801 ASTRONAUT BLVD.
CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
OWNER ENGINEER SURVEYOR
EXTREME FUN LLC. MAI DESIGN BUILD, INC. ERIC NIELSON
SERVICES ASSOCIATION 2200 FRONT STREET. SUITE 300 LAND SURVEYORS, INC,
185 COCOA BEACH CAUSEWAY MELBOURNE. FLORIDA 32901 12 STONE ST.
COCOA BEACH, FLORIDA 32931 TEL 321 757-3034 COCOA. FLORIDA 42922
FAX
321 757-3088 TEL (321) 631-5654
GENERAL STATEMENT
EXISTING SITE 15 COMPOSED OF GO-KART TRACK h MINIATURE GOLF
COURSE WITH SUPPORTING BUILDINGS. PARKING. LANDSCAPING AND
STORMWATER RETENTION.
A NEW SINGLE STORY 16,800 SF BUILDING IS PROPOSED IN THE
CURRENT LOCATION OF THE GO-KART TRACK. THE EXISTING MINIATURE
GOLF COURSE IS TO REMAIN.
A NEW DRY STORMWATER POND IS PROPOSED AROUND THE EXISTING
POND.
IN ADDTRON TO THE PROPOSED 16.800 SF RETAIL BUILDING.
PARKING. SIDEWALKS. LANDSCAPING AND DRAINAGE ARE ALSO
PROPOSED.
FIRST FLOOR AREA 16.800 SF
SITE DATA
ZONING: C-1
TAX ACCOUNT B: 2441264
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT: 45 FT..
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: 111-8 SPRINKLED
OCCUPANCY GROUP : 'M' MERCANTILE
MAXIMUM AREA 12.500 X 3 - 37,500 SF 1 16.800 SF
BUILDING SETBACKS
REWIRED PROPOSED
FROM: 25 FT 81 FT
REAR: . 10 FT 294 FT.
NORTH SIDE: 0 FT 35 FT
SOUTH SIDE: 25 FT 263 FT
AREA TABULATION
NEW IMPERVIOUS AREA
PROPOSED BUILDING 16,800 SF .3B ACRES 07.6 %
NEW PAVEMENT 8 SIDEWALKS28084 SF .BS ACRES 13.0 S
TOTAL SITE AREA 217,800 SF 5 ACRES 100 X
PARKING CALCULATIONS
16,800 SF. X I SPACE / 300 SF -56 SPACES REQUIRED
PROVIDED PARKING:
96 REGULAR SPACES
4 HANDICAP SPACES
100 TOTAL SPACES PROVIDED
FLOOD ZONE & FEMA INFORMATION
FLOOD ZONE ZONE X ( OUTSIDE 500 YR. FLOOD PLAIN)
FEMA FIRM MAP / 12009COJ 13 E
PANEL NUMBERS PANEL 313
COMMUNITY CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, FLA.
DATE OF MAP APRIL 3, 1989
UTILITY COMPANIES
F1FCTRIC POWER: BR GABLE:
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT CO.
TV CAB* NETWORKS
270 PIONEER ROAD 720 MAGNOLIA AVE.
MERRITI_ISLAND, .FLORIDA MELBOURNE FLORIDA
(321) 455-6136 (321) 254-3326
TELEPHONE SERVICE: SANITARY SEWER:
BELL SOUTH CRY OF CAPE CANAVERAL PUBLIC WORKS
P.O. BOX 1270 601 THURM BLVD.
COCOA. FLORIDA FADE CANAVERAL. FLA 32920
(321) 455-7121 321-868-1240
POTABLE WATER:
CITY OF COCOA UTILITIES
604 A. F A AVE.
COCOA. FLA
321-443-8100
DIRECTIONS TO SITE
PROCEED ON U.S. HWY. 528 HEADING EAST
PROCEED SOUTH ON ASTRONAUT BLVD.
TURN RIGHT ON CENTRAL BLVD.
TURN RIGHT ONTO PROPERTY '
REQUIRED NOTES
1) SIDEWALKS AND SANITARY SEWERS TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO THE
CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL STANDARDS.
2)WATER LINES TO CONFORM TO CT' OF COCOA STANDARDS.
3) FIRE ALARM SYSTEM TO BE INSTALLED AND CONNECTED TO THE
CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL FIRE DEPARTMENT STANDARDS.
DRAWING INDEX
ID SHEET TITLE
SHEET NO.
CS COVER SHEET
1
C-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMO PLAN
2
C-2 SITE LAYOUT PLAN
3
C-3 SITE UTILITIES PLAN
4
C-4 SITE DRAINAGE PLAN
5
C-5 SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN
6
C-6 SITE DETAILS
7
C -6A POTABLE WATER DETAILS
8
C-7 SITE SECTION/ FDOT DETAIL
9
FUOT DRIVEWAY LOCATION PLAN/ MO
10
C-9 FDOT INDEXES
11
C-10 ISITE LIGHTING PLAN
12
A-100 JARCHITECTURAL FLOOR PLANS
13
Ul
mai
DESIGN BUILD
C -S
rova NOa xw J6em.. v W
aa,axa
Imna x.a ro ra cawrnwr a .va.
�aaamu�eoenrera a mawwt is naww oxrsnu, ue x+m mwnws um
un a� wa+ m x aemr rxv vxoP ro oaxaaewr a caxunna v
°i0ON0emo+°°"'iee em+ixena wa rv,a, ro ee mury ,rxnum, ar .aw x mo, e
omxxw � on o rue eww,.�
° a3°ieiw�e e z wm wne°oSfN°ma� air. w*.ng19rwi° nrta �nwem+"eMO�r wsmn
smxo�Yx xwr-a-,.r rs m ee � � sac xn va*m � owur +>is�.
:u uw aspA�iwom°Fm mnaMO4ro'cnw•: �i�° aw+r wx caw+ ewu sve.
+wxm+a ���'artsR°1O1%moisai rox
�> r M aw xrt`AP4Cuwiaw a maam. na uanx wnr cwio°wrs.'ro � a aoxu+ae ran
ro na �.. aa: mm1Qwrteaaiwe�v i�a�av+a �r`ano m,+a.
ni an a �w•mu. rune wra �n eaou �•a n�uw+°x mom
vnav,m dao nx� .0 mai°a+1pmorr`.ix art u1UCaaawv s n.°m�axmeac eeoDea
u eanu'�""+a w.0 naoou+mi u o..v.mru rwaenx xo+az v .rmr m
art mrt,nc � r ra ,ronwnn.m a,auna u aoemo e. „-u+xo Io .,a naw
r`' �ruw�nox riw�°"�a m etL°i4O1ins�"o t:l r'wwwmn a na sme...m rawaw
8IiE PLAN NOTE8
.°11u art�nannroawew w.w i muene .uxr uro swu wx+.wr v,wunon.
year. ewem aaa u+n ,mv.w a au a .0 r.rw<wrr
ra xieuc P aru ee nmwnae un xuu vu* roar >oevncmrs
a w on�°oa+wcror sx.0 xor a uwim .na r.s recr m ra roar
�ran0° `nwao10rwan�, av�uwnwwcr"no x`nw. w�u eo+o....meerm n.m
a � `L°0R`Iee1°afaAnle Cwm +K a ae Pa.a IMxe ra m[ MroPrxt. Mf x6[at9 Il,
rvrt rm�wo nxroc, aru a< nva.xe xex waea,mu ae aauar w xrt
is ra: mi xrc�n aur u ronmim xar uae as a ra+ •on un a.x a rm ar ra
ae a ae „u,a mxeeaa e.-�n•I am a .onx.ea
mm0trwv n• -a• :wu r�wamaue 0.c ,Doom a xnamy xsa .0 xman ae. a
r an. am�rsaxe x°1O1a. Esau ame n.uz mocs +ma a.LL a �a"'errroao
axxo x..x.vs a�a".sronw�m°i4�'a.a.a.: ,K a�.w v..
E
mai.
GDESIGN BUILD I
SITE LAYOUT PLAN
I
TREE PLANTING DETAIL
SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL
PALM PLANTING DETAiI
DESIGN BUILD
DESIGN BUILD
mmmmw
SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN
C-5
NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION
11 l6'•I'V
EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION
mai
DESIGN BUILD
SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION
1/16' •�'-0'
WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION
mai
DESIGN BUILD
-.A-102
lop
'Anna",
Applicant: David T. Menzel
Request No. 12-01
Date Request was considered by the Board: 2-28-12
The Community Appearance Board approved Request No. 12-01 subject to the
following conditions:
1. Reduce/eliminate the parapets across the front and side (see #3 on Exhibit A).
2. Lower all towers, except for the central tower over the entrance (see #1 and #2 on Exhibit
A).
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 (see #4 on
Exhibit A).
5. Extend the existing horizontal band located over the entry doors, across each of the three
stacked high windows to either side of the central entrance (see #5 on Exhibit A).
6. Provide additional banding around the back of the building and vertical pilaster to break
up the horizontal expanse of the stated warehouse area (see #6, #7, and #8 on Exhibit A).
"Exhibit A, " which consists (?I'archileclural elevations prepared by MAI Architects, Engineers,
Inc. dated 9-13-11, was modified by the Community Appearance Board to depict the conditions
of the Boards approval. Exhibit A is attached hereto and is expressly incorporated herein as a
inaterial part qf'this Order.
Note: Reference City Code Sections: 22-43 (b), Expiration of Approval; 22-45, Appeal of the
Board's decision.
Chairpe
�,ture
rM, t antic Avenue — P.O. Box 326 — Cape Canaveral, FL 32920-0326
Telephone (321) 868-1222 — Fax (321) 868-1247
e-mail: cityofcapecanaveral.org
NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION.—
v
EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION EXHIBIT
DESIGN BUILD
OPSIGD
-A-101
SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION
IR
g
WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION
mai
DESIGN BUILD
':A-102
City of Cape Canaveral
Community Appearance Board
Meeting of February 28, 2012
1111
MMIUMFUZ 111 lllijMwj"pUjjjjFj]jjr*—]=
ills 'M
� 1=410M 1 14
(8801 Astronaut Boulevard)
KIMBERLY BONDER REZANKA, ESQ.
DEAN MEAD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE 100
8240 DEVEREUX DRIVE
VIERA. FL 32940
Page I of I
Jim Ford, CFA
Brevard County Property A,ppraiser - Map Search
https://ww-w.brevardpropertyappraiser.com/scripts/esrimap.dll?name=Brevard 1 &id=20120... 2/28/2012
Page 1 of 1
26 ZX
r..
ti•.�`4 r rl r l � is , fir%
36
755.1
2-1
71
YYl`4, ,rv„ rrr'� ' �, Y'•ty�r i(_L— �`,.1 fl .,�! �'. _/�y wl Y :
',t r'r1\ lel ''•. r,•= � 6Y ,_1 Ri ..�' j+�, �\„
706
510
15.,`3.
m C ENT
338
sF' f
z r
y f.•-
`. ti. % 71 ,
r ry r 4
rll '•`4 `'•.5 1Y
507.1 752 �.
m Brevard County Property Appraiser— Online Real Estate Property Card
Pagel of
�Ui L---- rv- (4 W m C
General Parcel Information for 24-37-15-00-00817.0-0000.00 Trim Notice
Online
Homestead
Filing
CLICK HERE
* Site address information is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for E9-1-1 purposes; this
information may not reflect community location of property.
.Tax information is available at the Brevard County Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
Owner Name: XTREME FUN LLC
Second Name:
Mailing Address: 185 COCOA BEACH
CSWY
City, State, COCOA BCH, FL 32931
Zipcode:
Value Summary
Abbreviated Description
Sub PT OF RECLAIMED LANDS AS
Name: IDESC IN ORB 3064 PG 2885
Land Information
24-37-15-00-
L=!JMap
2011
Acres:
Millage
Market
$2,180,960
Use
3500
Parcel Id:
00817.0-
1
Map/Ortho
&dW
Code:
26G0
Exemption:
Code:
Market
$0
0000.00
11
—
Value:
Site
01 ASTRONAUT BLVD, CAPE CANAVERAL 32920
Tax
Address:
188
Acct:
124412641
* Site address information is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for E9-1-1 purposes; this
information may not reflect community location of property.
.Tax information is available at the Brevard County Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
Owner Name: XTREME FUN LLC
Second Name:
Mailing Address: 185 COCOA BEACH
CSWY
City, State, COCOA BCH, FL 32931
Zipcode:
Value Summary
Abbreviated Description
Sub PT OF RECLAIMED LANDS AS
Name: IDESC IN ORB 3064 PG 2885
Land Information
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.com/asp/Show_pareel.asp?acct=2441264&gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
2009
2010
2011
Acres:
5
Market
$2,180,960
$1,871,840
$1,822,200
Site Code:
340
Value Total:
Agricultural
Market
$0
$0
Sol
Value:
Assessed
Value Non-
$2,180,960
$1,871,840
$1,822,200
School:
Assessed
$2,180,960
$1,871,840
$1,822,200
Value School:
** Homestead
$0
$0
$0
Exemption:
** Additional
$o
$0
$0
Homestead:
** Other
$o
$0
$0
Exemptions:
*** Taxable
$2,180,960
$1,871,840
$1,822,200
Value Non-
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.com/asp/Show_pareel.asp?acct=2441264&gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
m
" Brevard County Property Appraiser-- Online Real Estate Property Card
I�HIDiss0N
top t
Re's rcb
General Parcel Information for 24-37-15-00-00767.0-0000.00 Trim Notice
Page 1 of 4
Online
Homestead
Filing
CLICK HERE
* Site address information is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for E9-1-1 purposes; this
information may not reflect community location of property.
Tax information is available at the Brevard County Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
24-37-15-00-
— M�
TWO INC
Second Name:
ge
* Market
Exemption:
Use!
3920
Parcel Id:
00767.0-
II
Map/Ortho
Aerial
Code:
26GO
Agricultural
Code:
0000.00
—
$0
$0
Value:
* Site
8701 ASTRONAUT BLVD, CAPE CANAVERAL 32920
Tax
2430859
Address:
Value Non-
Acct:
$9,800,000
* Site address information is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for E9-1-1 purposes; this
information may not reflect community location of property.
Tax information is available at the Brevard County Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
Abbreviated Description
Sub PART OF SE 1/4 LYING SWLY OF
Name: ST RD #401 AS DES IN ORB 2072 PG
1351
Land Information
COCOA BEACH MOTEL
Owner Name:
TWO INC
Second Name:
9.55
* Market
C/O ROBERT A BAUGHER
Mailing Address:
2210 S ATLANTIC AVE
City, State,
COCOA BCH, FL 32931
Zipcode:
Value Total:
Value Summary
Abbreviated Description
Sub PART OF SE 1/4 LYING SWLY OF
Name: ST RD #401 AS DES IN ORB 2072 PG
1351
Land Information
http s://www.brevardpropertyappraiser. comlaspIShow_pareel. asp?acct=243 08 5 9 &gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
2009
2010
2011
Acres:
9.55
* Market
$110000
$9,800,000
$7,500,000
Site Code:
340
Value Total:
Agricultural
Market
$0
$0
$0
Value:
Assessed
Value Non-
$11,800,000
$9,800,000
$7,500,000
School:
Assessed
Value
$11,800,000
$9,800,000
$7,500,000
School:
**
Homestead
$0
$0
$0
Exemption:
**
Additional
$0
$0
$0
Homestead:
** Other
$0
$0
$0
http s://www.brevardpropertyappraiser. comlaspIShow_pareel. asp?acct=243 08 5 9 &gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
Brevard County Property Appraiser-- Online Real Estate Property Card Page 2 of 4
Exemptions:
Use
Code
Sale
Deed
*** Taxable
*** Sales
Physical
Change
Vacant/Improved
Value Non-
$11,800,000
$9,800,000
:$7,50:0,0]00
School:
Screening
10
03, 04
*** Taxable
03
09
03,11
Value
$11,800,000
$9,800,000
$7,500,000
School:
4/1/1991
$1,575,000
NN
*This is the value established for ad valorem purposes in accordance with s.193.01 l(1) and (8), Florida Statutes. This
value does not represent anticipated selling price for the property.
