Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10-16-2008 WorkshopCITY COUNCIL WITH THE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD WORKSHOP MINUTES 111 POLK AVENUE CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA OCTOBER 16, 2008 5:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Randels called the meeting to Order at 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Council Member(s) Present: Rocky Randels Robert Hoog Leo Nicholas Shannon Roberts Council Member(s) Absent: Buzz Petsos Planning & Zoning Members Present: Bea McNeely Lamar Russell John Fredrickson Donald Dunn Harry Pearson Ron Friedman John Johanson Others Present: Susan Chapman Bennett Boucher Anthony Garganese Todd Morley Barry Brown Mayor Mayor Pro Tern Council Member Council Member Council Member Chairperson Vice Chairperson Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member Recording Secretary City Manager City Attorney Building Official Planning & Development Director City Council with the Planning & Zoning Board co Sign Code Workshop Meeting Minutes October 16, 2008 Page 2 DISCUSSION: 1. Sign Code Amendments. Mayor Randels advised that they would continue reviewing only the proposed changes to the sign code. He pointed -out that the new sign code could only be specific to regulate: size, place, time, and type; it could not designate the use (content) of a sign. He advised that the last workshop ended on page 11, Section 94 -6, Prohibited Sign (Features), (j) "Accent lighting'. Following brief discussion, by consensus, Section 94 -6 (j), "Accent Lighting" was removed, because it did not relate to signage. Discussion was held regarding (k), "Walt Mural'. Todd Morley, Building Official, advised that the group had decided that a wall mural was okay, but only if it was approved by the Community Appearance Board (CAB), per Section 22 -36. He noted that any words on a wall mural would be regulated as wall signage. City Attorney Garganese suggested that objective regulatory standards and guidelines be incorporated into Section 22 -36. Discussion followed. Todd Morley advised that the group previously agreed to allow wall murals, for both residential and commercial, listed under exemptions, with the provision that they be approved by the CAB; the exclusion of alphanumeric characters would indicate a permit was not required for the portion considered art work; if alphanumeric characters are used then that area of the alphanumeric display would be measured and would count as wall signage. The group agreed with Council member, Shannon Roberts, that the Community Appearance Board should be added to the list of other boards on page 3 of the draft ordinance. The group went back and reviewed (i). Mr. Hoog advised that the code prohibits neon lighting around signs; however, some newer buildings are outlined and accented in neon lighting. Following discussion, the group agreed to require CAB approval and a permit to install neon lighting on buildings; and prohibit neon lighting on any type of sign in which a permit is required under this chapter. Note: This would exempt interior window signs. City Council with the Planning & Zoning Board Sign Code Workshop Meeting Minutes October 16, 2008 Page 3 Brief discussion was held regarding (q) "Projecting Signs" The group agreed that projecting signs be prohibited, unless they comply with the provisions of Section 94 -79. Mr. Morley read the definition of Projecting Signs. Brief discussion followed. The group reviewed (m) "Ground signs ". During discussion, the group agreed that they did not like the look of poles signs, no matter how high they were. The group agreed that the definition of a "Pole Sign" should be changed to read: Ground signs with exposed poles. Discussion was held regarding: "Pylon Sign" "Monument Sign" and "Lolli Pop Sign ". The group concluded that Mr. Morley draw illustrations and create definitions of each type of sign just discussed. The group agreed that an interpretation section be created for the purpose of interpreting this code that shows illustrations, photos, and definitions of all different types of signs that are allowed, as well as, identify the types of signs that are not allowed; along with an index that forwards the reader to all the applicable sections pertaining to that type of sign. The group discussed (u). Following discussion, City Attorney Garganese agreed to add language that commemorative brick pavement areas were exempt from being prohibited. The group held no discussion regarding letters (v) 'Balloon display ", and (w) "Discontinued signs ". Mayor Randels read letter (x) "Electronic Signs, Animated Signs, or Signs of a flashing, running or revolving nature..... " He pointed-out that an electronic sign may be approved by