Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 4B_7/27/1989 a • VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA . 42 ' `a Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive � � , Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 • (407) 575-6200 FAX: (407)575-6203 COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD T. WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES r JUNE 28 , 1989 I . The Tequesta Community Appearance Board held a workshop meeting at the Village Hall , 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, on Wednesday, June 28, 1989 . The meeting was called to order by Village Manager Thomas G. Bradford, at 9 : 50 A.M. Community Appearance Board members present were: Leslie Cook , Chairman, William Frank and Paul Coben, Vice Chairman, Boardmember James Coble was not present . Boardmember Janet. Gettig was out of town. Village Officials present were: Scott Ladd, Building Official ; and Jack Horniman , Planning Consultant. Others present were : Bert Krebs, representative for G. Gentile & Associates . II . APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was approved as submitted. III . REVIEW OF AMENDED TEQUESTA LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE #377 Village Manager Bradford started the workshop meeting off by reviewing points of changes on the Ordinance that came about from the May 17 , 1989 workshop meeting of the CAB. Those were as follows: o Ordinance should reference, and the Village should provide, a Village of Tequesta Plantings List for dissemination to developers . Boardmember Coben stated George Gentile was in the process of making up that list and the adoption of such is referenced in Item ( 6 )d. in the Ordinance . o Provision of canopy trees within landscaped areas of parking lots with a ratio of 3 to 1 for Palm Trees with maximum 15% to be Palm Trees . It was decided to leave the 3 to 1 ratio in the Ordinance , and to re-address the percenta e of Palm Trees . S,evCrPL Go r ►1cm6rrs a c4( 4 ., $o ` /Y» A /rn 7 Community_ Appearance Board Workshop Meeting Minutes June 28, 1989 Page 2 o Relative to native plantings - it shall be mandated at 80% of total landscaping . It was agreed that 80% was not correct ; the percentage should be 60% to match Palm Beach County's current requirements . o Issue of amortization of landscaping requirements for existing developments . It was decided to keep the amortization issue clean and simple, leave it at 5 years - a time that will stand up in court - and there won' t be the problem of rapid upgrading in terms of landscaping. o Amendment to require new development to comply and/or provide for adopted Village Streetscape Plans. Item ( 12 ) of the Ordinance addressed fully this issue . o On-site, as well as off-site, landscape requirements of the Village. It was agreed to change this to be a generic compatibility with Village of Tequesta streetscapes to strengthen it to require compliance with the Village themes . Developers will pay the cost of off-site streetscape plantings . o Tree Survey to be provided with all development applications, coordinating existing vegetation with site plan. Item (9) covers this , but should be amended to read: "Whenever appropriate, existing trees shall be conserved and integrated in the approved landscaping design plan" with the word approved added. o 10-foot planting strip abutting public right-of-way, - with minimum 5-foot planting area. Item ( 6 )a was approved as it stands. o Hedge planting, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy should be not more than two feet apart. Section (2 ) (c) (2) was approved as amended. o Buffering of walls and fences required whenever the same are provided at the perimeter of adjacent parcels or at different zoning district boundary lines . Section (2) (c) (2 ) addresses this issue fully. o One tree for each 30 lineal feet, not less than 12 feet high at time of planting, with 5 foot clear trunk minimum, with a crown spread of 15 feet at maturity. Section ( 2 ) (c ) ( 3) addressed the issue to the satisfaction of the CAB. Community Appearance Board _ Workshop Meeting Minutes June 28, 1989 Page 3 o Access ways should be included in the required calculations to determine the number of trees for frontage area. Section ( 2) (c) (4 ) Scott Ladd pointed out that there is a minimum requirement for access ways but not a maximum requirement. He agreed to take a look at the County' s Zoning Codes Ordinance to review it anc: perhaps adopt anything good it might say about maximum access ways. o Section (2) (c) (6 ) was recommended for elimination by the Board. No action was taken to remove this section. o Utilizing appropriate aspects of the Palm Beach County Landscape Ordinance language to break up the monotony of parking spaces within a parking lot by requiring a tree planting area of not less than an appropriate square footage of 100 square feet for every 12 parking spaces . Section (6) : There was discussion as to what specifically designated a single island and a double island. It was agreed the Ordinance would be amended in Section ( 6 )a. to read "at least one tree shall be in every 6 ' x 20 ' island" . o Inclusion of language tracking FS 481 . Section ( 13 )d. approved as written on page 5 of the Ordinance . o The addition of language that provides minimum requirements for landscape plan submittal documents including botanical name, common name, dimensions, and the like. Add "and at 5- year maturity" . Specify five-year's maturity to appear in graphic form on the drawing. o Requirement of a planting strip of a four foot- minimum around the perimeter of all commercial buildings. Alternatives for existing structures shall be considered where hardship is demonstrated. At the conclusion of the review, Mr. Bradford opened opportunity for Boardmembers to voice any other concerns they might have: Mr. Ladd expressed concern that nowhere in the Ordinance was reference made to the actual submittal of a "professionally prepared landscape plan to get acceptance under the Ordinance, based on the amortization features and prior to expiration of the amortization timeframe" , and felt that should be remedied. His point was that it' s hard to enforce something that has not been documented. • r Community Appearance Board Workshop Meeting Minutes June 28, 1989 Page 4 Member Coben and Frank expressed concern over requiring property owners who are assumed to be deficient in landscaping to submit a site plan indicating their status . Mr. Bradford felt the matter would entail some thought and staff review with the Village Attorney prior to moving forward with the Ordinance . It was agreed this analysis would take place . Mr. Coben voiced concern over Section ( 10 ) which states : "The gross parking area is to be measured from the edge of the parking and/or driveway paving and sidewalks , extended five feet in all directions . . . " . He did not understand the basis for that. He felt it should read, " . . parking, plus any border landscaping strips" . Mr. Bradford explained what was being referred to was the five foot planting strip in the 15% calculation and pointed out that the terminology was "minimum landscaping open space" . Mr. Horniman agreed there might be a potential problem with the wording and/or calculation, and in its present form, it did not equate. Mr. Ladd questioned what happened to the 25% overall landscaping for a total site. It was determined that the Village Attorney had, in fact, added a new column to the technical requirements of the Zoning Code entitled, "Minimum Landscape Open Space" , requiring a minimum of 25%. Much discussion ensued over this issue as to how it was calculated. It was agreed this issue would be re-examined and discussed with Attorney and staff. - Mr. Coben also objected to the four foot width required for landscape strips for paking rows and traffic aisles . He felt it would be more practical if it were two feet . yr. Bradford explained it was not critical , because it was interior landscaping and reminded Mr. Coben that parking lots are usually designed for maximum parking, which is seldom fully utilized. It was agreed to leave it as it is written with the four foot requirement. Mr. Ladd made reference to Section ( 2 ) (c ) (2 ) which states : " . .a solid opaque fence and/or wall shall be required and shall be located on the property so that the living hedge faces and is nearest to the adjacent residential area, " stating minimum and maximum wall size needs to be stated; perhaps a 4 ' -6 ' or 5 ' -6 ' wall . Staff agreed to re-visit the hedge, wall and fence issue to ensure proper intent and buffering is included. -' Community Appearance Board Workshop Meeting Minutes June 28, 1989 Page 5 IV. ANY OTHER MATTERS No other matters were discussed. V. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11 : 57 A .M. Respectfully submitted , •-�/ZQi)e-/ )6(- 1 Fran Bitters Recording Secretary /fgb • • Date Approved: