Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02-22-1999CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 22, 1999 MINUTES The City of Cape Canaveral, Community Appearance Board, held a meeting on February 22, 1999, at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Annex, 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. The Secretary called the roll. MEMBERS PRESENT Nadena Easler Chairperson Walter Bowman Vice Chairperson Karen Hayes Alice Nielsen OTHERS PRESENT Kohn Bennett City Attorney Steven Bapp Planning & Zoning Technician Susan Stills Assistant City Clerk Dennis E. Franklin, C.B.O. Building Official APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Nielsen made a motion and Ms. Hayes seconded the motion to approve the amended meeting minutes of February 22, 1999. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Nielsen noted that on page 2, paragraph 2 a word was missing in the sentence, "and said that he could a beige." The Board secretary will insert the word paint. Attorney Bennett swore in all persons giving testimony. 1. Request No. 99-03, 8954 North Atlantic Avenue, Loading Dock Canopy, Coastal Fuels Marketing; Craig Smith, Applicant. Mr. Smith explained his project as a canopy over the loading bay. The existing canopy does not sufficiently cover the trucks while in the bay. He stated that the facility would use a single bay system with a higher canopy and more ventilation. He explained that a windscreen on the East Side would deter the elements and the new canopy would cover the containment area. He stated that the new canopy is approximately 30-feet high with an approximate 3-foot peak. Mr. Bowman queried about the windscreen. Mr. Smith stated that the windscreen is a solid steel piece to block the wind and rain from the trucks. Mr. Bowman asked if the screen is attached to the building. Mr. Smith stated that the screen is attached to the side of the bracing. Mr. Smith clarified that the screen is a partial City of Cape Canaveral, Florida Community Appearance Board Minutes February 22, 1999 Page 2 side similar to a Butler building. Mr. Bowman stated that he wanted further clarification on what is suspended on the side. Mr. Smith explained that the wind screen is a misnomer for the 8-inch thick steel welded to the top of the canopy and bolted to the side I-beams. Ms. Hayes noted that most Butler buildings use more architectural lines and this one is a flat piece of steel. Ms. Hayes also asked about the color. Mr. Smith stated Snowdrift white. Ms. Hayes noted that the building's sides are visible from the street. She asked if the Board received pictures to view the location. The pictures were distributed for the Board's review. Mr. Bowman queried about the canopy size in comparison to the tanks. Mr. Smith stated that the canopy is approximately 27 feet and the tanks are approximately 40 feet. Ms. Easler queried about the roof material and its color. Mr. Smith stated that white is the overall color. Ms. Hayes expressed concern with the lack of architectural detailing. Mr. Smith stated that the only other option is an open bay. Mr. Smith added that he would add landscaping to the West Side of the property. Ms. Hayes asked if the landscape plans included the canopy. Mr. Smith said no since the canopy is behind the fence. Ms. Nielsen asked if he could place plants near the canopy. Mr. Smith said no however you would see the plants before you notice the wall. He stated that he is working with Kay McKee of Public Works to find native plants. Mr. Bowman asked if Mr. Smith could add another color to the wall to which Ms. Easler added perhaps the inclusion of a logo. Attorney Bennett stated that the Board should ask the Building Official if adding a logo constituted a wall sign, however banding may be a possibility. Mr. Franklin stated that the banding might be preferable. Ms. Easler asked Mr. Franklin if he could add a red and black band. Mr. Franklin answered yes. Mr. Bowman asked why the canopy is so tall. Mr. Smith explained that the height is necessary for ventilation and for overhead pipes. Attorney Bennett noted a City Council decision on metal buildings and he researched said code. Ms. Hayes asked if a landscape plan was necessary. Attorney Bennett responded landscape plans are required on new development only and read the requirements from the City code, Section 22-44 (1), Level I review. Mr. Bowman stated that most metal buildings are not as flat and this building is a large expanse of flatness. Ms. Easler stated that the drawing is not a clear rendition. Mr. Bowman noted that the gable ends are not depicted as ribbed as on most vertical metal buildings. Mr. Smith expressed that the Board might need a detailed drawing. He stated that he would return to the manufacturer for a more conceptual drawing. Ms. Hayes made a motion and Mr. Bowman seconded the motion to postpone Request No. 99-03 until the next scheduled meeting on March 1st or the subsequent meeting. