Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07-01-2002CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD JULY 1, 2002 MINUTES A meeting of the City of Cape Canaveral Community Appearance Board was held on July 1, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Annex, 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. The Acting Recording Secretary called the roll. MEMBERS PRESENT Walter Bowman Randy Chamomile Burt Bruns MEMBERS ABSENT Karen Hayes Paul Hurley OTHERS PRESENT Thomas Bubb Kim McIntire NEW BUSINESS: Chairperson Vice Chairperson Assistant Building Official Acting Recording Secretary Approval of Meeting Minutes: June 3, 2002 Motion by Mr. Camomilli, seconded by Mr. Bruns to approve the meeting minutes of June 3, 2002. Motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Bowman noted that there was no City Attorney in attendance. Bea McNeely, P &Z Chairperson, advised that the Acting Recording Secretary Kim McIntire could swear in all persons giving testimony. Mr. Camomilli opined that there was no reason not to have the meeting based on the agenda, but advised the audience that the meeting would be subject to the approval of the City Attorney. Motion by Mr. Camomilli, seconded by Mr. Bruns to hold the meeting with the understanding that it would be subject to the approval of the City Attorney. Motion carried unanimously. Acting Recording Secretary Kim McIntire swore in all persons giving testimony. 2. Discussion and Motion Re: Flores Del Mar, 8470/8472 Ridgewood Avenue — Omission of Pavers There was not a Flores Del Mar representative in the audience. Mr. Bubb stated that when Flores Del Mar was close to receiving their final, they decided to omit several things from their site plan and staff was requesting direction from the board as to where, when and how these omissions could take place. He further stated that the board had approved Community Appearance Board July 1, 2002 Page 2 the original site plan and staff felt that the board should be presented with changes for their approval or denial. Basically, staff was asking if the omissions of these pavers as presented in their site plan represented a significant change. Mr. Bubb said they were favoring blacktop in place of the original pavers with an asphalt parking lot. Mr. Bowman did not believe that the board was initially involved in the selection or non- selection of these pavers and acceptance of them. Mr. Bruns opined that this developer had made several changes including the change from a proposed block wall between this development and Canaveral Sands to a chain link fence. He also noted that there was no representative from Flores Del Mar in the audience to speak to the issue, which reflected a lack of concern on their part. Motion by Mr. Bruns, seconded by Camomilli to deny Flores Del Mar's request to omit pavers. r,.--- -__._� L',.,1... .l - L,;,. L. A4_ D + A +t-,., + +1,- +1, 0 +;, + 1Jiscussion 1ullo VVed In winch ivll. Uowma.n 11oleU 111Ct1 1111, pavers were an aestliet.1 ititpr o` I ... 1v 1 - to the project, but in view of what the board voted on, this was not in the board's purview. He said this was almost in the area of landscaping and beautification within the complex and was not relegated to the public arena. Mr. Camomilli stated that the board was talking about expanding its purview and felt the board should be sensitive to these types of changes. Mr. Bowman pointed out that individuals who bring items to the board have weeks of notice as to when their discussion item will be on the agenda. Mr. Bubb asked if the board should reconsider changes to a package previously submitted and approved by the board if said changes had a visual impact. Mr. Bruns pointed out that this change affected the visual impact of the entryway, which represented a significant change. Vote on motion to deny Flores Del Mar's request to omit pavers passed unanimously. Discussion Re: Proposed Ordinance to Amend Section 22 -40. Approval Prerequisite for Permits of the Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances Due to the fact that it had been brought to the attention of the board that the mailings to affected property owners may not have been apropos for this meeting date, Mr. Bowman proposed that this discussion item be tabled until the public has been appropriately informed. Mr. Camomilli noted that there were people in the audience who might wish to speak on this issue. He presented the background of this item by stating that at the last board meeting, members talked about one specific building that had painted itself red on AlA. The board thought it might be a good idea to have those types of changes brought to the board as the board's purview was to look at those things that were aesthetically impacting the community, regardless Community Appearance Board July 1, 2002 Page 3 of the change, whether it be landscape or paint. He stated that, up until now, the board only reviewed new development and signage. Mr. Camomilli stated that the board was restricting itself to commercial buildings along AIA; however he wished to propose a change of language from `'Highway AIA" to "main thoroughfares" because there were two or three main thoroughfares; i.e., N. Atlantic Avenue and Ridgewood Avenue. Mr. Bruns opined that