** Exemptions as reflected on the Value Summary table are applicable for the year shown and may or may not be
applicable if an owner change has occurred.
* * * The additional exemption does not apply when calculating taxable value for school districts pursuant to amendment
Sales Information
Official
Use
Code
Sale
Deed
*** Sales
*** Sales
Physical
Change
Vacant/Improved
Records
Sale Date
Amount
Type
Screening
Screening
10
03, 04
Book/Page
03
09
03,11
Code
Source
Code
0
3117/4691
4/1/1991
$1,575,000
NN
03
10
11
I
2072/0351
7/1/1979
1 $806,700
1967
10
03
03
03
0855/0624
13/11/19661$490,0001
03
MM
I
I
1967
V
*** Sales Screening Codes and Sources are from analysis by the Property
Appraiser's staff. They have no bearing on the prior or potential marketability of
the property.
Building Information Building Photos Drawings
PDC
#
Use
Code
Year
Built
Story
Height
Frame
Code
Exterior
Code
Interior
Code
Roof
Type
Roof
Mater.
Floors
Code
Ceiling
Code
13920
RV
Gar
1967
10
03, 04
03, 09
03
09
03,11
03
03
21110
0
1967
10
03
03
03
10
11
03
04
33920
01
1967
10
03
03
03
08
03, 11
03
03
43920
1967
1 10
03
03
03
08
03,11
03
03
53920
1967
10
03
03
03
08
03,11
03
03
63920
1967
10
03
03
03
08
03,11
03
03
73920
1967
10
03
03
03
081
03,11
03
03
83200
1967
19
03,04
03
03,04
13
03
92,93
93,04
93920
1999
10
03
03
03
09
03,11
03
03
10
3920
2000
10
03
03
03
09
03,11
031103,04
113920
2000
10
03
03
03
09
93,11
03
03, 04
Building Area Information
PDC
#
Base
Area
Garage
Area
Open
Porches
Car
Port
Screened
Porches
Utility
Rooms
Enclosed
Porch
Basements
Attics
Bonus
Rooms
RV
Carport
RV
Gar
21160
0
3804
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
H21
27821
01
10201
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
0
https ://www.brevardprop ertyappraiser. comlasp/Show_parcel. asp?acct=243 08 5 9 &gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
~ Brevard County Property Appraiser - Photos
Ownao: Cocoa Beach Motel Two Inc; C/O Robert Baugher
5iI Addross: 87O1Astronaut Blvd Cape Canaveral 32920
Parce� lO: 24-37-15'00-767 Tax\D: 2430859 Photo74
Page I of 13
h1hp:/6non. a.O859 2/28/2012
b Brevard County Property Appraiser-- Online Real Estate Property Card
J.itn Ford C.F.A.
P.ropo rty Applra dor;
161 -TL+-a I TSA i
P r`p.r
F : r ht,
General Parcel Information for 24-37-15-00-00757.0-0000.00 Trim Notice
Page 1 of 2
Online
Homestead
Filing
CLICK HERE
* Site address information is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for E9-1-1 purposes; this
information may not reflect community location of property.
Tax information is available at the Brevard County Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
Owner Name: BERGER, ARTHUR W JR
Second Name: BENSON, JEANNE A
TRUSTEES
Mailing Address: 627 ADAMS STREET
City, State, CAPE CANAVERAL, FL
Zipcode: 32920
Value Summary
Abbreviated Description
Sub PART OF LOTS 3 & 4 AS DESC IN
Name: ORB 577 PGS 843 & 845, 1718 PG 772
PAR 782
Land Information
24-37-15-00-
Ham,
M—�
2011
Acres:
Milla
* Market Value
$801,000
Use
$570,000
Parcel Id:
00757.0-
I
Map/Ortho
Aerial
Code:
26GO
Exemption:
Code:
1810
$0
0000.00
—
Assessed Value
$801,000
$675,000
Site
8660 ASTRONAUT BLVD, CAPE CANAVERAL 32920
Tax
2430849
Address:
Ac t:
$801,000
* Site address information is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for E9-1-1 purposes; this
information may not reflect community location of property.
Tax information is available at the Brevard County Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
Owner Name: BERGER, ARTHUR W JR
Second Name: BENSON, JEANNE A
TRUSTEES
Mailing Address: 627 ADAMS STREET
City, State, CAPE CANAVERAL, FL
Zipcode: 32920
Value Summary
Abbreviated Description
Sub PART OF LOTS 3 & 4 AS DESC IN
Name: ORB 577 PGS 843 & 845, 1718 PG 772
PAR 782
Land Information
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser. comlasp/Show_parcel. asp?acct=2430849&gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
2009
2010
2011
Acres:
0.73
* Market Value
$801,000
$675,000
$570,000
Site Code:
340
Total:
Agricultural
$0
$0
$0
Market Value:
Assessed Value
$801,000
$675,000
$570,000
Non -School:
Assessed Value
$801,000
$675,000
$570,000
School:
** Homestead
$0
$0
$0
Exemption:
** Additional
$0
$0
$0
Homestead:
** Other
$0
$0
$0
Exemptions:
*** Taxable Value
$801,000
$675,000
$570,000
Non -School:
*** Taxable Value
$801,000
$675,000
$570,000
School:
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser. comlasp/Show_parcel. asp?acct=2430849&gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
" Brevard County Property Appraiser-- Online Real Estate Property Card Page 2 of 2
* This is the value established for ad valorem purposes in accordance with s. 193.011(1) and (8), Florida Statutes. This
value does not represent anticipated selling price for the property.
* * Exemptions as reflected on the Value Summary table are applicable for the year shown and may or may not be
applicable if an owner change has occurred.
* * * The additional exemption does not apply when calculating taxable value for school districts pursuant to amendment
Sales Information
Official
Records
Book/Page
Sale Date
Sale
Amount
Deed
Type
*** Sales
Screening
Code
*** Sales
Screening
Source
Physical
Change
Code
Vacant/Improved
4200/1951
7/27/2000
$100
WD
1810
1963
11
I
3527/3148
12/1/1995
$205,200
Q31
02
01
0
I
3354/1507
12/1/1993
$100
PT
I
2870/1472
12/1/1987
$366,500
NN
2870/1470
12/l/19871$366,5001
NN
2870/1468
112/l/19871$733,0001
NN
* * * Sales Screening Codes and Sources are from analysis by the Property
Appraiser's staff. They have no bearing on the prior or potential marketability of
the property.
Building Information Building Photos Drawings
PDC
#
Use
Code
Year
Built
Story
Height
Frame
Code
Exterior
Code
Interior
Code
Roof
Type
Roof
Mater.
Floors
Code
Ceiling
Code
1
1810
1963
11
03
03,05
03
10
Q31
03
03
Building Area Information
PDC
#
Base
Area
Garage
Area
Open
Porches
Car
Port
Screened
Porches
Utility
Rooms
Enclosed
Porch
Basements
Attics
Bonus
Rooms
RV
Carport
RV
Gar
1
116301
0
1910
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Extra Feature Information
Extra Feature Description
Units
FENCE
23
FENCE
46
PAVING
20183
FENCE
146
Data Last Updated: Tuesday, February 28, 2012- Printed On: Tuesday, February 28, 2012.
New Search Help
Home [Meet Jim Ford] [Budget & Funding) [Appraisal Toolsl fAppraisees Jobl [General Infol [Assessment Caps) [Exemptionsl [Online Filinql
[Tangible Property) Forms [Appeals [Prooerty Researchl [Map Search) [Maps & Datal [Unusable Propertvl rax Authorities) ITax Factsl
fFAQ1 fLinksl[News Items) Locations [Contact Usl
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.com/asp/Show_parcel. asp?acct=2430849&gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
I Brevard County Property Appraiser -Photos
Dw»ersI Berger, ArthurVV Jr; Benson, Jeanne ATrustees
5��e �ddress� 866OAstronaut Blvd Cape Canaveral 32920
Parce| [D� 34'37-15-00-757 Tax lW 2430849 Phoko [oun�� Q
Page I of 2
h/hp:/6non.oxps 0844 2/28/2012
Brevard County Property Appraiser-- Online Real Estate Property Card
slim, Fvrd,, .F.A.
property Appras�ar.
3reva,rd; County, Ft
Page 1 of 2
(14-) U, S '�Os- or r- ice
General Parcel Information for 24-37-15-00-00824.0-0000.00 Trim Notice
Online
Homestead
Filing
CLICK HERE
* Site address information is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for Ey-1-1 purposes; this
information may not reflect community location of property.
Tax information is available at the Brevard County Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
Owner Name:
24-37-15-00-,
Map
2011
Acres:
Millage 126GOlExemption::
Mailing Address:
5492 SHARP DRIVE
Use
1700
Parcel Id:
00824.0-
Map/Ortho
Aerial
$0
$0
0000.00
IICode:
Assessed Value
$940,000
$815,000
* Site
8700 ASTRONAUT BLVD, CAPE CANAVERAL 32920
Tax
2443783
Address:
Acct:
$940,000
* Site address information is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for Ey-1-1 purposes; this
information may not reflect community location of property.
Tax information is available at the Brevard County Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
Owner Name:
KUCZEK, WILLIAM J
TRUSTEE
Second Name:
2011
Acres:
2.04
Mailing Address:
5492 SHARP DRIVE
City, State,
Zipcode:
HOWELL, MI 48843
Value Summary
Abbreviated Description
Sub PART OF GOVT LOT 3 & PART OF
Name: FILLED LAND AS DESC IN ORB
13500 PG 3630
Land Information
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser. comlasp/Show_parcel.asp?acct=2443783 &gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
2009
2010
2011
Acres:
2.04
* Market Value
$940,000
$815,000
$735,000
Site Code:
340
Total:
Agricultural
$0
$0
$0
Market Value:
Assessed Value
$940,000
$815,000
$735,000
Non -School:
Assessed Value
$940,000
$815,000
$735,000
School:
** Homestead
$0
$0
$0
Exemption:
** Additional
$0
$0
$0
Homestead:
** Other
$0
$0
$0
Exemptions:
*** Taxable Value
$940,000
$815,000
$735,000
Non -School•
*** Taxable Value
$940,000
$815,000
$735,000
School:
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser. comlasp/Show_parcel.asp?acct=2443783 &gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
4Brevard County Property Appraiser-- Online Real Estate Property Card Page 2 of 2
* This is the value established for ad valorem purposes in accordance with s.193.011(1) and (8), Florida Statutes. This
value does not represent anticipated selling price for the property.
* * Exemptions as reflected on the Value Summary table are applicable for the year shown and may or may not be
applicable if an owner change has occurred.
* * * The additional exemption does not apply when calculating taxable value for school districts pursuant to amendment
Sales Information
Official
Use
Code
Sale
Deed
*** Sales
*** Sales
Physical
Vacant/Improved
Records
Sale Date
Amount
Type
Screening
Screening
Change
03,04
Book/Page
03
09
04
Code
Source
Code
0
,1500/3630,8/30/1995,$221,800
WD
V
*** Sales Screening Codes and Sources are from analysis by the Property
Appraiser's staff. They have no bearing on the prior or potential marketability of
the property.
Building Information Building Photos Drawings
PDC
#
Use
Code
Year
Built
Story
Height
Frame
Code
Exterior
Code
Interior
Code
Roof
Type
IRoof
Mater.
Floors
Code
Ceiling
Code
1
1700
1996
12
03,04
06, 08
03
09
04
02, 03
04
Building Area Information
PDC
#
Base
Area
Garage
Area
Open
Porches
Car
Port
Screened
Porches
Utility
Rooms
Enclosed
Porch
Basements
Attics
Bonus
Rooms
RV
Carport
RV
Gara
1.87121
AUTO DOCK LEVELER
0
2602
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Extra Feature Information
Extra Feature Description
Units
PAVING
17300
FENCE
24
PAVING
20300
LOADING WELL
1598
PAVING
1000
FENCE
658
AUTO DOCK LEVELER
12
Data Last Updated: Tuesday, February 28, 2012- Printed On: Tuesday, February las, 2012.
New Search Help
rTanaible Propertvl Formsl [Appealsl [AppealsfProperty Researchl (Map Searchl [Maps & Datal [Unusable Propertvl [Tax Authoritiesl Rax Factsl
FI AQl [Linksl News Itemsl [Locationsl (Contact Usl
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser. comlasp/Show_parcel. asp?acct=2443783 &gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
I Brevard County Property Annrase[-Pho{oa
Owners� Kuczek, William ] Trustee
Si�e AUdress� 8700 Astnznaut Blvd Cape Canavena| 32920
1 34-37-15-00-824 Tax lD� 2443783 Photo Coun. 4
Page I of I
h1hp:/6non.ser uspz 783 2/78/2017
Brevard County Property Appraiser-- Online Real Estate Property Card
4,im, FForA C.F.-A.
Pr rt AprrAisor
S,rz+ v,a,rd County, F-1
OS- M r-DoNAL-Dis
plwp
General Parcel Information for 24-37-15-00-00825.0-0000.00 Trim Notice
Page 1 of 2
Online
Homestead
Filing
CLICK HERE
Parcel Id:
24-37-15-00-
00825.0-M—�
NewsUse
Map/Ortho
Aerial
C/O JFG MANAGEMENT
26G0
Exemption:
Code:
2110
Mailing Address:
1
City, State,
MELBOURNE, FL 32940
Zipcode:
CodeMillage
Value Summary
Agricultural
$0
$0
$0
0000.00
—
Assessed Value
$871,530
$775,250
$685,000
* Site
8780 ASTRONAUT BLVD, CAPE CANAVERAL 32920
Tax
2443784
Address:
Assessed Value
Acct:
$775,250
* Site address information is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for E9 -M purposes; this
information may not reflect community location of property.
Tax information is available at the Brevard County Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
Owner Name:
MC DONALD'S CORP
Second Name:
2011
Acres:
C/O JFG MANAGEMENT
* Market Value
INC
$775,250
1299 BEDFORD DR STE B-
Mailing Address:
1
City, State,
MELBOURNE, FL 32940
Zipcode:
Value Summary
Abbreviated Description
Sub PART OF GOVT LOT 3 & PART OF
Name: FILLED LAND AS DESC IN ORB
3531 PG 1978
Land Information
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.com/asp/Show_parcel. asp?acct=24437 84&gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
2009
2010
2011
Acres:
1.48
* Market Value
$871,530
$775,250
$685,000
Site Code:
340
Total:
Agricultural
$0
$0
$0
Market Value:
Assessed Value
$871,530
$775,250
$685,000
Non -School:
Assessed Value
$871,530
$775,250
$685,000
School:
** Homestead
$0
$0
$0
Exemption:
** Additional
$0
$0
$0
Homestead:
** Other
$0
$0
$0
Exemptions:
*** Taxable Value
$871,530
$775,250
$685,000
Non -School:
*** Taxable Value
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.com/asp/Show_parcel. asp?acct=24437 84&gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
yBrevard County Property Appraiser-- Online Real Estate Property Card Page 2 of 2
ISchool: 1$871,5301$775,2501$685,000�
* This is the value established for ad valorem purposes in accordance with s.193.011(1) and (8), Florida Statutes. This
value does not represent anticipated selling price for the property.
** Exemptions as reflected on the Value Summary table are applicable for the year shown and may or may not be
applicable if an owner change has occurred.
* * * The additional exemption does not apply when calculating taxable value for school districts pursuant to amendment
Sales Information
Official
Use
Code
Sale
Deed
*** Sales
*** Sales
Physical
Change
Vacant/Improved
Records
Sale Date
Amount
Type
Screening
Screening
13
03
Book/Page
03
10
03
Code
Source
Code
0
3531/1982
12/30/1995,$193,000
WD
V
3531/1978
12/30/1995
$1001
WD
I
I
V
* * * Sales Screening Codes and Sources are from analysis by the Property
Appraiser's staff. They have no bearing on the prior or potential marketability of
the property.
