HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10-25-2007 WorkshopCITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING
CITY HALL ANNEX
CW 111 POLK AVENUE,
CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
WEDNESDAY
OCTOBER 25, 2007
5:30 P.M.
�1
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Randels called the meeting to Order at 5:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Council Members Present:
Rocky Randels
Bob Hoog
Buzz Petsos
Leo Nicholas
Shannon Roberts
Mayor
Mayor Pro Tem
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
Planning & Zoning Members Present:
Bea McNeely Chairperson
Harry Pearson Board Member
Ron Friedman Board Member
Donald Dunn
Board Member
Others Present:
Susan Chapman
Bennett Boucher
Anthony Garganese
Todd Morley
DISCUSSION:
Recording Secretary
City Manager
City Attorney
Building Official
1. Sign Code Amendments.
Bennett Boucher, City Manager, advised that he had distributed a packet to everyone,
which showed photographs of all types of signs including, electric message center signs.
Part of the packet included a copy of the U.S. Constitutional Amendments Pertinent to
Signage.
Discussion was held regarding pole signs. Mr. Boucher advised that Cocoa Beach had a
15 ft. maximum and the County had a 20 ft. maximum. Discussion was held regarding
signs with a reader board. Following discussion, they agreed to continue to allow pole
signs; all electronic message boards shall not be constructed on a pole sign; a reader
board sign shall be restricted to a 20 ft. height maximum; and a definition of a pylon sign
would be created.
City Council Workshop
Meeting Minutes
October 25, 2007
Page 2
Discussion was held regarding monument signs. Todd Morley, Building Official, noted
that the monument sign located at the Radisson was 150 sq. ft. Ms. Roberts voiced her
concerns regarding visibility impediment and flipping of characters on electric reader
board signs. Following discussion, they agreed that monument signs should be given its
own category in the sign code; a definition should be created including, incentives for
monument signs; monument signs could be a maximum of 150 sq. ft., with a
measurement method of 1.25 area of signage for each linear ft. of property frontage, not
to exceed 150 sq. ft.; the code section for multi -tenant ground signs should not be
changed; and electronic reader center shall be limited to one per sign, but two faces are
allowable, provided they are back -to -back.
Discussion was held regarding wall signs. Todd Morley explained different options that
were available. Tom Hermasen, Residence Inn, questioned why the city code did not
allow one wall sign to be perpendicular and one parallel. Following discussion, they
agreed that it would be logical to consider the option. Discussion was held regarding
accessory structures not being allowed to have a wall sign. It was agreed that separate
commercial structures located on the same lot shall each be entitled to wall signage.
Discussion was held regarding roof signs being prohibited. Following discussion, they
agreed to continue not allowing them.
Discussion was held regarding projecting signs. They looked at various photographs of
projecting signs. They agreed to allow projecting signs because it appeared to be a good
option. Following discussion, they agreed that the signs could not project into vehicle
pathways; the area should be regulated the same as wall signs; signage would be allowed
on both sides of the sign; there would be no limit as to how far they could project; they
could not extend above the roof line; the headroom height should be 7' 6 "; and they could
encroach up to 4 ft. into a setback.
Discussion was held regarding sign bands. They agreed to prohibit sign bands.
Discussion was held regarding window signs. Todd Morley advised that the code
allowed window signs, both inside and outside of the windows; 25% of the glazed
window area needed to be kept visibly clear and unobstructed; and accent lighting around
the inside window frame was not regulated. They agreed to make no changes to this code
section.
Discussion was held regarding parapet signs. Todd Morley advised that this type of sign
was described as a sign on a parapet which does not extend above the roof level.
Following discussion, they agreed to include parapet signs under the same code section as
wall signs.
City Council Workshop
Meeting Minutes
October 25, 2007
Page 3
Discussion was held regarding awning signs. Todd Morley advised that awnings were
considered the same as a canopy sign. He explained that only the letters of the graphic
advertisement would be measured as the sign. Following discussion, they agreed not to
change the code section. Denise Berg, Kendall Signs, asked if the awning or canopy sign
could be lit from underneath. Following discussion, they agreed that an awning or
canopy sign could be lit from underneath.
Discussion was held regarding electronic message centers. Ms. Roberts voiced her
concern regarding message centers being a traffic safety hazard. Mr. Boucher responded
that the federal government recognized that they were not a distraction to drivers.
Discussion was held regarding the frequency of interval movements; flashing & flipping;
and characters & graphics. Following discussion, they agreed to obtain suggestions from
local sign companies regarding interval movements; restricting electronic messages to
alpha numeric characters; not to allow graphics; and not to allow flashing or flipping
characters.
Todd Morley advised that they did not finish talking about temporary signs. However,
due to the time, they decided to discuss temporary signs at the next meeting. They agreed
to also discuss the timing of word changes, graphics, fading in and out, changing of
colors, and the jumping of characters on electronic message centers at the next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, Mayor Randels adjourned the meeting at 7:32 P.M.
Susan L. Chapman,,Recording Secretary
yr l.�/1'1, .a
3
r
{1{
.y±