because this proposed ordinance amendment was not site specific, but extended throughout the city, notification of adjacent property owners was not required nor was it an appropriate part of the board's discussion. He added that if this were not the case, the City Attorney could correct the board. Mr. Bowman asked if the city had been notified of this meeting in a proper format. Mr. Bruns assumed that the city had been notified because of tree draft ordinance prepared by the % r ILy Attorney. He explained that City Council was seeking input from the board because the board brought it to the attention of council so that changes such as the recently painted red building would have to proceed through some sort of process. Mr. Camomilli reiterated that he would like to see the language "Highway AIA" changed to "main thoroughfares" which would include N. Atlantic Avenue and Ridgewood Avenue because, in his opinion, he considered the condominiums on Ridgewood Avenue to be commercial. Mr. Bruns opined that there was no commercial zoning on Ridgewood Avenue and said that everything in the city from Poinsetta to AIA was zoned commercial. Mr. Bowman asked about old 401 and members a that it was worthy of consideration because of its variety of commercial and residential zoning. Members also discussed the area north of Central as being worthy of consideration. Members acknowledged that members of the audience had input into the board's recommendation, but because there was no attorney present, discussion of this item would have to be tabled at some point. Members assured the audience that they would have an opportunity to speak to this issue. Mr. Bowman recommended that the proposed language, "main thoroughfare" include the full length of N. Atlantic Avenue; the commercially zoned portions of either side of Central, and the area between A 1 A and N. Atlantic Avenue north of Central. Mr. Bowman recommended that the board entertain a motion offering the City Council the board's thoughts on this subject. He felt that everything else about the proposed amendment seemed to be order. Mr. Camomilli asked if the board wanted to wait until the city attorney was present before making a motion. Mr. Bowman pointed out that the board was simply providing input to the City Council. Mr. Bruns opined he wanted the board to send a message to City Council and this message could then be tabled and the board would not act on it. Mr. Bowman said if the board felt the message was appropriate, to proceed because the City Council through the City Attorney Community Appearance Board July 1, 2002 Pa6e 4 had the right to add the board's recommendation to the ordinance or not. The board was simply advising City Council. Mr. Bruns said he was not interested in approving these additions without the approval of the City Attorney. Mr. Bowman asked if the City Attorney might find some objection to the points being added by the board. Mr. Bruns responded that he did not know and suggested that the board, in the form of two motions, send its recommendations on this ordinance to the City Council separately and then table discussion until the board had counsel from the City Attorney. Messrs. Bowman and Camomilli did know if this could be done. Mr. Bruns responded that the board could send a message to the City Council through the minutes of the board's discussion and then table the discussion. Mr. Bowman asked Mr. Bruns if he was recommending that a motion not be made, but let the minutes as represented by the board's discussion itemize the thinking of the board. Mr. Bruns responded in the affirmative. 7, 4_�' L T i M i... B A I- 114 r '11' +., + M A; �' iv -Lotto 1 by . Bruns, secon UeU Uy 1Ylr. N—allIOMirur w LaU.e Uiscussion regarding u,rs viu„iaii based on the board's discussion at this meeting, subject to Council's review of the minutes. Mr. Bowman said he would like the benefit of the audience input on this issue this evening. The vote on the motion failed 2 -1 as follows: Mr. Bowman, Against; Mr. Bruns, For; Mr. Camomilli, Against. Mr. Bowman proceeded to open the floor to those individuals who wished to speak. Howard Gould voiced that he was widely traveled and was in favor of diversity and had no objections to the recently painted red building within the City. Mr. Bowman said that the board enjoyed and appreciated the contrast also, but within range, and stated that the range was what the City Council was requesting that the board monitor. Mr. Camomilli appreciated that there were individuals who favored variety in colors and reminded the audience that the board was only concerned with commercial buildings. Mr. Bowman said there were many places where a wide variety of colors were appropriate, such as entertainment areas. Mr. Camomilli reminded the audience that the city was trying to maximize property prices and the City had made positive changes in the last 20 years. Mike McDermott, United Agencies, was concerned with the timing of the City's notification letter. He said it was written on Monday, June 24, 2002, but was not mailed until the following Thursday and he did not receive it until July 1, 2002. The Board assured Mr. McDermott that staff would research this issue. Mr. Bruns asked Mr. McDermott what he thought he should have been notified