Building Information Building Photos Drawings
PDC
#
Use
Code
Year
Built
Story
Height
Frame
Code
Exterior
Code
Interior
Code
Roof
Type
Roof
Mater.
Floors
Code
Ceiling
Code
12110
RV
Gara
1996
13
03
03,08
03
10
03
03
01, 03
Building Area Information
PDC
#
Base
Area
Garage
Area
Open
Porches
Car
Port
Screened
Porches
Utility
Rooms
Enclosed
Porch
Basements
Attics
Bonus
Rooms
RV
Carport
RV
Gara
1.45051
WALL
0
357
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Extra Feature Information
Extra Feature Description
Units
OUTBUILDING
150
WALL
240
FENCE
15
LIGHT POLES
5
PAVING
26900
FENCE
24
WALL
1240
Data Last Updated: Tuesday, February 28, 2012- Printed On: Tuesday, February 28, 2012.
New Search Help
RAN
rrax Authoritiesl rrax Factsl
hqs://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.com/asp/Show_parcel. asp?acct=2443 784&gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
Brevard County Property Appraiser -Photos
Ov,ineo� Mc Donald's Corp; C/OJfq Management Inc
�iteAddross: 878OAstronaut Blvd Cape Canaveral 33g2O
Parce� IU: 24-37-15'00-825 TaxID� 2443784 Phok)[oun�,: 7
Page I of 2
hMn:/6nxn.scr. a. 784 2/78/2012
° Brevard County Property Appraiser-- Online Real Estate Property Card
:i F.Qrt .F.A.
Rr poA,Y Ap,Pr k1*QT
,r -e q,r4 County,
zAC44As
r xty
£q:,s,ga_ r tik
General Parcel Information for 24-37-15-00-00763.0-0000.00 Trim Notice
Page 1 of 2
Online
Homestead
Filing
CLICK HERE
* Site address information is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for E9-1-1 purposes; this
information may not reflect community location of property.
Tax information is available at the Brevard County Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
Value Summary
Abbreviated Description
Sub IPART OF GOVT LOT 3 W OF ST RD
Name: 401 AS DES IN ORB 716 PG 92
Land Information
24-37-15-00-
syr
M—
2011
Acres:
0.38
126GOlExemption:
$360,000
UCode•
$255,000
Parcel Id:
00763.0-
I'I
Map/Ortho
Aerial11
Codege
Agricultural
$0
2100
$0
0000.00
—
Assessed Value
$3602000
$310,000
$255,000
* Site
8799 ASTRONAUT BLVD, CAPE CANAVERAL 32920
Tax
2430855
Address:
Assessed Value
Acct:
$310,000
* Site address information is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for E9-1-1 purposes; this
information may not reflect community location of property.
Tax information is available at the Brevard County Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
Value Summary
Abbreviated Description
Sub IPART OF GOVT LOT 3 W OF ST RD
Name: 401 AS DES IN ORB 716 PG 92
Land Information
https://www.brevardprop ertyappraiser. comlasp/Show_parcel. asp?acct=243 08 5 5 &gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
2009
2010
2011
Acres:
0.38
* Market Value
$360,000
$310,000
$255,000
Site Code:
340
Total:
Agricultural
$0
$0
$0
Market Value:
Assessed Value
$3602000
$310,000
$255,000
Non -School:
Assessed Value
$360,000
$310,000
$255,000
School:
** Homestead
$0
$0
$0
Exemption:
** Additional
$0
$0
$0
Homestead:
** Other
$0
$0
$0
Exemptions:
*** Taxable Value
$360,000
$310,000
$255,000
Non -School:
*** Taxable Value
$360,000
$310,000
$255,000
School:
https://www.brevardprop ertyappraiser. comlasp/Show_parcel. asp?acct=243 08 5 5 &gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
Brevard County Property Appraiser-- Online Real Estate Property Card Page 2 of 2
*This is the value established for ad valorem purposes in accordance with s.193.01l(1) and (8), Florida Statutes. This
value does not represent anticipated selling price for the property.
** Exemptions as reflected on the Value Summary table are applicable for the year shown and may or may not be
applicable if an owner change has occurred.
*** The additional exemption does not apply when calculating taxable value for school districts pursuant to amendment
Sales Information
Official
Use
Code
Sale
Deed
*** Sales
*** Sales
Physical
Vacant/Improved
Records
Sale Date
Amount
Type
Screening
Screening
Change
03
Book/Page
03
091
03, 04
Code
Source
Code
0
3112/1927
3/30/1991
$235,000
WD
I
0768/0694
3/12/1965
$100
QC
V
* * * Sales Screening Codes and Sources are from analysis by the Property
Appraiser's staff. They have no bearing on the prior or potential marketability of
the property.
Buildine Information Building Photos Drawings
PDC
#
Use
Code
Year
Built
Story
Height
Frame
Code
Exterior
Code
Interior
Code
Roof IRoof
Type
Mater.
Floors
Code
Ceiling
Code
12100
RV
Gara
1965
10
03
03,05
03
091
03, 04
03
01,03
Building Area Information
PDC
#
Base
Area
Garage
Area
Open
Porches
Car
Port
Screened
Porches
Utility
Rooms
Enclosed
Porch
Basements
Attics
Bonus
Rooms
RV
Carport
RV
Gara
1-26361
0
0
0
0
576
0
0
0
0
0
Extra Feature Information
Extra Feature Description
Units
FENCE
30
PAVING
12359
PAVING
1076
Data Last Updated: Tuesday, February 28, 2012- Printed On: "Tuesday, February 28, 2012.
New Sear—ch--]Help
Home [Meet Jim Fordl [Budget & Fundingl [Appraisal Toolsl [Appraiser's Jobl [General Infol [Assessment Capsl [Exemotionsl [Online Filinol
[Tangible Propertyl Forms [Appeals [Property Researchl [Map Searchl [Maps & Datal [Unusable Propertyl ITax Authoritiesl rrax Factsl
F[ AQl rLinksl Mews Items l ocations [Contact Usl
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.com/asp/Show_parcel. asp?acct=243085 5 &gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
^Brevazd County Property Appraiser -Photos
Uvners� UgeraNs,Zacharias; Ugerakis,AdamanUaH/VV
5i|c Add8799Astronau1Blvd Cape Can avera| 32920
Parce| lO: 24-37-15-00-763 TauID� 2430055 Phok)[ounL� 5
Page I of I
h1hp:/6nnn. occ o. 0855 2/28/2012
° Brevard County Property Appraiser-- Online Real Estate Property Card
4WFrA ...
3r�q Q;.,Qgnty.j. Fig
Page 1 of 3
CaM-j)At f4f-PQ,5I V fV&ALT�-
Ri1 HS)
Online
fix Homestead
Filing
Re" Ot
CLICK HERE
General Parcel Information for 24-37-15-00-00758.0-0000.00 Trim Notice
* Site address information is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for E9-1-1 purposes; this
information may not reflect community location of property.
Tax information is available at the Brevard County Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
Owner Name: SHELDON COVE LLLP
Second Name:
Mailing Address: IP O BOX 9002
City, State, CAPE CANAVERAL, FL
Zipcode: 132920
Value Summary
Abbreviated Description
SubPART OF GOVT LOT 3 AS DES IN
Name: ORB 601 PG 651
Land Information
24-37-15-00-,,
MSp
2011
Acres:
a
* Market
$241%000
Use
$1,750,000
Parcel Id:
00758.0-
Map/Ortho
Aerial
Code:lla
Code:
26G0
Exemption:
Code:
1810
0000.00
II
$0
$0
$0
Value:
* Site
8810 ASTRONAUT BLVD, CAPE CANAVERAL 32920
Tax
Acct:
2430850
Address:
Value Non-
$2,410,000
* Site address information is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for E9-1-1 purposes; this
information may not reflect community location of property.
Tax information is available at the Brevard County Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
Owner Name: SHELDON COVE LLLP
Second Name:
Mailing Address: IP O BOX 9002
City, State, CAPE CANAVERAL, FL
Zipcode: 132920
Value Summary
Abbreviated Description
SubPART OF GOVT LOT 3 AS DES IN
Name: ORB 601 PG 651
Land Information
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.com/asp/Show_parcel. asp?acct=243085 0&gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
2009
2010
2011
Acres:
2.61
* Market
$241%000
$2,059,000
$1,750,000
Site Code:
340
Value Total:
'
Agricultural
Market
$0
$0
$0
Value:
Assessed
Value Non-
$2,410,000
$2,059,000
$1,750,000
School:
Assessed
$2,410,000
$2,059,000
$1,750,000
Value School:
** Homestead
$0
$0
$0
Exemption:
** Additional
$0
$0
$0
Homestead:
** Other
$0
$0
$0
Exemptions:
*** Taxable
Value Non-
$2,410,000
$2,059,000
$1,750,000
School:
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.com/asp/Show_parcel. asp?acct=243085 0&gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
. Brevard County Property Appraiser-- Online Real Estate Property Card Page 2 of 3
*** Taxable $2410,000 $2,059,000 $1,750,000
Value School: '
*This is the value established for ad valorem purposes in accordance with s.193.01 l(1) and (8), Florida Statutes. This
value does not represent anticipated selling price for the property.
** Exemptions as reflected on the Value Summary table are applicable for the year shown and may or may not be
applicable if an owner change has occurred.
*** The additional exemption does not apply when calculating taxable value for school districts pursuant to amendment
Sales Information
Official
Records
Book/Page
Sale Date
Sale
Amount
Deed
Type
*** Sales
Screening
Code
*** Sales
Screening
Source
Physical
Change
Code
Vacant/Improved
3607/4108
9/30/1996
$1,085,000
WD
1810
1963
11
1
2427/0854
5/2/1983
$550,000
WD
03
04
2148101998
V
2072/0342
7/1/1979
$350,000
03
03
L91
03
02
0601/0651
5/28/19631
$100,000
WD
01
0
V
*** Sales Screening Codes and Sources are from analysis by the Property
Appraiser's staff. They have no bearing on the prior or potential marketability of
the property.
Building Information Building Photos Drawin_s
PDC
#
Use
Code
Year
Built
Story
Height
Frame
Code
Exterior
Code
Interior
Code
Roof
Type
Roof
Mater.
Floors
Code
Ceiling
Code
1
1810
1963
11
03
03,08
03,04
101
03
03
04
2148101998
0
0
10
03
03
03
L91
03
02
03
Building Area Information
PDC
#
Base
Area
Garage
Area
Open
Porches
Car
Port
Screened
Porches
Utility
Rooms
Enclosed
Porch
Basements
Attics
Bonus
Rooms
RV
Carport
RV
Gar
133440
FENCE
0
3846
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
29281
01
5311
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
0
Extra Feature Information
Extra Feature Description
Units
ELEVATOR
1
PAVING
44600
LIGHT POLES
4
FENCE
35
PAVING
2479
WALL
440
FENCE
140
Data Last Updated: Tuesday, February 28,2U12- Yrinted On: Tuesday, rebruary us, 26i2.
New Search Help
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser. comlasp/Show_parcel. asp?acct=243 0850&gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
° Brevard C0uD1v Property Appraiser -Photos
Ownom: Sheldon Cove LUp
�ite Add[ OO1OAstnonautBlvd [ape Can avera| 32920
Parce� lO� 24'37'15-00-758 TaxlD: 2430850 Photo[ouoi: 7
Page] of2
hnn:/6nnn i o. 0850 2/28/2012
Brevard County Property Appraiser-- Online Real Estate Property Card
nA)
.1
General Parcel Information for 24-37-15-00-00826.0-0000.00 Trim Notice
Page I of 2
Online
Homestead
Filing
CLICK HERE
* Site address information is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for E9-1-1 purposes-, this
information may not reflect community location of property.
,Tax information is available at the Brevard County Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
24-37-15-00-
!!=jiMa
INC
Second Name:
Millage
Market Value
CIO SAVAGE ETAL INC
Use
RACETRAC 591R
Parcel Id:
00826.0-
Address:
Map/Ortho
Aerial
Code:
26G0
Exemption:
Code:
1130
$0
0000.00
11
—
Assessed Value
$1,161,830
$869,370
$755,000
Site
8899 ASTRONAUT BLVD, CAPE CANAVERAL 32920
Acct:
2444421
Address:
Assessed Value
I
* Site address information is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for E9-1-1 purposes-, this
information may not reflect community location of property.
,Tax information is available at the Brevard County Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
Abbreviated Description
Sub PART OF FILLED LANDS W OF ST
Name: RD NO 401 AS DESC IN ORB 3643 PG
4181 EXC 3949 PG 1127 1
Land Information
RACETRAC PETROLEUM
Owner Name:
INC
Second Name:
2.04
Market Value
CIO SAVAGE ETAL INC
$869,370
RACETRAC 591R
Mailing
P 0 BOX 22845
Address:
Total:
City, State,
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73123
Zipcode:
Agricultural
Value Summary
Abbreviated Description
Sub PART OF FILLED LANDS W OF ST
Name: RD NO 401 AS DESC IN ORB 3643 PG
4181 EXC 3949 PG 1127 1
Land Information
https://www.brev,trdpropertyappralser.com/asp/Show_parcel.asp?acct=2444421 &gcn=T&t... 2/28/2012
2009
2010
2011
Acres:
2.04
Market Value
$1,161,830
$869,370
$755,000
Site Code:
340
Total:
Agricultural
so
$0
$0
Market Value:
Assessed Value
$1,161,830
$869,370
$755,000
Non -School:
Assessed Value
$1,161,830
$869,370
$755,000
School:
** Homestead
$0
$0
$0
Exemption:
** Additional
$0
$0
$0
Homestead:
** Other
$0
$0
$0
Exemptions:
I
Taxable
$1,161,830
$869,370
$755,000
I
Value Non-
https://www.brev,trdpropertyappralser.com/asp/Show_parcel.asp?acct=2444421 &gcn=T&t... 2/28/2012
Brevard County Property Appraiser-- Online Real Estate Property Card Page 2 of 2
School:
Use
Code
Sale
Deed
*** Taxable
$1,161,830
$869,370
$755,000
Value School:
Sale Date
Amount
Type
* This is the value established for ad valorem purposes in accordance with s. 193.011(1) and (8), Florida Statutes. This
value does not represent anticipated selling price for the property.
** Exemptions as reflected on the Value Summary table are applicable for the year shown and may or may not be
applicable if an owner change has occurred.
*** The additional exemption does not apply when calculating taxable value for school districts pursuant to amendment
Sales Information
Official
Use
Code
Sale
Deed
*** Sales
*** Sales
Physical
Change
Vacant/Improved
Records
Sale Date
Amount
Type
Screening
Screening
13
03, 05
Book/Page
03,04
09
11
Code
Source
Code
0
3643/4181
2/28/1997$440,000
PT
V
* * * Sales Screening Codes and Sources are from analysis by the Property
Appraiser's staff. They have no bearing on the prior or potential marketability of
the property.
Building Information Building Photos Drawings
PDC
#
Use
Code
Year
Built
Story
Height
Frame
Code
Exterior
Code
Interior
Code
Roof
Type
Roof
Mater.
Floors
Code
Ceiling
Code
1
1130
1997
13
03, 05
05, 08
03,04
09
11
03
03
Building Area Information
PDC
#
Base
Area
Garage
Area
Open
Porches
Car
Port
Screened
Porches
Utility
Rooms
Enclosed
Porch
Basements
Attics
Bonus
Rooms
RV
Carport
RV
Gara
1.29641
CANOPY
0
480
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Extra Feature Information
Extra Feature Description
Units
FENCE
22
FENCE
680
TANK
1
TANK
2
PAVING
37850
LIGHT POLES
7
CANOPY
18960
WALL
1252
Data Last Updated: Tuesday, February 28, 2012- Printed On: Tuesday, February 28, 2012.