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida Community Appearance Board Minutes February 22, 1999 Page 3 2. Request No. 99-04, 7001 North Atlantic Avenue, Sign Application, Cape Canaveral Professional Center; Paul Acson, Applicant. Mr. Paul Acson explained that the sign before the Board is basically the same sign as previously approved. Ms. Easler clarified that this sign is for the "A" building or the southernmost of the two approved signs. Mr. Bapp submitted photos. Ms. Hayes asked if the sign is attached to the building. Mr. Acson stated that the sign is in the grass area. Mr. Bapp noted that the square footage is reduced on the new sign. Mr. Acson explained that the base is a 4-foot high flower box and approximately 12-feet in height overall. Ms. Easler queried about the color scheme. Mr. Acson stated that the sign face is white with blue lettering and black lines in between. Ms. Hayes asked why the sign colors are different from the building. Mr. Acson explained that the blue letter color serves contrast purposes in identification. Ms. Hayes queried about the base material. Mr. Acson answered stucco or brick,possibly stucco. Ms. Easler stated that matching the color to the building or trim would provide an improved appearance. Ms. Easler asked about the connecting post color between the planter base and the sign. Mr. Acson answered probably black with an undercoat of a rust preventative. Mr. Bowman asked for the sign's depth. Mr. Acson said approximately 10 to 12 inches. Ms. Nielsen asked about the material used for the sign. Mr. Acson said aluminum. Ms. Hayes asked if he could paint the connecting post green instead of black. Mr. Acson said that the color black would prevent cleaning. Ms. Hayes noted that the Board approved the colors on the previous application. Ms. Hayes asked Mr. Bapp if the Board approved the sign before the building was painted. Mr. Bapp stated that he was not aware of the exact sequence of events. Ms. Hayes stated that this application was simply moving and lowering the sign. Mr. Bapp clarified that the application would move, lower and change the shape of the original sign. Attorney Bennett read that the stipulation on the first application was the pole color. Ms. Hayes made a motion and Ms. Nielsen seconded the motion to approve the application for Request No. 99-04 as submitted. Motion carried with voting as follows: Ms. Easler, For; Mr. Bowman,Against; Ms. Hayes, For; Ms. Nielsen, For. Mr. Bowman made a motion and Ms. Hayes seconded the motion to amend the main motion to include the stipulation to paint the base flower box color to match the building or accent trim. Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION: Mr. Bowman expressed concern about the difference in the signs on which the Board voted. Mr. Bapp explained the difference in the signs. Mr. Bowman stated that the second application was a different sign. Mr. Bapp clarified that he expressed this to the Building Official and they were both aware of that fact. Ms. Easler asked if the sign had been City of Cape Canaveral, Florida Community Appearance Board Minutes February 22, 1999 Page 4 vetoed, could law defend the veto in court. Attorney Bennett responded that that would depend on the facts on record and the Board's reasons for the veto. Ms. Hayes expressed concern with the vicinity map in the Coastal application and asked about the orientation of color photographs. Mr. Bapp stated that this is not required in a Level I application, he stated further that a concept plan is required in a Level II review. Attorney Bennett noted a previous vicinity map that detailed orientation. Mr. Franklin asked Mr. Bapp if he could enhance the vicinity map. Mr. Bapp stated that enlarging the map is possible, however this type of application does not call for a concept plan. Attorney Bennett noted that on this application the requirement was not met on the orientation of the photographs. Ms. Hayes asked if staff could provide the code book section pertaining to the Board. Mr. Franklin asked the Board how they desired his input during the discussion. The Board responded by consensus that Mr. Franklin's input is welcome at any time during the meeting. Mr. Franklin noted that the Board could also address Mr. Bapp since he is seated on the dais. Ms. Hayes requested that the Board reiterate parliamentary procedure during course of the meeting in order to render proper discussion. Ms. Easler asked about the date for the workshop. Mr. Bapp stated that no date has transpired as yet and that Mr. Hancock would mail him a workshop packet. Mr. Bapp said that he could include the packet for discussion at the next meeting. There being no further business Ms. Hayes made a motion and Ms. Nielsen seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:17 P.M. ( Signature ) Nadena Easler, CHAIRPERSON ( Signature ) Susan Stills, SECRETARY