for. Mr. McDermott said because the city was considering a change to an ordinance that was going to affect a business; the local businesses should have the opportunity to have their voices heard. Community Appearance Board July 1, 2002 Page 5 Mr. Bowman assured Mr. McDermott that this board did not have the power to vote on this becoming an ordinance; only to forward its recommendations to the City Council. Public readings on this change would require a great deal of notification. Mr. Bruns further explained that before an ordinance could be passed, it had to be published in the newspaper and voted on twice by the City Council, all of which was a matter of public record and also available at City Hall. He reiterated that in his opinion the City was not obligated to notify everyone in the city of a proposed ordinance change. Mr. Bowman felt business owners should have been notified about the board meeting this evening because the board was discussing the rationale. Mr. Camomilli added that the board met on the first and third Monday of the month. Mr. Bubb believed that a letter had 'been sent by the building ofncial, over ivir. Buoo''s signature, to all the affected businesses along the main corridors. Members requested that Mr. Bubb research the criteria used for the mailing, and the time frame of the mailing and present his report at the next meeting. Mr. McDermott felt that the proposed language was very "open ended ". The verbiage "visual impact" could be interpreted as anything from installing a front door to complete restructuring of a building. Mr. Bowman stated that the mandate of this board was difficult to administrate. The mandate statements for this board were currently included in the City Code and the board had no intention of exceeding those limits in applying this additional rule. Mr. Cainomilli stated that the code does speak to the exterior visual impact, so the board was not really changing anything, but simply extending it to those things with frontage on AlA. Mr. Bowman added there was a misstatement in the fact that it does not speak to the modification of existing buildings. At this time, the board is only involved in new development and the phrase external modifications to commercial properties was the heart of this addition. Mike George, both a resident of the City and the owner of Go Signs, was concerned with the financial burden that some of these changes would force upon some of the businesses that needed to change out their signs. Mr. Bowman assured Mr. George that the board did not intend to create a monetary impact on the businesses. There were certain elements that must be defrayed in terms of cost, but the board had not spoken to this issue and felt this issue needed to be addressed by both the board and the City Council. Mr. Bruns opined that the sign ordinance was a completely separate issue from what was being discussed at this meeting and did not fall within the board's purview. He said the board was concerned with appearance. Mr. Bruns said the problem with appearance was that the city was Community Appearance Board July 1, 2002 Page F able to have input into new development, but an adjacent existing building was able to change its appearance without coming before the board. Therefore, the board had proposed to the City Council that existing buildings be included in the ordinance to ensure there was some uniformity in the appearance of this city. Mr. George explained that the concern of some business owners was that the language was open ended and would this proposed ordinance affect signs. Mr. Bowman thanked Mr. George for bringing up this issue, which would help in the definition portion of the proposed ordinance. Betty Gould, property owner, pointed out that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder "and requested that the board remember that. She also stated property was a bundle of rights and when a board started dictating what a person could do to their property, the property owner's rights were being taken away. Gary Smith, representing Jungle Village, asked if the existing buildings were going to be grand fathered in so that if these painting regulations were going to happen, would the existing buildings have a certain amount of time to paint their building. The board assured Mr. Smith that there was no intention to mandate the colors in the city. Mr. Bowman commented that Jungle Village had a certain, appropriate need for attractive, bright colors, while other more administrative, sedate businesses the use of bright colors could be used incorrectly. Selena McDermott, spouse of Mike McDermott stated that she worked with appraisals on a daily basis and property owners should be aware of the fact that property around them will reflect on their sales price; i.e., a property with a bright red building next door was not going to sell for as much as a property with a building painted beige /pastel next door. Mr. Bowman stated this was in support of what the board was trying to do and thanked Ms. McDermott for her input. Vote on the aforementioned motion carried unanimously. Mr. Bruns, seconded by Mr. Camomilli to adjourn meeting at 8:03 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Walter Bowman, Chairperson Kim McIntire, Acting Recording Secretary