New Search Help
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.com/asp/Show_parcel.asp?acct=2444421 &gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
Brevard County Property Ser- Photos
Dwners� RacetracPetno|eum Inc; C/O Savage Eta|Inc Racetrac5Q1R
Si-uAddrass� 8899Astronaut 8|vd Cape Canaveral 32920
Parce|
ID: 24-37-15-00-836 TaxlD� 2444421 Photo [oun[,� 6
Page loFl
6rMp:/6nnn.Scc . l 2/28/2012
11 Brevard County Property Appraiser-- Online Real Estate Property Card
Jim, Ford, C.F.A.
Propart)t Apptajs0r
Brevard CoulntYi F1
� 1N &]
General Parcel Information for 24-37-15-00-00037.0-0000.00 Trim Notice
Page I of 2
Online
Homestead
Filing
CLICK HERE
* Site address information is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for E9-1-1 purposes; this
information may not reflect community location of property.
Tax information is available at the Brevard County Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
Owner Name:
24-37-15-00-
!!=!jMa
2011
Acres: 1.43
Millage
Mailing
Address:
P 0 BOX 20783 GENERAL
MAIL FACILITY
Use
2110
Parcel Id:
00037.0-
____P
Map/Ortho
Ma-
Aerial
Code:
JZ6 GOlExemption:
$0
Code.
$0
Market Value:
0000.00
Assessed Value
$1,037,930
$932,310
$650,000
Non -School:
Site
8939 ASTRONAUT BLVD, CAPE CANAVERAL 32920
Tax
2460759
Address:
I
Acct:
$650,000
* Site address information is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for E9-1-1 purposes; this
information may not reflect community location of property.
Tax information is available at the Brevard County Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
Owner Name:
BURGER KING
CORPORATION
Second Name:
2011
Acres: 1.43
Market Value
Mailing
Address:
P 0 BOX 20783 GENERAL
MAIL FACILITY
City, State,
.Zipcode:
MIAMI, FL 33102
Value Summary
Abbreviated Description
Sub PART OF FILLED LANDS W OF ST
RD NO 401 AS DESC IN ORB 5735
Nam PG 7094
Land Information
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.comlasp/Show_parcel.asp?acct=2460759&gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
2009
2010
2011
Acres: 1.43
Market Value
$1,037,930
$932,310
$650,000
Site Code: 340
Total:
Agricultural
$0
$0
$0
Market Value:
Assessed Value
$1,037,930
$932,310
$650,000
Non -School:
Assessed Value
$1,037,930
$932,310
$650,000
School:
** Homestead
$0
$0
$0
Exemption:
** Additional
$0
$0
$0
Homestead:
** Other
$0
$0
$0
Exemptions:
-
*** Taxable
Value Non-
$1,037,930
$932,310
$650,000
School:
i
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.comlasp/Show_parcel.asp?acct=2460759&gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
® Brevard County Property Appraiser-- Online Real Estate Property Card Page 2 of 2
*** Taxable $1,037,930 $932,310 $650,000
Value School:
* This is the value established for ad valorem purposes in accordance with s. 193.011(1) and (8), Florida Statutes. This
value does not represent anticipated selling price for the property.
** Exemptions as reflected on the Value Summary table are applicable for the year shown and may or may not be
applicable if an owner change has occurred.
*** The additional exemption does not apply when calculating taxable value for school districts pursuant to amendment
Sales Information
Official
Use
Code
Sale
Deed
*** Sales
*** Sales
Physical
Vacant/Improved
Records
Sale Date
Amount
Type
Screening
Screening
Change
04
Book/Page
03, 04
991
03
Code
Source
Code
0
5847/1000
2/18/2008.$1,500,000_
WD
25
03
V
5735/7094
12/12/2006
$1001
WD
I
I
I
IV
* * * Sales Screening Codes and Sources are from analysis by the Property
Appraiser's staff. They have no bearing on the prior or potential marketability of
the property.
Building Information Building Photos Drawings
PDC
#
Use
Code
Year
Built
Story
Height
Frame
Code
Exterior
Code
Interior
Code
Roof IRoof
Type
Mater.
Floors
Code
Ceiling
Code
12110
RV
Gana
2008
12
04
037 12
03, 04
991
03
03
01,04
Building Area Information
PDC
#
Base
Area
Garage
Area
Open
Porches
Car
Port
Screened
Porches
Utility
Rooms
Enclosed
Porch
Basements
Attics
Bonus
Rooms
RV
Carport
RV
Gana
1.25271
PAVING
0
1497
0
0
0
01
0
0
0
0
Extra Feature Information
Extra Feature Description
Units
LIGHT POLES
6
PAVING
13488
PAVING
495
WALL
424
FENCE
25
WALL
424
PAVING
14525
Data Last Updated: Tuesday, February 28, 2012- Printed On: Tuesday, Nebruary 28, 2012.
Forms
New Search Help
[FAQI ink [News Itemsl
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.com/asp/Show_parcel. asp?acct=246075 9&gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
Brevard County Property Appraiser- Photos
O\Noers� Burger King Corporation
SiteAddress: 8g3AAstronaut Blvd Cape Canaveral ]2g2O
Parcel ID: 24-37'15-00-37 TaxID: 2400759 Pho(:o [ount� 10
Page I of 2
61tp:/6nxn mcr q 2/28/2012
Brevard County Property Appraiser— Online Real Estate Property Card
Jim Ford, C.F.A.
Property Appros;o
Brevard CovntyF1
(10/1
PrOperty
Page I of 3
INiQ
General Parcel Information for 24-37-15-00-00025.0-0000.00 Trim Notice
Online
Homestead
Filing
CLICK HERE
* Site address information is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for E9-1-1 purposes; this
information may not reflect community location of property.
Tax infon-nation is available at the Brevard County Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
Owner Name:
24-37-15-00-
L=!jMqp
LTD LLP
Second Name:
6.23
Market
$5)50000
UseParcel
3920
Id:
00025.0-
City, State,
MaR/Ortho
AejjaIj26GO
College
Value Summary
Exemption:
Code;
Market
$o
0000.00
R:
Value:
Site
8959 ASTRONAUT BLVD HOTEL, CAPE CANAVERAL 32920
Tax
2444423
Address:
Value Non-
jAcct:
I I
* Site address information is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for E9-1-1 purposes; this
information may not reflect community location of property.
Tax infon-nation is available at the Brevard County Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
Owner Name:
AIA ACQUISITION GROUP
2010
LTD LLP
Second Name:
6.23
Market
$5)50000
Mailing
3425 N ATLANTIC AVE
Address:
340
City, State,
COCOA BCH, FL 32931
Zipeode:
Value Summary
Abbreviated Description
PART OF FILLED LANDS W OF ST
Sub RD NO 401 AS DESC IN ORB 3675 PG
Name: 971 3949 PG 1127 EXC ORB 5566 PG
4525, 5735 PG 7094 PAR 829
Land Information
https:llwww.brevardpropertyappraiser.comlaspIShow_pareel.asp?acct=2444423&gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
2009
2010
2011
Acres:
6.23
Market
$5)50000
$3,900,000
$3,300,000
Site Code:
340
Value Total:
Agricultural
Market
$o
$0
$0
Value:
Assessed
Value Non-
$5,500,000
$3,900,000
$3,300,000
School:
Assessed
$5,500,000
$3,900,000
$3,300,000
Value School:
** Homestead
$0
$0
$0
Exemption:
** Additional
$0
$0
$0
Homestead:
** Other
$0
$0
$0
Exemptions:
*** Taxable
https:llwww.brevardpropertyappraiser.comlaspIShow_pareel.asp?acct=2444423&gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
® Brevard County Property Appraiser-- Online Real Estate Property Card Page 2 of 3
Value Non-
$5,500,000
$3,900,000
$3,300,000
School:
*** Sales
Physical
Vacant/Improved
*** Taxable
$5,500,000
$3,900,000
$3,300,000
Value School:
Screening
Change
03,04
*This is the value established for ad valorem purposes in accordance with s.193.01 l(1) and (8), Florida Statutes. This
value does not represent anticipated selling price for the property.
** Exemptions as reflected on the Value Summary table are applicable for the year shown and may or may not be
applicable if an owner change has occurred.
*** The additional exemption does not apply when calculating taxable value for school districts pursuant to amendment
Sales Information
Official
Use
Code
Sale
Deed
*** Sales
*** Sales
Physical
Vacant/Improved
Records
Sale Date
Amount
Type
Screening
Screening
Change
03,04
Book/Page
03
091
11
Code
Source
Code
0
5288/2198
5/5/2004
$1,735,300
WD
PT
V
3675/0971
5/30/1997
$569,8001
WD
I
I
I
I V
* * * Sales Screening Codes and Sources are from analysis by the Property
Appraiser's staff. They have no bearing on the prior or potential marketability of
the property.
Building Information Building Photos Drawings
PDC
#
Use
Code
Year
Built
Story
Height
Frame
Code
Exterior
Code
Interior
Code
Roof
Type
IRoof
Mater.
Floors
Code
Ceiling
Code
13920
RN
Ga
2006
10
03,04
03,12
03
091
11
03
03
Building Area Information
PDC
#
Base
Area
Garage
Area
Open
Porches
Car
Port
Screened
Porches
Utility
Rooms
Enclosed
Porch
Basements
Attics
Bonus
Rooms
RV
Carport
RN
Ga
1
121668
0
3351
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Extra Feature Information
Extra Feature Description
Units
POOL
1844
PAVING
6050
PAVING
8492
PAVING
104219
LIGHT POLES
31
WALL
330
ELEVATOR STOPS
8
WALL
660
FENCE
1058
FENCE
962
ELEVATOR
4
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.com/asp/Show_parcel. asp?acct=2444423 &gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
" Brevard Property Appraiser-PhotoS
Ala Acquisition Group Ltd Up
5iLeAddr�as� 8959Astronaut Blvd Unit Hotel Cape Canaveral 3392O
Parce| IO: 24-37-15-00-25 TaxID� 2444423 Phoio[ount� 13
h|t`:/6nnn. .. 2/28/2012
O�ners�
V Brevard County Property Appraiser-- Online Real Estate Property Card
4,11m Fojrd, C.F.A.
Prope rt A prai er
Ore, 4T, County, Fk
Pagel of 3
ATT 5-50f NCOKP
Online
rr
x': Homestead
Filing
r os rc 6_, CLICK HERE
General Parcel Information for 24-37-15-00-00756.0-0000.00 Trim Notice
* Site address information is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for E9-1-1 purposes; this
information may not reflect community location of property.
Tax information is available at the Brevard County Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information Abbreviated Description
Owner Name: 8910 ASTRONAUT BLVD Sub PART OF LOTS 2 & 3 AS DESC IN
LLC Name: ORB 6228 PG 746
Second Name:
C/O STANCORP MTG
INVESTORS LLC
Mailing 19225 NW TANASBORNE DR
Address: 3RD FL
City, State, HILLSBORO, OR 97124
Zipcode:
Value Summary Land Information
24-37-15-00-
N��
M�
2011
Acres:
Millage
* Market
$4310000
Use
$2,850,000
Parcel Id:
00756.0-
Map/Ortho
Aerial
26GOExemption:
Agricultural
1800
0000.00
II
Code:
$0
$0
Code:
Value:
Site
8910 ASTRONAUT BLVD HQTRS, CAPE CANAVERAL 32920
Assessed
2430848
Address:
Ac t•Tax
$4,100,000
* Site address information is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for E9-1-1 purposes; this
information may not reflect community location of property.
Tax information is available at the Brevard County Tax Collector's web site
(Select the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information Abbreviated Description
Owner Name: 8910 ASTRONAUT BLVD Sub PART OF LOTS 2 & 3 AS DESC IN
LLC Name: ORB 6228 PG 746
Second Name:
C/O STANCORP MTG
INVESTORS LLC
Mailing 19225 NW TANASBORNE DR
Address: 3RD FL
City, State, HILLSBORO, OR 97124
Zipcode:
Value Summary Land Information
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.com/asp/Show_parcel.asp?acct=2430848 &gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
2009
2010
2011
Acres:
3.42
* Market
$4310000
$3,335,000
$2,850,000
Site Code:
340
Value Total:
Agricultural
Market
$0
$0
$0
Value:
Assessed
Value Non-
$4,100,000
$3,335,000$2,850,000
School:
Assessed
$4 100,000
$3,335,000
$2,850,000
Value School:
'
** Homestead
$0
$0
$0
Exemption:
** Additional
$0
$0
$0
Homestead:
** Other
$0
$0
$0
Exemptions:
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.com/asp/Show_parcel.asp?acct=2430848 &gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
W Brevard County Property Appraiser-- Online Real Estate Property Card
*** Taxable
Value Non- 1$4,100,0001$3,335,0001$2,850,000
*** Taxable 1$4,100,0001$3,335,0001$2,850,000
Value School:
Page 2 of 3
*This is the value established for ad valorem purposes in accordance with s.193.01l(1) and (8), Florida Statutes. This
value does not represent anticipated selling price for the property.
** Exemptions as reflected on the Value Summary table are applicable for the year shown and may or may not be
applicable if an owner change has occurred.
*** The additional exemption does not apply when calculating taxable value for school districts pursuant to amendment
Sales Information
Official
Use
Sale
Deed
*** Sales
*** Sales
Physical
Change
Vacant/Improved
Records
Sale Date
Amount
Type
Screening
Screening
Height
Code
Book/Page
Code
Type
Mater.
Code
Source
Code
4100
6228/0746
6/28/2010.$3,649,800
05
OC
11
13
11
I
3623/2263
11/30/19961
$546,000
WD
13
03, OS
03, 08
V
1134/0066
7/28/1969
$100,000
PT
* * * Sales Screening Codes and Sources are from analysis by the Property
Appraiser's staff. They have no bearing on the prior or potential marketability of
the property.
Building Information Building_ Photos Drawings
PDC
Use
Year
Story
Frame
Exterior
Interior
Roof
Roof
Floors
Ceiling
#
Code
Built
Height
Code
Code
Code
Type
Mater.
Code
Code
1
4100
1997
20
05
07
O1, 03
13
11
02, 03
01,03
2
1800
1998
13
03, OS
03, 08
03
13
11
03
03
Building Area Information
PDC
#
Base
Area
Garage
Area
Open
Porches
Car
Port
Screened
Porches
Utility
Rooms
Enclosed
Porch
Basements
Attics
Bonus
Rooms
RV
Carport
RV
Gar
1
79621
0
129
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2355521
01
1901
01
0
2 0 8'1
01
01
01
01
0
Extra Feature Information
Extra Feature Description
Units
PAVING
44196
LIGHT POLES
6
FENCE
86
PAVING
3055
FENCE
150
INSULATION
7280
INSULATION
7440
ELEVATOR
1
https://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.com/asp/Show_parcel. asp?acct=243 0848&gen=T&t... 2/28/2012
� Brevard County Property Appraiser - Photos
JIM FORD CFA - PROPERTY APPRAISER - BREVARD COUNTY FLORIDI,
Dwners� 8g1OAstronaut Blvd LLC; C7OStancorp Mtg Investors L|c
�10e Addi, Multiple Addresses
Pa,ce|TD: 24-37-15-00-756 Tavin ?4,�noAo
Page I of I
h1hp:/6nnn. acr 0848 2/28/2012
R,
M CITY OF
CAPiff-ITC NA
c u
mr9m
e a n
I
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................... 1
A. Boundaries and Organization........................................................................................................... 1
B. AIA Economic Opportunity Overlay District Background.............................................................. 2
II. PURPOSE....................................................................................................................................................3
III. GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND PRINCIPLES............................................................................................... 3
A. Goals......................................................................................................................................................3
B. Objectives.............................................................................................................................................. 3
DesignPrinciples...........................................................................................................................................4
IV. ADMINISTRATION................................................................................................................................5
A. Definition of a Project......................................................................................................................... 5
B. Procedures for EOOD Architectural Compatibility Plan Approvals...........................................5
C. Submittals.............................................................................................................................................. 5
D. Nonconforming Buildings and Uses...................................................................................................5
V. DEFINITIONS.............................................................................................................................................6
VI. USE MATRIX.......................................................................................................................................... 8
VII. SITE PLANNING.................................................................................................................................... 8
A. Building Orientation............................................................................................................................. 9
E. Building Height..................................................................................................................................... 9
F. Project Acreage.................................................................................................................................... 9
G. Circulation..........................................................................................................................................9
H. Utility & Service Areas......................................................................................................................10
VIII. ARCHITECTURE....................................................................................................................................11
A. Articulation...........................................................................................................................................11
B. Building Continuity..............................................................................................................................12
C. Scale.....................................................................................................................................................12
D. Proportion............................................................................................................................................12
E. Rhythm..................................................................................................................................................13
F. Entry Treatment..................................................................................................................................13
G. Roof Lines............................................................................................................................................14
Cape Canaveral EOOD DRAFT ( 1/25/2012) Planning Design Group Page I i
H. Exterior Surface Materials...............................................................................................................14
Windows& Transparency................................................................................................................14
J.