the city if it complies with the provisions of Section 94 -78. At this time, the group had no comments regarding (x). (Note: Further discussion would be held during their review of Section 94 -78). City Council with the Planning & Zoning Board col Sign Code Workshop Meeting Minutes October 16, 2008 Page 4 Mr. Morley read the definition of a "Snipe Sign ". He advised that a Snipe sign means a small sign of any material, including but not limited to: paper, cardboard, wood or metal, attached to any object and having no applications to the premises where located. He explained that this type of sign would be a yard sale, real estate, or lost dog sign. The group held discussion regarding (bb) and (cc), "Signs located or erected on a parked motor vehicle, inoperable, or unlicensed motor vehicle..." The group agreed to the wording. Discussion was held regarding (dd) 'Above roof signs ". Mr. Morley advised that this type of sign was something they did not want to allow. He showed the group an example (photo) of an above roof sign (Roberto's Little Havana Restaurant on A1A in Cocoa Beach). The owners were allowed the sign because they didn't have room for a ground sign. He advised that another reason for an above roof sign would be if there wasn't adequate space for a wall sign. He advised that he drove around the City and verified that every commercial property had adequate room for a ground sign; the only reason someone would want an above roof sign was if they did not have enough room for a wall sign. The group agreed that above roof signs were not aesthetically pleasing. Discussion was held regarding roof signs. They agreed that Yogi's was a good example of a roof sign. He advised that a roof sign was a sign above the eave; and the code currently prohibited roof signs. Mr. Morley advised that the City does not permit roof signs, and there were currently existing roof signs that were in violation right now. Councilman Hoog advised the Yogi's sign was installed just a few years ago. Mr. Morley responded that he would look into that. Discussion was held regarding Burger King's sign. Mr. Morley advised that the sign was recently approved, and the sign was deemed legal, because it is located below the parapet. Mr. Hoog advised that not all businesses had adequate space for a wall sign or roof sign. City Council with the Planning & Zoning Board Sign Code Workshop Meeting Minutes October 16, 2008 Page 5 Councilman Hoog used the store at the corner of N. Atlantic and Washington Avenues (8020 N. Atlantic Avenue) as an example. He explained that the roof line was only about 7 or 7 1/2 ft. high, so they could not have a roof sign, because patrons would walk into it; there was no room for a wall sign, because the walls were all windows; and there was no place for a ground sign, because the building was located within the setback. He stated that there were businesses that have been in the City for 30 years or more that have suffered, because they can't have a sign. Discussion was held regarding creating a Variance procedure. Following discussion, the group agreed that a Variance procedure should be established for a hardship, even though the group anticipated it would be rare situations that prohibit an applicant from erecting a sign under the code. Mayor Randels read the changes to Section 94 -11, Maintenance, notice to repair. Todd Morley advised that the time line was subjective, depending on the need. Following review of this section, the group agreed with the proposed wording. Mr. Morley gave an overview of the proposed changes in Section 94- 32, "Application For permit; review time limits " Mr. Morley noted that one of the changes was if the applicant is not the property owner, then written permission of the property owner would be required. He clarified that a Power of Attorney would satisfy the requirement. The group held discussion regarding Section 94 -32 (11) (b). They questioned the City Attorney if the forty -five (45) days and sixty (60) days in the code section referred to calendar days or work days. The City Attorney responded that it was calendar days. He explained that if the last day fell on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the decision shall be made on the next regular business day. He advised that the forty -five (45) days and sixty (60) days was a Constitutional issue, because signs are involved in the First Amendment. Mr. Morley advised that the Community Appearance Board (CAB) meeting schedule may effect the time - frame. He suggested that they consider certain items exempt from going to the CAB. City Council with the Planning & Zoning Board Sign Code Workshop Meeting Minutes October 16, 2008 Page 6 Mr. Brown commented that if the City has a sign code that was recently