Storefronts...........................................................................................................................................15
K.
Color.....................................................................................................................................................15
L.
Awnings and Canopies......................................................................................................................16
M.
Ground Floor Lighting.......................................................................................................................16
N.
Utilities and Mechanical Equipment Screening and Trash/Recycling Containers...................16
IX.
PARKING.............................................................................................................................................18
A.
Surface Parking..................................................................................................................................18
B.
Shared Parking...................................................................................................................................18
C.
Parking Structures..............................................................................................................................18
X. LANDSCAPING.......................................................................................................................................19
A.
Surface Parking Lots..........................................................................................................................19
Xl.
SIGNAGE.............................................................................................................................................20
A.
All Signs...............................................................................................................................................20
B.
Awning Signs.......................................................................................................................................21
C.
Pedestrian Signs.................................................................................................................................21
D.
Projecting Signs..................................................................................................................................21
E.
Wall Signs...........................................................................................................................................22
F.
Hanging Signs.....................................................................................................................................22
G.
Window Signs.....................................................................................................................................22
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Economic Overlay District Boundary Map................................................................................ 1
Figure 2 — Economic Opportunity District — Gateway Area.................................................................... 2
Figure 3 - Economic Opportunity District — Main Street Area................................................................. 2
Figure4 - Building Articulation....................................................................................................................1 1
Figure5 - Building Scale...............................................................................................................................12
Figure6 - Building Proportion......................................................................................................................13
Figure 7 - Facade Rhythm.............................................................................................................................13
Figure8 - Windows & Transparency.........................................................................................................14
Figure9 — Building Color..............................................................................................................................15
Cape Canaveral EOOD DRAFT ( 1/25/2012) Planning Design Group Page I ii
The /AA Economic Opportunity Overlay District (E[){>Q) provides guidelines and standards for
public and private development projects in commercially zoned areas along AIA. Consistent with
the intent of the 2009 Community Vision Study, the EO(}D is developed to promote hospitality
related commercial development that capitalizes on the economic benefits of Port [onovero|/
provide guidance and direction inthe design nfnew and rehabilitation ofexisting buildings and
storefronts in order to improve their appearance, enhance the corridor's identity and promote the
pedestrian environment of the District.
All projects within the boundaries of the /\\f\ ECJ{)D should comply with the following Design
Guidelines and Development Standards. These requirements have the overall goal of
encouraging compact, pedestrian -oriented developments and attractive public outdoor spaces.
The EC){}D is designed to create o unique identity for the /\|/\ Corridor with o distinct sense of
place while attracting new businesses and customers, and providing for the comfort, convenience,
and safety ofworkers, residents and shoppers.
A. Boundaries and Organization
The boundaries ofthe AIA EC)ODare shown onFigure l below. The AIA E{}C)Dbconfined
to properties zoned for commercial, office, and industrial uses which abut AIA from the
City Limits onthe north toCanaveral River nnthe south.
Design guidelines one policy directives and are implemented through the application of
design standards. Often, more than one standard per guideline is provided.
Fiovre ) 'ecpnomipovmxo/m/s�cTao"n6onmno
Cape Canaveral EOOD DRAFT (1 /25/2012) Planning Design Group Page 1 1
B. AIA Economic Opportunity Overlay District Background
The AIA Economic Opportunity Overlay District is o one -mile commercial corridor,
generally recognized as extending from the entrance to the City of Cape Canaveral on
the north to the Canaveral River area on the south. This one -mile corridor is intersected by
Centro/ Boulevard which generally runseost'west
The District okmg 4J/\ is intended to verve as the main gateway area into the City of
Cape Canaveral. The District along Central Boulevard is intended toserve the main street
to the City ofCape Canaveral's Town Center and as o transition between the land use,
circulation, and sireetscope along Central Boulevard and the interior ofthe Town [enter.
This District is intended to have the most intense commercial density in relation haexisting
residential densities adjacent to the District and within the proposed Town Center, The
E{}(}D is meant to provide o lively and attractive interface between the proposed Town
Center and the adjacent residential communities, while maintaining o primarily commercial
street frontage along /\|A and Central Boulevard.
The streets will have o retail/commercial service atmosphere with small orlarge
neighborhood stores at street level and apartments oroffices on upper floors. The retail
composition of the district should include stores, personal sen/ices, hotels, cultural facilities,
hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, convenience stores with gas, high tech manufacturing,
entertainment, and eating establishments that serve the EO{}D as well as stores, eating
establishments, and business sen/ices (printing, accounting, etc.) that serve the other
Cape Canaveral EOOD DRAFT (1 /25/2012) Planning Design Group Page 1 2
businesses and office users in the area. Residential uses should be limited to upper floors
along AIA and Central Boulevard within the Economic Opportunity Overlay District.
The main street component of the District is intended to provide a mixed-use, pedestrian -
oriented focus for the proposed Town Center, with land uses serving Town Center
Residents and visitors. This district provides the City of Cape Canaveral with a small-town
style walkable center that is convenient, useful, safe and attractive for pedestrians and
lively, yet relaxed. Small-scale retail and other commercial uses should occupy as much of
the ground floor frontages along Central Boulevard as the market will bear, with the
tallest buildings, pedestrian plazas, and/or retail anchors centered at the intersection of
AIA/Central Boulevard and Central Boulevard/Commerce Street, creating the desired
town center effect. Upper floors should be residential along these two main streets. This
District should provide for a diversity of housing types to serve a broad segment of the
community. Side street frontages and the rears of parcels should be composed of multi-
family, townhouse, duplex/triplex, or detached single-family residential uses at townhouse
densities. This district also should provide the potential for a continuum -of -care
development such as independent, assisted living and skilled care.
II. PURPOSE
The purpose of these Design Guidelines and Standards is to provide flexibility in the uses and
design requirements for the AIA EOOD, while setting minimum design standards to facilitate
quality development. These Design Guidelines and Standards will guide future development and
redevelopment within the City of Cape Canaveral so that it creates more vital commercial cores
and corridors, protects residential neighborhoods and neighborhood commercial centers, promotes
the use of quality building materials, enhances the streetscape on all public streets, and continues
to improve the image and pride in the city.
III. GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND PRINCIPLES
A. Goals
The AIA Economic Opportunity Overlay District provides Design Guidelines and Standards
intended to promote and enhance the identity of the District. Specifically, the goals of the EOOD
are:
• To create attractive, functional, and lasting buildings and places.
• To promote development and redevelopment that preserves and enhances the physical
appearance of the corridor and contributes to the District's unique sense of place.
• To encourage the use of quality materials in development and redevelopment.
• To encourage development that adds to a pedestrian friendly retail environment and
contributes to the safety and comfort of both pedestrian and automobile traffic.
• To provide direction in site planning and to ensure a high degree of design quality in
development of the AIA EOOD through the use of Design Guidelines and Standards.
• To enhance and protect the commercial corridors and primary entrances in the City of
Cape Canaveral.
B. Objectives
• The design guidelines are intended to address the built environment within the City of
Cape Canaveral and to recognize aesthetic design as an integral part of the planning
process.
Cape Canaveral EOOD DRAFT (1 /25/2012) Planning Design Group Page 1 3
• The guidelines are intended to ensure that the appearance of new development, infill
development, and redevelopment is representative of the City of Cape Canaveral.
• The guidelines will enable development to occur in a manner that is not only beneficial
and worthwhile for the developers and property owners, but the development will also
have a positive impact on the surrounding properties, neighborhoods, citizens, and the
entire city.
Design Principles
The AIA EOOD is based upon a set of principles. These principles are:
1. Consistency:
The AIA Commercial corridor features a mixture of development types including office
buildings, hotels and convention facilities, strip -commercial centers, neighborhood -serving
retail, nighttime entertainment uses, an amusements park, and restaurants. Design of these
structures has been influenced by use, age, and site dimensions. Within the context of
these constraints, developments can achieve the principle of consistency through selection
of colors, exterior surface materials, landscaping and sign programs.
2. Activity:
Active street life, which can be enhanced by design considerations, is a major component
of thriving pedestrian commercial districts. In spite of recent development, which has
detracted from a pedestrian environment, there are many opportunities to insert options
for increased street -level pedestrian activity along AIA. Through building orientation,
circulation, storefront design and landscaping, development can further promote the
principle of pedestrian activity.
3. Pedestrian Orientation:
Pedestrian orientation can be achieved through storefront ornamentation, reduction of
blank surfaces, building articulation, color, and texture. Guidelines and Standards based
upon this principle address wall surfaces, windows, awnings, signage, and architectural
treatments.
4. Safety:
Public safety is critical to the success of a commercial district. Public safety in this case
refers not only to safety from criminal activity, but also creating an environment in which
pedestrian and automobile traffic can safely coexist. The design and development of
commercial centers and the public open space adjacent to them should include
considerations of public safety. Public safety issues can be addressed through site
planning considerations such as the location of parking lots, lighting, signage and
landscaping.
5. Simplicity:
Design Guidelines and Standards for the AIA EOOD should provide for public
convenience by clearly identifying the nature of the business and communicating points of
ingress and egress for pedestrian and automobile traffic.
Cape Canaveral FOOD DRAFT (1 /25/2012) Planning Design Group Page 1 4
IV. ADMINISTRATION
All projects as defined in the AIA Economic Opportunity Overlay District will be reviewed for
compliance with the Design Guidelines and Standards prior to being issued a building permit.
A. Definition of a Project
A project as defined in Section 86-2 is "The erection, construction, commercial additions, or
exterior structural alteration of any building or structure, including, but not limited to, pole
signs and/or monument signs located in an Economic Opportunity Overlay District. A
Project does not include construction that consists solely of (1) interior remodeling, interior
rehabilitation or repair work; or (2) a residential building on a parcel or lot which is
developed entirely as residential use and consists of three or fewer dwelling units, unless
expressly provided for in an Economic Opportunity Overlay District established pursuant
to this section".
B. Procedures for EOOD Architectural Compatibility Plan Approvals
No building permit will be issued for any project, and no person will perform any
construction work on a project, until an Economic Opportunity Overlay District Architectural
Compatibility Plan has been submitted to the Planning Department and approved
according to the procedures in Chapter 22, Article III of the City of Cape Canaveral Code
of Ordinances.
C. Submittals
An application for an Architectural Compatibility Plan approval shall also include the site
plan submittals as indicated in the Section 110-222 of the City of Cape Canaveral Code
of Ordinances.
D. Nonconforming Buildings and Uses
Those structures or buildings that do not comply with the EOOD Design Guidelines and
Standards at the time of adoption retain nonconforming rights pursuant to the
Nonconformities in Section 1 10-191 of the Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances. Legally
existing sign and/or sign structures that do not comply with the EOOD Guidelines and
Standards at the time of adoption are governed by the Nonconformities provisions in
Section 1 10-191 of the Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances.
Cape Canaveral EOOD DRAFT (1/25/2012) Planning Design Group Page 1 5
V. DEFINITIONS
The following words and phrases, whenever used in this document, shall be construed as defined
in this section. Words and phrases not defined herein shall be construed as defined in Section
1 10-1 of the Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances.
Accent Color: A contrasting color used to emphasize architectural elements.
Architectural Bay: The area enclosed by the storefront cornice above, piers on the side and the
sidewalk at the bottom.
Awning: A roof -like cover of canvas or cloth framed by wood or metal that extends in front of a
doorway or window to provide protection from the sun or rain.
Awning Sign: Any sign located on the valance of a shelter supported entirely from the exterior
wall of a building which extends over a building feature such as a door or window or a
landscape/site feature such as a patio, deck or courtyard and which is constructed of fabric.
Bright Paint: Paint containing "fluorescent dye of pigment which absorbs UV radiation and re -
emits light of a violet or bluish hue. Used to increase the luminance factor and to remove the
yellowishness or white or off-white materials." (Coatings Encyclopedic Dictionary)
Canopy: A projecting horizontal architectural element of a building that is constructed of solid
material and has the form of a flat band.
Cast Stone: A refined architectural concrete building unit manufactured to simulate natural cut
stone, used in masonry applications.
Color Palette: A color scheme that incorporates related colors of complimentary hues and shades.
Cornice: Horizontal architectural band.
Electronic Message Display Sign: A wall, projecting or pedestrian sign that displays still images,
scrolling or moving images, including video and animation, utilizing a series of grid lights that may
be changed through electronic means such as cathode ray, light emitting diode display (LED),
plasma screen, liquid crystal display (LCD), fiber optic, or other electronic media or technology.
Entablature: The superstructure of moldings and bands which lie horizontally above a column.
FaSade: The front of a building or any of its sides facing a public way or space.
Fenestration: The design, proportioning, and disposition of windows and other exterior openings
of a building.
Floor area ratio (FAR): A measurement of the intensity of building development on a site. The
floor area ratio is the relationship between the gross floor area on a site and the gross land
area. The FAR is calculated by adding together the gross floor areas of all buildings on the site
and dividing by the gross land area.
Cape Canaveral EOOD DRAFT (1/25/2012) Planning Design Group Page 1 6
Frieze: Ornamental architectural band.
Ground Floor: The lowest story within a building which is accessible to the street, the floor level or
which is within three feet above or below curb level, is parallel to or primarily facing any public
street.
Hanging Sign: A type of sign which is similar to projecting signs except that they are suspended
below a marquee or under a canopy, making them generally smaller than projecting signs
Muntin: A strip of wood or metal separating and holding panes of glass in a window.
Parapet: A low wall along the edge of a roof.
Pedestrian Sign: A type of sign which is attached to a wall or to the underside of an awning,
architectural canopy or marquee with one or two faces perpendicular to the face of the building
which identifies a use of service exclusively or primarily by symbol.
Primary Color: One to three base colors chosen to dominate a color scheme.
Projecting Sign: A type of sign which is attached to a building face and projects out
perpendicularly to the building wall and is effective when oriented to pedestrians.
Shared Parking: Shared parking may be applied when land uses have different parking
demand patterns and is able to use the some parking spaces/areas throughout the day.
Spandrel: Space between the curve of an arch.
Stepback: A stepback is a setback located on the upper floors of a building, typically to reduce
the bulk of a building or to provide outdoor floor space.
Streetwall: The fall of fa;ades created in a pedestrian oriented district when stores are built to
the front lot -line and built from side lot -line to side lot -line.
Stucco: A coarse plaster composed of Portland or masonry cement, sand and hydrated lime,
mixed with water and applied in a plastic state to form a hard covering for exterior walls.
Troweled Finish: A dense, smooth finish obtained by working a fresh concrete or plaster surface
with a steel trowel.
Wall Sign: A type of sign which is attached to the face of a building wall and may include
channel panels or letters made out of wood, metal, or recycled composite material.
Window Sign: A type of sign which consists of individual letters and/or logos painted, posted,
displayed, etched or otherwise placed on the interior surface of the window and intended to be
viewed from the outside.
Cape Canaveral FOOD DRAFT (1 /25/2012) Planning Design Group Page 1 7
IVI~ USE MATRIX
The AIA Economic Opportunity Overlay District is intended to serve as both the main gateway
area into the City as well as the main street to the City's proposed Town Center. The District will
have the most intense commercial intensity along AIA and there will be o transition between the
land use, doo|odon, and stnaetscope along Central Boulevard. The following land use matrix
identifies the uses which one permitted by right (P), permitted by o special exception (3E), or not
allowed (NA).
Not a complete listing of uses
Retail
P
P
NA
Personal Services
P
P
SE
Hotels and Motels
P
P
NA
Restaurants
P
P
SE
Cultural facilities
P
P
NA
Hospitals; clinics
P
P
NA
Banks
P
P
SE
Residential
SE
NA
NA
Assisted Living Facility
SE
NA
NA
Automotive Service Stations
SE
P
NA
Add the following uses
Pharmacies
P
P
NA
Flex space (office, showroom, warehouse)
SE
SE
P
Convenience store w/gas
SE
SE
NA
Warehousing and storage
NA
SE
P
High tech manufacturing
SE
SE
P
Distribution warehouse
NA
SE
p
Assembly and light manufacturing
SE
SE
P
Off-site cruise ship parking (Accessory use to hotels
and motels)
SE
SE
NA
V11~ SITE PLANNING
Site planning involves the proper placement and orientation of structures, maximum structure
height, minimum development acreage, open spaces, parking and pedestrian and vehicular
circulation on o given site. The purpose of good site design is to create o functional and attractive
development, to minimize adverse impacts, and to ensure that o project will be on asset to the
oommunity-
Propershe planning should promote harmony between new and existing buildings and should be
sensitive tothe scale, form, height, and proportion ofsurrounding development. Good design with
complementary landscaping is o major component in creating vibrant commercial areas that
foster o pleasant and desirable character, pedestrian activity, and economic vitality. Factors such
as the size and massing of buildings, the orientation of storefronts, and circulation greatly
influence the quality ofthe pedestrian experience.
Cape Canaveral E001) DRAFT (1 /25/2012) Planning Design Group Page 1 8
Along the ALA Economic Opportunity Overlay District, she planning of new buildings and the
nahob||kohcm of existing buildings should promote continuity ofthe historic context of buildings in
relationship to the existing pattern and scale of streets, sidewalks and parking. The guidelines
and standards below reinforce the existing historic development patterns and provide o site
planning framework for both infill developments and rehabilitation and revitalization ofexisting
A. Building Orientation
Guideline l: Orient buildings towards /AA and Central Boulevard as well as adjacent
cross -streets in order to encourage pedestrian activity along the sidewalks of AIA and
Central Boulevard and to facilitate pedestrian access to and from the sidewalk to
odioosn+ properties.
Standard 1: Projects with rear lot lines abutting o street, oUey, or parking lot
should incorporate pedestrian entrances ot the rear lot line in addition tothose on
AIA and Central Boulevard.
E. Building Haight
Guideline 2: Building height should be correlated to the scale ofthe street along which it
faces and should encourage ocomfortable pedestrian -oriented environment
Standard 2a: The building height for projects which are adjacent hoAIA shall he
no more than six stories or 65 feet measured vertically at the street level.
Standard 2b:The building height for projects which are adjacent to Central
Boulevard and other sidestreetswkhintheE{JODsho||benomooethanfoor
stories or45 feet measured vertically otthe street level.
Standard 2c:Increased building heights may beconsidered on000se-by-cooe
basis ifheight mitigation measures such as a building "stapbock"is proposed.
F. Project Acreage
Guideline 3: All uses within o project shall besized to provide sufficient building setback
and to encourage a pedestrian -oriented environment.
Standard 3: All uses shall have minimum lot size consistent with the area required to
meet the building setback, lot coverage and development standards of this district.
G. Circulation
Guideline 5: Provide easy sidewalk access to pedestrians by locating vehicle access and
loading on*os where there will be minimal physical or visual impact on pedestrians, the
Cape Canaveral MOD DRAFT (1 /25/2012) Planning Design Group Page 1 9
Standard 5a: All vehicular entrances should, to the maximum extent possible, be
located off of a side street or an alley in order to minimize pedestrian and
vehicular conflicts.
Standard 5b: Walkways for pedestrian access should be provided between
parking areas and the Project.
Standard 5c: Passenger loading zones located on the street should not impede
foot traffic or sidewalks.
Standard 5d: Parking lots and structures should be designed to provide safe
pedestrian circulation between parked vehicles and the primary building through
the use of clearly marked pedestrian walkways, stop signs, speed bumps, lighting,
or other similar measures.
H. Utility & Service Areas
Guideline 6: Locate utilities, storage areas, mechanical equipment, fire alarms, sprinklers
and other service areas so that they are not visible from the public right-of-way.
Standard 6: Utilities, storage areas, mechanical equipment, fire alarms and
sprinklers installed as part of a new project should be placed to the rear of the
site or underground when feasible.
Cape Canaveral EOOD DRAFT (1/25/2012) Planning Design Group Page 110
ViGl° ARCHITECTURE The onhhecNru| elements used in the design of new buildings should create and/or maintain
continuity of the streetfoprde. New building fopzdes should employ architectural devices that
provide gradual or compatible transitions between existing and new buildings. Such elements
include continuity of scale, massing and design, windows and transparency, fo�ocle treatment,
building mokar|o|, color, access, and open space which collectively serve as logical evolutions of
the existing character ofthe street. This does not mean that identical architectural styles should be
duplicated from neighborhood buildings. Rather, continuity should be maintained through o
consistency in proportion and character of defining elements of existing fo5odes or repetition of
other architectural features.
A. Articulation
Guideline 1: Reduce the monotony of large buildings by breaking architectural elements into
smaller pedestrian scale components or through use of varied materials, textures or colors,
trim, roof lines, canopies and awnings in order to provide variation and visual interest.
Fo5odes should be organized into three major components, the base (ground level), body
(upper architecture) and cap (poropet,entablature orroofUne).
Figure 4-aunainaAgHcukifio"
Standard la: The incorporation ofexpressed architectural bays should beencouraged ;o
break up large unbroken surfaces along the street wall.
Standard 1bu All projects should provide horizontal architectural treatments and/or
fopzde articulations such as cornices, friezes balconies, piers, awnings, pedestrian
amenities, orother features for the first 15 feet of building height, measured vertically at
street level.
Standard lc: Projects with sixty linear feet or more of building frontage should provide
vertical architectural treatments and/or fogode ortkn|cUkms such as columns, pilasters,
indentations, storefront bays, windows, landscaping, or other feature at least every thirty
feet oncenter. The vertical break shall be at least five feet in width.
Standard Id: Balconies fronting AIA, Central Boulevard and/or the side streets that
protrude 30 inches from the building vvoU and are no more than 12 feet in length may be
included.
Cape Canaveral EOOD DRAFT (1 /25/2012) Planning Design Group Page I 11
B. Building Continuity
Guideline 2: Maintain building openings that enhance building design and conthnuity, as well
osthe pedestrian experience.
Standard 2: Buildings should generally be designed to maintain o continuous street wall
along the length of o block except to accommodate building articulation pursuant to
Guideline 1.
C. Scale
Guideline 3'Maintain human scale ofbuilding that enhances the pedestrian experience atthe
ground floor of commercial areas.
piau=5-evim/nqmo�e
Standard 3: Fogzdes should incorporate minimum oftwo (2) continuous details refined to
the scale of 12 inches or less vvhk|n the first 10 feet of the building wall, measured
vertically at the street level.
D. Proportion
Guideline 4: Maintain ground level pedestrian scale with traditional storefront fo�ode
components and proportions to provide a consistent pattern of architectural detailing,
including the use of decorative elements, changes in noof|ines and windows, and changes in
building materials and color.
Cape Canaveral EOOD DRAFT (1 /25/2012) Planning Design Group Page 1 12
Figure, 6-ouim/nopmppd�nn
Standard 4a: The frontage of buildings shall be divided in architecturally distinct sections
of no more than sixty (60) feet in width with each section taller than it is wide.
Standard 4b: Windows and storefront glazing shall be divided to be either square or
vertical in proportion so that each section is taller than it is wide.
Standards 4c: Vertical and horizontal design elements, including columns, pilasters, and
cornices, should be defined at both the ground level and upper levels to break up the
mass ofbuildings.
E. Rhythm
Guideline 5: Solid blank walls should be avoided through the use nffo�ude modulation or
other repetitive architectural detailing to maintain vboo| organization of the building's
fo�ocle.
pigver-pocadenhyffim
Standard 5a: A minimum of one significant detail ormassing component shall be repeated
no less than three (3) times okmg each applicable elevation.
Standard 5b: The scale of the chosen element shall relate to the scale of the structure.
F. Entry Treatment
Guideline 6: Construct o dominant entryway to reinforce the character of the building, odd
visual interest, break up the monotony of flat surfaces, add o vertical element to break up the
fo�odeofthe building and create oninviting entrance.
Standard 6a; A dominant entryway fronting o public street that is differentiated from the
building fogode and provides o distinctive use of architectural treatments, materials, or
special lighting should be constructed.
Standard 66* Buildings constructed on o comer should place the dominant entry on the
corner at o diagonal. The use of o curvilinear element for this entryway is strongly
encouraged.
Standard 6c: Building entries should be illuminated at night.
Cape Canaveral EOOD DRAFT (1 /25/2012) Planning Design Group Page 1 13
Standard 6d: Doors should be comprised of non -tinted clear glass, which is free of
temporary signage and/or other types of materials that may obstruct visibility.
G. Roof Lines
Guideline 7: Design new buildings to achieve consistency by creating continuity between the
heights ofadjacent roofs, parapets, and cornices.
Standard 7a: Roof lines should be designed to reflect o distinct style (such od o relatively
consistent horizontal cornice with o dominant vertical architectural element to meet the roof
line; or 2) o collage effect with clearly juxtaposed roof lines that have o repetitive
element.
Standard 7b: Severe roof pitches that create prominent out -of -scale building elements
should be avoided.
H. Exterior Surface Materials
Guideline 8: Select high quality, human -scale building materials to reduce building moss,
create visual interest, and complement the existing architectural style ofthe AIA E{}[}Q.
Standard 8w: The base ofo building (the first two tofive feet above the sidewalks) should
be differentiated from the rest ofthe building fogode with treatments such as change in
material and/or color.
Standard 8b: The extedorfogode of low -and mid -rise buildings should incorporate no less
than two building materials including but not limited to tile, brick, stucco cost stone, stone,
formed concrete or other high quality, long-lasting masonry material over o minimum 75
percent ofthe surface area (excluding windows, doors and curtain wo||sJ The remainder
of the wall area may incorporate other materials.
k Windowws& Transparency
Guideline 9:Add visual interest and create o feeling of openness by incorporating windows
with architectural defining features such as window frames, sashes, muntins, glazing, paneled
or decorated iambs and moldings.
riqven'wxmymws&Transparency
Standard 9a: A minimum percentage of transparency for different levels of non-
residential uses should be achieved as follows:
• Ground level retail: 5DY6ofsurface area minimum;
w Ground level office orother commercial uses` 3596ofsurface area minimum/
Cape Canaveral EOOD DRAFT (1 /25/2012) Planning Design Group Page 1 14
• Groom] level of commercial use over 25,0X00 5F: 2596 of surface area
minimum; and
• Upper levels of all uses: 20% of surface area minimum.
Standard 9hu Transparency of the ground level shall be calculated within the first lJ feet
of the building wall, measured vertically otstreet level.
Standard 9c: |ncases where o building has more than two (2) facades fronting o street or
primary travel way, the transparency requirement shall only be required on two facades
booa6 on pedestrian traffic and vehicular visibility.
Standard 9d: All ground level windows shall provide direct views +othe building's interior
ork»o lit display area extending o minimum of 3 feet behind the window.
Standard 9e: Ground level windows shall extend above o minimum 18 to 24 inch base.
Standard 9d: Street facing, ground floor windows should be comprised of non -tinted,
clear glass.
Standard 9e: Windows of high-rise buildings may be comprised of tinted glass to reduce
Q|one and unnecessary reflection.
I Storefronts
Guideline 10: Promote onactive pedestrian district by incorporating attractive and functional
storefronts into new construction.
Standard 10a: Nm|Up|e tenants with storefronts within o single building should be
architecturally consistent, but defined and separated through structural boys, horizontal
lintels, vertical piers or other architectural features up to 30 -foot intervals.
Standard 10b: Individual storefronts should not be used for storage or left empty without
window displays.
K. Color
Guideline 11: Use o color palette which complements adjacent buildings and promotes o
consistent color scheme onthe site.
ACA |Nlc*'*» 2
F 9-mvnaioocw|v,
Cape Canaveral EOOD DRAFT (1/25/2012) Planning Design Group Page 1 15
Standard 11 a: A maximum of three (3) primary colors for each building segment may be
proposed with a maximum of two (2) secondary accent colors.
Standard 11 b: Bright or intense colors should not be utilized for large areas unless
consistent with the historical context of the area as shown in historic documentation.
Standard 11 c: Bright colors on architectural detailing, trim, window sashes, doors and
frames, or awnings may be used if they are consistent with the historical context of the
area as shown in historic documentation.
Standard 11 d: All vents, gutters, down spouts, etc. should be painted to match the color of
the adjacent surface, unless being used expressly as trim or an accent element.
L. Awnings and Canopies
Guideline 12: Add awnings or canopies to provide variation to simple storefront designs in
order to establish a horizontal rhythm between structures where none exists and add color to
a storefront.
Standard 12a: The size, scale and color of the awnings should be compatible with the rest
of the building and should be designed as an integral part of the building architecture.
Standard 12b: Awnings and canopies should be constructed of high quality, substantial
materials which must be durable and fade resistant and maintained in good condition and
replaced periodically.
Standard 12c: Canopies and awnings that span an entire building are discouraged. The
careful spacing of awnings that highlight certain features of a storefront or entryway is
encouraged.
M. Ground Floor Lighting
Guideline 13: Incorporate lighting into the design not only to accentuate architectural
features, but to provide a safe environment for pedestrian activity.
Standard 13a: Lighting should be shielded to prevent glare to adjacent properties.
Standard 13b: Intense lighting which is used solely for advertising purposes should not be
used.
Standard 13c: Buildings should be highlighted through "up" lights or accent lights placed
on the fagade.
N. Utilities and Mechanical Equipment Screening and Trash/Recycling Containers
Guideline 14: Screen or enclose existing utilities, storage areas, mechanical equipment, fire
alarms, sprinklers and other service areas with attractive landscaping or architectural barriers.
Standard 14a: Screen or enclose rooftop mechanical equipment by materials that are
architecturally integrated with the building.
Standard 14b: Locate enclosed trash/recycling containers at the rear where they are not
visible to the public.
Cape Canaveral EOOD DRAFT (1/25/2012) Planning Design Group Page 1 16
Standard 14c: Trash/Recycling storage bins should be located within a gated, covered
enclosure constructed of materials identical to the exterior wall of the building and
screened with landscaping, so as not to be viewed from the public right-of-way.
Cape Canaveral FOOD DRAFT (1 /25/2012) Planning Design Group Page 1 17
IX. PARKING
The location and design of parking lots and buildings in a development is critical in promoting
safety for pedestrians and minimizing conflict with vehicles. Parking structures and areas should
form an integral part of the project and be well landscaped, so as not to detract from the
pedestrian experience and maintain visual interest.
A. Surface Parking
Guideline 1: Locate surface parking in the rear or side of buildings and provide pedestrian
access from the parking to the building and street.