revised and adopted, there would be little reason to take sign permits to the CAB. He explained that signs will already be approved for the size, location, number. The only thing the CAB would look at is the color(s) on the sign face and possibly the shape of the sign; the maximum size of the sign will already be determined by the code. He advised that currently, the Building department did not take signs that did not meet size requirements of the current code to the CAB. He pointed -out that the submittal fee for a CAB sign application is $35.00, and the City spends a lot more money than that to hold a CAB meeting; and pay the city attorney, staff, and recording secretary to attend the meeting. Councilwoman Roberts spoke regarding the value of CAB reviewing signs. Mr. Brown explained that in the past a request for a sign would go to the CAB before it was determined whether or not it met the requirements of the code, typically for size and location. Now, the application is reviewed by staff, before being scheduled for CAB, to ensure it meets the code. He believed that if the City has a really good sign code then there is no reason for the request to go to CAB. He explained that during his review if he found that the shape might not be something that was acceptable then he could make the decision that this is one the CAB should look at. Three City Council members agreed that the CAB should not be eliminated from the process. Mr. Brown responded that the only aesthetics the CAB looks at is shape(s) and color(s). Council held a lengthy discussion about the value of the CAB. They concluded to leave the process the way it is. The group held discussion regarding process procedures. Mr. Morley clarified that the proposed changes actually reversed the current procedure. He explained that with this change the Building Official reviews the submitted plans first to determine if it met code before forwarding the application to the CAB. Mr. Brown added that the code is open to interpretation on this one point on determining which signs go to the CAB. He respectfully requested that if someone was simply replacing the plastic sign face, he would not like the request to have to go to the CAB for approval. Discussion followed. City Council with the Planning & Zoning Board Sign Code Workshop Meeting Minutes October 16, 2008 Page 7 City Attorney Garganese advised that the code allows the Building Official to determine if a request has a minor and insignificant aesthetic impact then it does not have to go to the CAB. Discussion continued. Mayor Randels gave an overview of the proposed changes to Section 94 -33, Issuance of Permit, and Section 94 -34, Revocation of Permit. Following discussion, the group agreed that the word "or" be changed to "of' in the first sentence of 94 -33 (d); also, the words Construction Board of Adjustment be capitalized throughout the document; and add the Construction Board of Adjustment to the beginning of the code where the other Boards are listed. Discussion was held regarding the process to appeal a decision made by the Building Official to the Construction Board of Adjustment. City Manager, Bennett Boucher, advised that the Construction Board of Adjustment deals with technical codes, therefore any person aggrieved by a final decision of the Board may appeal the decision to a court of competent jurisdiction, not the City Council. There were no comments or questions on Section 94 -34, Revocation of Permit, Section 94 -36, Inspection by Administrator, or Section 94 -37, Notice for Inspections. Mayor Randels read the proposed changes to Section 94 -35, Fees. City Manager, Bennett Boucher, explained that the changes in (d) do not exempt the applicant from the permitting process it only waives the permit fee. Mayor Randels reviewed the changes to Section 94 -61, Restrictions on Placement. Following discussion, the group agreed that the words "any character of any description of any kind" be removed; also, remove the words "without permission of the Building Official ". Mayor Randels read the changes to Section 94 -62, Abandoned and Hazardous Signs. Following brief discussion, the group agreed that wording should be added to address unlawful display of an unsafe sign constituting a hazard to public safety. City Council with the Planning & Zoning Board Sign Code Workshop Meeting Minutes October 16, 2008 Page 8 The Group reviewed Section 94-64, Criteria and Standards for Measurement and Placement. Donald Dunn advised that the word "glass" be removed as a type of lens in (a). Mayor Randels announced that the next meeting would begin on Division 2, Types of Signs. ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Randels adjourned the meeting at 8:05 P.M. Susan L.Chapman Recording Secretary C c: C