Standard 1: A surface parking lot adjacent to a public street should conform to the
landscape requirements detailed in Section X of these guidelines.
B. Shared Parking
Guideline 2: Shared parking is encouraged within the district so as to provide an option to
reduce the amount of land needed for parking and create opportunities for more compact
development, more space for pedestrian circulation, or more open space and landscaping.
Shared parking may be approved administratively by the Community Development
Department.
Standard 2a: Provide incentives for shared parking such as increased floor are ratio
(FAR) and building height.
Standard 2b: Shared parking in commercial areas in the district should be encouraged as
part of the development review process.
Standard 2c: Shared parking must be located on the same block as the land uses they are
intended to serve or on opposite sides of an alley.
Standards 2d: As part of the approval process, the developer would need to demonstrate
that the two land uses have differing peak -hour demand, or that the total parking
demand at any one time would adequately be served by the total number of spaces.
Standard 2e: A development agreement between the sharing property owners is required
in order to ensure proper functioning of the shared parking arrangement.
C. Parking Structures
Guideline 3: Integrate a parking structure into the overall design of a development through
compatible materials, color and architectural defining features.
Standard 3: Parking structures should be compatible with the main building through a
consistency in building material, color and design.
Cape Canaveral EOOD DRAFT (1 /25/2012) Planning Design Group Page 1 18
X. LANDSCAPING
Through the use of a variety of vegetation such as trees, shrubs, ground cover, perennials and
annuals, as well as other materials such as rocks, water, sculpture or paving materials,
landscaping unifies streetscape and provides a positive visual experience. Landscaping also can
emphasize sidewalk activity by separating vehicle and pedestrian traffic, provide shade, define
spaces, accentuate architecture, create inviting spaces and screen unattractive areas.
A. Surface Parking Lots
Guideline 1: Buffer existing parking adjacent to a public right-of-way as well as
residential buildings with a landscaped barrier.
Standard la: Interior landscaping for off-street parking should conform to the
requirements of Section 110-567 of the Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances.
Standard 1b: Minimum landscape buffer width along AIA shall be a minimum of
ten (10) feet.
Standard 1c: Minimum landscape buffer along all other side streets shall be five
(5) feet.
Cape Canaveral FOOD DRAFT (1 /25/2012) Planning Design Group Page 1 19
XI. SIGNAGE
The placement, construction, color, font style, and graphic composition of signs have a collective
impact on the appearance of an entire district. Therefore, it is important to integrate signage with
the overall design of a building and its surrounding landscape. Signage should convey a simple
straightforward message to identify businesses and/or to assist pedestrians and vehicular traffic
in locating their destination. The size, number, location and use of signage are further regulated in
Chapter 94 of the Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances.
A. All Signs
Guideline 1: Design signage which is incorporated into the overall design of a building
and complements the fa5ade or architectural element on which it is placed.
Standard 1 a: All signs should be maintained in good repair.
Standard 1 b: Easy to read signs with a brief simple message and a limited array
of font styles are encouraged.
Standard lc: Colors should be selected to contribute to the legibility and design
integrity of a sign with sufficient contrast between the background color and that
of the letter or symbol.
Standard 1 d: Signs should not dominate or obscure the architectural elements of
building fa5ades, roofs or landscaped areas.
Standard le: Signs should be constructed of metal, stone, wood, recycled
composite material or other non -illuminated material.
Standard 1f: Signs made up of channel lettering, hung away from the face of a
building such as a projecting sign and or signs perpendicular to the face of a
building tend to have a lighter appearance and are permitted.
Standard 1 g: Neon signs and channel lettering are permitted.
Standard 1 h: Internal illumination should be used only for signs composed of
individual channel or neon letters or graphics.
Standard 1 is The height and width of letters and logos should be properly
proportioned to the sign area on which the sign is to be located.
Standard 1 is Signs should be scaled to fit within the boundaries of a storefront or
building it is advertising.
Standard 1 k: The exposed backs of all signs visible to the public should be
suitably finished and maintained.
Standard 11: Projects or buildings containing more than one storefront should have
a planned coordinated sign program that provides consistency with regard to
height, size, shape, colors and degree of illumination.
Standard 1 m: The restoration of historic signage as prescribed in recognized
preservation guidelines is strongly encouraged.
Cape Canaveral EOOD DRAFT (1 /25/2012) Planning Design Group Page 1 20
Standard 1 n: After 90 days of closing a business, any related signs should be
removed and replaced with blank panels or painted out unless the sign qualifies as
"Outdoor Advertising" per the State of Florida Department of State.
B. Awning Signs
Guideline 2: Develop awning signs that are harmonious with architectural details of the
fa5ade and which do not detract from the overall design.
Standard 2a: Signage should be limited to the skirt (valence) of the awning and
should not be on the awning face.
Standard 2b: If illuminated, awning sign illumination should be external. Back -lit,
translucent signs are prohibited. Lighting should be directed downward and should
not illuminate the awning.
Standard 2c: To avoid having to replace awnings or paint out previous tenant
signs when a new tenant moves in, the use of replaceable valances should be
considered.
Standard 2d: The shape, design, and color of the awnings should be carefully
designed to coordinate with, and not dominate, the architectural style of the
building. Where multiple awnings are used, on the building, the design and color
of the sign awnings should be consistent.
C. Pedestrian Signs
Guideline 2: Develop coordinated pedestrian signage, which complements the pedestrian
orientation of the AIA/Central Boulevard Corridor.
Standard 2a: Each business on the ground floor may have one pedestrian sign,
except that corner businesses with frontage on both streets may have two
pedestrian signs.
Standard 2b: Each business that is located on a second floor may have a
pedestrian sign on the ground level if there is direct exterior pedestrian access to
the second floor business space.
D. Projecting Signs
Guideline 3: Design projecting signs, which are compatible with the architectural context
of the AIA Corridor and which improves the overall appearance of the area.
Standard 3a: Projecting signs should be hung at a 90 -degree angle from the face
of the building.
Standard 3b: Appropriate materials include wood, metal, recycled composite
material or other non -illuminated material with carved or applied lettering, or any
other material that is architecturally compatible with the building to which the sign
is attached.
Standard 3c: Sign supports and brackets should be compatible with the design
and scale of the sign and the architectural design of the building. Where
appropriate, decorative iron and wood brackets are encouraged.
Cape Canaveral EOOD DRAFT (1/25/2012) Planning Design Group Page 1 21
Standards 3d: The text, copy, or logo face should not exceed 75 percent of the
sign face of a projecting sign.
E. Wall Signs
Guideline 4: Design wall signs, which are compatible with the architectural context of the
AIA Corridor and which improves the overall appearance of the area.
Standard 4a: Multiple wall signs on a building fa4ade should be located in order
to maintain a physical separation between each individual sign, so it is clear that
the sign relates to a particular store below.
Standard 4b: Wall signs should be mounted on a flat building surface, and, unless
a projection is an integral design element, should generally project as little as
possible from the building's face. Wall signs should not be placed over or
otherwise obscure architectural building features, nor should they extend sideways
beyond the building face or above the highest line of the building to which it is
attached.
Standard 4c: Wall signs should be located on the upper portion of the storefront,
within or just above the storefront opening. On multiple story buildings, the best
location for a wall sign is generally a band or blank area between the first and
second floors.
Standard 4d: New wall signs in a shopping center that does not have an approved
sign program should be placed consistent with sign locations on adjacent
businesses.
Standard 4e: For new and remodeled shopping centers, a comprehensive sign
program for all the signs in the center should be developed.
F. Hanging Signs
Guideline 5: Design hanging signs to be suspended below a marquee or a canopy to help
define entries and identify business names to pedestrians.
Standard 5a: Where overhangs or covered walkways exist, pedestrian -oriented
hanging signs are encouraged.
Standard 5b: Hanging signs can be particularly useful for storefronts that have
multiple tenants.
Standard 5c: Hanging signs should be simple in design and not used to compete
with any existing signage at the site, such as wall signs.
G. Window Signs
Guideline 6: Design window signs to complement the fagade of the building and be
incorporated into and not detract from the overall design.
Standard 6a: Only one window sign per business is allowed.
Standard 6b: Window signs, consisting of text, graphics or images, either
permanent or temporary, should not exceed 25% of the maximum copy area
permitted based on the linear front footage of the primary fa5ade or up to 25%
of the total window area, whichever is less.
Cape Canaveral EOOD DRAFT (1 /25/2012) Planning Design Group Page 1 22
Standard 6c: The use of nonpermanent materials such as paper is strongly
discouraged. Glass -mounted graphics may be applied by painting, silk screening,
or vinyl die -cut forms.
Standard 6d: Window signs should be scaled to the pedestrian rather than
vehicles passing by.
Standard 6e: Window signs should be limited to small graphics and text that serve
to identify the business name and the product or type of service the business
provides.
Standard 6f: Window signs should not obscure views into a store or place of
business.
Cape Canaveral EOOD DRAFT (1 /25/2012) Planning Design Group Page 1 23
CITY 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
Chairperson
Vice Chairpof soh` .
Assisfa t,Cty Aftomey
Planning -�Development Director
Susan Chapman Board Secremary
Andre Anderson Planning Design Group
Kendall Keith ` Planning Design Group
All persons giving testimony were sworn. in by Kate Latorre, Assistant City
Attorney.
NEW BUSINESS
1. AplirovaF,ofMeetina-.Mlnutes: October 5. 2011 and February 15, 20
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 caked- unanimoysly.
2. Rea est No 12V - Beachwave Complex, 8801 Astronaut Blvd. - David
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 titled
Article III - Community Appearance Review, and he advised that this is the
Section of the Code this Board uses to evaluate elevations. He called their
attention to Section 22-42 (C) Conduct of Hearing Approval or Denial. He noted
that the last sentence of that paragraph states that the Community Appearance
Board may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the application after
the consideration of the six (6) criteria listed. 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,
Community Appearance Board
Meeting Minutes
February 28, 2012
Page 2 of 14
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
Board's attention to paragraph (4), which reads that:
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 principalsof- the local community.
He advised that the Board is evaluating, reviewing and -`making recommendation
on the elevations in their packet based on the currePf adpted Code Section 22-
42. He called the Boards attention to his memorandum da%I,february 23, 2012,
and advised that the last two (2) paragraphs of. the memO991hould have been
deleted. He explained that in drafting the rriemo lie failed to t(elete those two
paragraphs from the previous meeting's memo. Brief discussion followed. Bary
Brown further advised that the first item tin�lie Agenca:,ls the Board's°review of a
retail building to be constructed on the Jungle .)Allage/Traxx property at the
comer of A1A and Central Blvd._ He explained1 at the proposed building is a
single story building comprised`-�.of four (4) unitsa the primary tenant is a
Beachwave beachwear outlet that Wls'souvenirs, beach apparel, etc. He noted
that other Beachwave stores are located* -In,' : coa Beach. He pointed out that
the proposed building is 26 ft. high at -the arapet,: nd' 35 Y2 ft. high at the top of
the roof, and Staff h4is tdehtified the folio ng defldiencies with the architectural
design:
1) The building is-dispropordonately tall for a single story retail space;
2) Too much.9f 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 is 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, consultants with Planning Design Group, Kendall Keith and Andre
Anderson, who would give the Board their evaluation of the elevations.
Community Appearance Board
Meeting Minutes
February 28, 2012
Page 3 of 14
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.
Motion by Joyce Kelley, seconded by Rosalie Wolf, to qualify Kendall Keith as an
Expert Witness. Vote on the motion carried unanirri+qusly.
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 6'being-hired by
the City, PDG had performed some worklri it�e City fo-t a property no"thy, and as
part of that work they had familiarized themselves with the Envision Cape
Canaveral project that the City had embarked or `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 ted 6Wss their concefns--VAth the proposal. He
advised that they had one meeting with' the , project architect, where they
discussed some of their concerns. He rnentibned the size of the glass on the
building, and they are not suggesting thot glass is,la bad thing. In fact, this is an
area we have people walking up and don Al and staying at the hotels, so you
want glass in thetuilding. lJovrever, this`�tyle building, where the glass is about
18 ft., high seems out.of proportion with the rest of the building. He pointed out
that the C Jde:-addresser the project -being harmonious with the character of the
commu ity-and, suff' ounding development. In this particular case you have to
work jt b ck, because this is`really the first new proposal located directly on Al A,
of o6nirr ercial 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
Canaverai`to -get a sense of what the City wants to see in this area. The Board
members vieWbd the front elevation that would be seen from AIA. One of the
concerns discussed,.was why is there so much glass on this building that looks
out of proportion Wiith 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 of glass that comes with the attempt 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 West
side of the building, the concern with the monolithic approach, and the lack of
detail. He showed the Board a sketch of a revised elevation that depicted some
Community Appearance Board
Meeting Minutes
February 28, 2012
Page 4 of 14
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 of 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 suggested adding 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 hpw the building would
look with the height reduced by 5 ft. He clarifiedthat these ide ;s will address this
building style in a different manner and addresses Staffs conc ms: .
Kim Rezanka, Attorney representing the "Applicant,' Extreme Fun ;LLC, asked
Kendall Keith various questions in which he tespo°nded. 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 spedfcally .for the AIA ;Economic Opportunity
Overlay District; the contract does`•:include, the. draft ov riay guidelines under
separate proposal, and purchase or&r.. Many=of e
th-"suggestions he made this
evening are included inthe draft date0X61/2012; r A1A Economic Opportunity
Overlay District (Applicant's;.Exhibit A); Ike had three issues with this proposal -
the expanse of glass, the monolithic approach, and the lack of detail on the back
and sides of the building; th'are were no Aer issues. He read Article III of the
Code that was handed=ouf eariier.�by Ailr `Brown to the Board members; there is
nothing,.. -that- Code that specifically states that the applicant shall not have
expanse of glass, 7nonolithi6..approach, or lack of detail; there is nothing right
now in, the Code that, references the required type of architecture or design,
making 'ai 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 cFiaracter 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 A1A 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.
Community Appearance Board
Meeting Minutes
February 28, 2012
Page 5 of 14
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-;comme*ts,.
Randy Wasserman read a portion of the Code relevant to this particular proposal
and surrounding area. He advised that the Code"1ncludes plans for proposed
buildings, or structures, be in harmony with any future development. He recalled
an application a few years ago with'an assipted 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.,4ith 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 t6t the ALF was a different use, which
affects the style -and .appearance of the architecture; the location of that project
cannot" be seen from.. Al A; the. colors are similar to this proposal; the roof style is
also sit�llar; 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 not 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 floorthan 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, Melboume, 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
Community Appearance Board
Meeting Minutes
February 28, 2012
Page 6 of 14
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 not 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' ree 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 inoiaey, with a retail building
based on his other buildings, which will be successful. 16 -try and make it an
urban retail harmonious building is going to bs'a. l6ancial#allure, because it is
unproven in this area, and that is a burden that his client will not�ta'ke, and did not
feel he should. He advised that what has been presented to the C.O_is.a- building
that they have done that is similar, maybe not as much; glass, mayb')-_,.fiot as tall,
or maybe not as long, but every building is its 0Wn entity`based on Ole use that is
iii*within it. This building is what his client needs fo,s_ ell his product. They tried to
make it blend -in. He advised Mat the example th6y..used for this building is
similar to a Beachwear building locat 'In -the downto,iin.;Clearwater in the middle
of that City. He believes Staff has some good thoughtsrbut for the City to try and
run this man's business based on whatthey"feef, 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 -.66 the'parking, but el erybody drives to where they are going.
Some people walk, ' :but not a lot, not eCough to cant' a business this size.
People have to seethe building.. Part gf, seeing the building and selling the
product is exactly what'they-are,showing. That is what they are selling, and what
they are-16skirig 1Dr no more. They"believe they have met all the requirements
the City has asked.-' l :the City asking to make a drastic change to this building is
basircall :getting involved in this business, and he did not believe that is what the
Board e'°here for. He: was following what his client wants. The design is what
he needs 6,sell his pro4uct. Being next to a gas station it is very hard to create
a human scale: He did m not believe the canopy over the gas station has any
human scale. lie 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
Community Appearance Board
Meeting Minutes
February 28, 2012
Page 7 of 14
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 file 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 ba* of the building is
warehouse area for the products he sells. Randy Wasserman- $dvised that the
banding on the top of the building creates a nice -,outline. He explained that
typically in most applications, structures � ar'e ;enhancied, 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 ifs 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
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
statistics a -building with large windows would cause that. He believed that
whether the building, hada 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 significance 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 Rezanka, representative for Extreme Fun, LLC, commented that
Bary 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
Community Appearance Board
Meeting Minutes
February 28, 2012
Page 8 of 14
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 dear 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 Rezanka advised that the owner does' , of want a band;
he does not want to change anything. Since there are no clear stapdards in the
Code, and the City's own expert has adriiitted to it; the applicant`has no idea
what to submit. Since there are no clear s`tan'dards 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.eff dt, 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
elevations 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
everyone "-hes-- heard; courts have a very difficult time explaining what
compatibility is; and even the City's expert has said that there are many different
styI64n-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 inZthose 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 Bary Brown's memorandum, which states that '9t
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 tested that the ALF has a similar style and
Community Appearance Board
Meeting Minutes
February 28, 2012
Page 9 of 14
color; however, the scale is different, because it's a different use in 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 Xtreme 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 Xtreme Fun's building is both'sorriewhat s'innilar and dissimilar
to existing buildings, the colors are compatible, the windows'a(pq-similar to the
windows on building around it, and the scale is similar to the buildig9e.around it.
She asked that the Board approve the building basitaliy, 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 tre applicant wislies 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 t1 joy have been tested by the rules they
are governed by. Aesthetics is a choice..There will never be a clear statement.
They arwai rraesthetic 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
A1A'to,a human scale -with sto.te fronts. He believed that the expanse of glass is
well presented by NO Menzel, as it was when he did his designs for this
property owner. He ha&some suggestions of what could be done to the building,
and believecNhe 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
Community Appearance Board
Meeting Minutes
February 28, 2012
Page 10 of 14
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 AIA 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 hg 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 withthe look of the'back of the
building. He disagreed with the point that..tthe building conforms`,to the ALF.
Danny Ringdahl has spent a lot of money for,'arc he' c_'ural 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 windbws.. -He believed the City can do
better than a Beachwave. '
Art Spurrell, 8934 Ruerto Del, Rio Drive, 6hit 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 dear standard of
which to t1esign 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 there were at least a dozen revisions in that
process. He believed that the area was rezoned from residential to a modified
use, and if y6u. 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
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
Community Appearance Board
Meeting Minutes
February 28, 2012
Page 11 of 14
businesses 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", that 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'lo -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 superimpose what the othertounst ret�il-11ooks 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. Witli'-0I*[ the 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 Stift 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 tha way it ipoks now, and the way it will look when in use. He
confirmed that the Bbard can only consider'the look of the building the way it has
been prese)ited. But tlie.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.
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
Community Appearance Board
Meeting Minutes
February 28, 2012
Page 12 of 14
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 the existing horizontal band located over the entry doors across
each of the.. three stacked high 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 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
wall should go all around the entire building. Waiter Bowman disagreed. He
voiced his opinion that there should be fencing or shielding installed close to the
air conditioners and equipment themselves.
Attorneys and Counselors at Law
8240 Devereux Drive
Suite 100
Viera, Florida 32940
321-259-8900
321-254-4419 Fax
mm,deartmead.com
March 6,2012
David L. Greene, City Manager
City ofCape Canaveral
105 Polk Avenue
Cape Canaveral, Fl- 32920
Orlando
Fort Pierce
Viera
KIMBERLY BONDER REZANKA
321-259-8900 x6103
krezanka@deanmead.com
Rc: Xtreme Fun, LLC - Community Appearatice Board ("CAB-) Order of February 2S, 2012
Deal- Mr, Greene:
Pursuant to Cape Canaveral Code of'Ordinances, Chapter 110 - ZONING. ARTICLE 11,
DIV. 1, Sec. 110-33, Xtreme Fun. LLC hereby files this Appeal of'the above referenced Order, A
SpecificallyXtrerne Fun, LLC*sappeals
conditions 1, 2, 3 and 5 and seeks the removal of those conditions From the CAR's Order. Xtreme
Fun. LLC accepts conditions 4 and 6 imposed by the CAB.
As this is a de novo reNie\v before the City Council, we will be providing a transcript tbr the
City Council to review. Additionally, the record l'or i-e\,ic\v should include the CAB Meeting
Packet I'm February 28. 2012. the applicable City Code sections regarding Community Appearance
Review (ARTICLE 111, Sec. 22-36 through Sec. 22-47), the packet ol'infiormation and photo,! ' raphs
submitted to the CAB on behalf of'Xtrerne Fun, 1-1-Cand the Draft guidelines for the Cape
Canaveral A I A Fconomic OPP01-tUnity 0\,erlay District, also submitted into evidence art the CAB
Hearing.
Xtreme Fun, 1-1-C challenges the CAB Order based upon first-tier certiorari standards,
specifically whether the essential requirements of law were obser\ed and whether the administrative
lindings and dg*ument are suppot-tcd 1)), competent substantial evidence. Please schedule this
judgment
Appeal at the next available regular City Council meetim, of' March 20, 2012.
Sincerely.
'Kim Wr""imica
Kimberly Bonder Rezanka
enclosures
cc: Barry Brown, Community Dc\,elopmew (vias email)
Anthony Garganese, 17'sq. (via email)
0shri Gal (-via entail )
A Member of ALFA International - The Global Legal Network
Subject: Xtreme Fun, LLC Appeal of Community Appearance Board Order.
Summary: On Tuesday, February 28, 2012, the Community Appearance Board
considered a request for approval of architectural elevations for the Beachwave
Complex to be located on the Jungle Village/Traxx property at the corner of AlA and
West Central Blvd. The proposed building is a single story retail structure comprised of
four units; the primary tenant is a Beachwave beachwear outlet. Beachwave stores sell
souvenirs, beach apparel, etc. Other Beachwave stores are located in Cocoa Beach.
Staff reviewed the elevations and made the following recommendation to the
Community Appearance Board. The building is 26 ft. high at the top of the parapet and
35'6" at the top of the roof. Staff 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) a lack of
architectural design creating a bland, monolithic appearance that is not human scale,
and 4) the north, south and west elevations lack sufficient architectural treatment.
It is apparent to staff, that the building is designed to maximize window area and
therefore window signage while sacrificing appropriate architectural design. Staff
recommended lowering the building height and/or designing the building to have the
appearance of a two story structure. In this way the window area and therefore signage
area will be reduced.
The proceedings of the hearing before the Community Appearance Board including
presentations by Staff and applicant, comments from citizens, and deliberation by the
Board are conveyed in the Draft CAB Meeting Minutes. They provide a good summary
of the CAB meeting.
The
• *•••. Board approved the elevations with the followirM.
conditions as listed in the Board Order: I
1. Reduce/eliminate the parapets across the front and side (see #3 on Exhibit A).
2. Lower all towers, except for the central tower over the entrance (see #1 and #2 on
Exhibit A).
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 (see #4
on Exhibit A).
5. Extend the existing horizontal band located over the entry doors, across each of the
City Counc Meeting Date: 03/20/2012
Item No.
Page 2 of 2
threestacked high windows, to either side of the entrance (see #5 on Exhibit A).
6. Provide additional banding around the back of the building and vertical pilaster to
break up the horizontal expanse of the stated warehouse area (see #6, #7, and #8 on
Exhibit A).
The applicant, through attorney Kim Rezanka, has filed an Appeal of conditions 1, 2, 3
and 5 and seeks the removal of those conditions from the Board Order. According to
Sec. 22-46 of the Code, a final decision rendered by the Community Appearance Board
may be appealed to the City Council. Sections 110-33 & 40 establish the procedure for
the Appeal. The Appeal will be heard at the March 20, 2012, City Council meeting.
The City Council's consideration of the decision being appealed is "de novo". De novo
means "from the beginning: anew". Therefore, Council should approach the Appeal
Hearing as a new hearing of the architectural elevations. In considering the Appeal, the
Council may: affirm or modify the four contested conditions or make its own findings as
to the elevations. Conditions 4 and 6 have not been appealed and stand as enforceable.
Staff does not recommend approval of the elevations as submitted by the applicant or
as amended by the Community Appearance Board. Staff recommends revisions to the
elevations that lower the building height and/or give the appearance of a two story
structure as depicted in Attachment (11).
If the applicant does not agree with the decision of the Council, an appeal to the Circuit
Court is the next available step.
Submitting Department Director: Barr Date: 3-12-12
Barrer Brown
Attachments: (1) Appeal, (2) Board Order, (3) Board Order Exhibit "A" - Elevations
marked up by Community Appearance Board, (4) Beachwave Complex application with
architectural elevations as submitted by applicant, (5) Draft 02/28/12 CAB meeting
minutes, (6) Handout of Article III — Community Appearance Review, (7) Applicant's
Exhibit "A" — Draft AlA Economic Opportunity Overlay District Guidelines, (8)
Applicant's Exhibit "B" — Photos of surrounding properties, (9) Code of Ordinances,
Sections 110-33 & 40, (10) Elevation depicting conditions of Board Order, and (11)
Elevations as recommended by_§taff
Financial Impact: Not able to be determined at this time.
reviewed by Interim Finance Director: John McGinnis Date: 3-13-12
The City Manager recommends that City Council take e foll6wing action(s):
Approve Staffs recommended Building Elevations.
Approved by City Manager: David L. Greene 0:Qj, Date: 3-13-12
City Council Action: Approved as Recommended Disapproved
Approved with Modifications Tabled to Time Certain
City of Cape Canaveral
Planning & Development Department
-nzel
Date Request was considered by the Board: 2-28-12
BOARD ACTION TAKEN:
The Community Appearance Board approved Request No. 12-01 subject to tile
following conditions:
1. Reduce/eliminate the parapets across the front and side (see #3 on Exhibit A).
2. Lower all towers, except for the central tower over the entrance (see ill and 42 on Exhibit
A). 1
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 (see 44 on
Exhibit A).
5. Extend the existing horizontal band located over the entry doors, across each of the three
stacked high windows to either side of the central entrance (see #5 on Exhibit A).
C. Provide additional banding around the back of the building and vertical pilaster to break
up the horizontal expanse of the stated warehouse area (see #6, #7, and #8 on Exhibit A).
"Exhibit A, " which consists of architectural eleiwiions prepared b)) MAI Architects, Engineers,
Inn. dated 9-13-11, was mod0ed h.),, the Connnunity Appearance Board to depict the conditions
cif the b'oard's approval. Exhibit A is attached hereto and is expressly incorporated herein as a
material part of this Order.
Note. Reference City Code Sections: 22-43 (b), Expiration of Approval; 22-45, Appeal of the
Board's decision.
Chairper�?�f "'WqKlunrtl' 'c Avenue -- P.O. Box 326— Cape Canaveral, FL 32920-0326
Telephone (321) 868-1222 — Fax (321) 868--1247
e-mail: cityofcapecanaveral.org
NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION
EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION EXNIIT
mi
OPSIGN flulat
SqUTtj_EXTERIOR ELEVATION 1 -
WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION--.---,.,--
mai
OCSIGN BUILtl
MEMORANDUM
Debs: Fdmmy 23.2012
To: Communtiy Appearance Board mennbers
From: Barry Brown. Planning and Development Director
RE: February 26.2012 CAB Meeting
The agenda Is oanprised of an application for review of a single story retell building and
Interview of board sppficants.
The first Own on the agenda Is an applicalton for Community Appearance Board review
of a rated budding to be constructed on the Jungle VM99eJTnaoc property at the corner
of AiA and Central Boulevard. The proposed building Is a single stay strucgme
oornprbed of four ung the primary tenant Is a Beadrwave beadnnrasr outlet.
Beac hweve stores esti souverdrs, beach apparel, etc. Other Beachvmve steres are
located In Coosa Beads.
The budding Is 26 R. high at the pant and 35V at the trap of the roof. Staff has
identified the following de6dendes with the archhoolural design: 1) the budding Is
disproporti 6 al 11 ted for a single slay Wall space. 2) too much of the wail area Is
t ow and therefore too much glass, 3) a lack of arcihitectural deem creating a bland,
moridilhic appearance that is not human scale. and 4) the north, south arid west
elevations lack sufflolent ardhiledu ral treatment.
The deficiencies can be remedied by lowering the budding height and/or designing the
buldIng to have the appearance of a two story structure. The window area and
therefore glass ansa can be reduced and window treatments added.
It is obvious the building Is designed bo mw*ntae window area and therelbre window
signage while sacrificing appropriate anchilecluhral design. This Is a prime example of
why vre treed to adopt archltec l ural design standards.
Please see the enclosed draft of the AiA Economic Opportunity Overlay DbblcL The
Overlay Dist address arctdtectur al design standards. increased building heights,
revised hotel requinemernts, landscaping, parking, signage. and allows for additional
uses. At the meeting, Staff and corms will provide an overview of the AIA Overlay
OMM to Include a Pow erPolnt presentation and Google Earth Uourr of exleft pro)ads
that have been developed according to Wmlw slandardIs.
Thus will also be a discussion about new responaibilities assumed from the Conner
Beautification Board.
IN AND BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
FOR THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL
In re: Xtreme Fun, LLC, Applicant
Community Appearance Board Request No. 12-01
(Beachwave Complex)
ORDER
This cause, having come on to be heard before the City Council of the City of Cape
Canaveral, Florida, on March 20, 2012, pursuant to section 110-33, City of Cape Canaveral Code
of Ordinances ("City Code"), on Xtreme Fun, LLC's appeal of Community Appearance Board Order
for Request No. 12-01, seeking approval of the Beachwave Complex located at 8801 Astronaut
Boulevard, Cape Canaveral, Florida, and the City Council having heard and considered testimony
and evidence presented in the case and being otherwise fully advised in the premises does hereby
find as follows:
The City Council is solely responsible for hearing an appeal of a final decision issued by the
City's Community Appearance Board. See sections 22-46 and 110-33, City Code. The City
Council's consideration of the Community Appearance Board's final decision shall be de novo. See
section 110-33, City Code. The City Council is required to hear and consider the evidence and
testimony of any interested party and to either affirm or reverse, wholly or in part, the decision of
1
the Community Appearance Board. Id.
On February 28, 2012, the Community Appearance Board considered Request No. 12-01,
seeking approval of the Beachwave Complex. After considering the evidence and testimony
presented, the Community Appearance Board approved the request subject to the following six (6)
conditions:
1. Reduce/eliminate the parapets across the front and side;
2. Lower all towers, except for the central tower 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 the existing horizontal band located over the entry doors, across each of the
three stacked high windows to either side of the central entrance.
6. Provide additional banding around the back of the building and vertical pilaster to
break up the horizontal expanse of the stated warehouse area.
The Applicant timely filed an appeal, seeking that conditions 1, 2, 3 and 5 be eliminated as
conditions of approval.
The City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, having conducted a de novo hearing
and review of the Applicant's Request, having considered the evidence and testimony of the
Applicant, City staff, and members of the public, hereby Orders as follows:
Request No. 12-01 is Approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Applicant shall provide a wainscot type treatment of dissimilar material below
the windows.
2
2. Applicant shall provide additional banding around the back of the building and
vertical pilaster to break up the horizontal expanse of the warehouse area.
3. Applicant shall provide a parapet along the rear (west) elevation of the building
to visually shield the rooftop mechanical equipment.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 20"" DAY OF MARCH, 2012.
ATTEST:
5
3
ROCKY RAND LS, Mayor
For Against
John Bond nd
Bob Hoog Motion
Buzz Petsos
Rocky Randels _x_
BettyWalsh X