Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 5A_8/8/1996 t I , • 3. 0„,� dir-A VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive ophi ,, Tequesta,Florida 33469-0273 • (407)575.6200 0 �� Fax: (407)575-6203 C,, COu$S VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 22, 1996 I . CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Tequesta Community Appearance Board held a meeting at the Village Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, on Wednesday, May 22, 1996. The meeting was called to order at 9: 32 A.M. by Chair Leslie Cook. Boardmembers present were: Chair Leslie Cook, Vice Chair Vic Strahan, Paul Coben, Steve Parker, and Alternate Molly McCormick. Alternate Marcia Nielson was also present and available to be seated for those items in which other Boardmembers stepped down. Also in attendance was Scott D. Ladd, Clerk of the Board. II . APPROVAL OF AGENDA Several members of the audience complained they could not hear the comments of the Board. The agenda was approved as amended by the addition under ANY OTHER MATTERS of a discussion by Water System Manager Tom Hall regarding the new Water/Public Works Garage Facility. III . APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES 1 . The minutes of the Community Appearance Board meeting of April 10, 1996 were approved with the following correction on page 8 as requested by Boardmember Coben: the word "they" was changed to "in" immediately preceding the words "maintaining the Mile of Beauty" . COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 22, 1996 PAGE 2 IV. NEW BUSINESS 1 . An application from Jib Yacht Club Marina, 46 Beach Road, to enclose an existing covered porch and add a roof structure to an existing patio at the marina facility; and an application for review of landscape plans and certain waivers for Ordinance 377 compliance. George Gentile, Landscape Architect. Mr. Gentile explained this application had already been presented to the Village Council and had been approved. The site plan and several non-conforming issues due to the history and longevity of the project within the community had been approved. Mr. Gentile explained that this parcel had been a part of a condominium, but several years ago had separated from the condo. The new addition consisted of enclosing an 80 S. F. patio adjacent to the very small ship' s store (120 S. F. ) . Clerk of the Board Scott D. Ladd explained that the approval process had been reversed, so that although the Village Council had already reviewed this project for Ordinance 377 compliance, that if the Community Appearance Board wanted any changes, the applicant had the option of accepting the changes, not proceeding with the project, or appealing back to the Village Council . Mr. Gentile explained that he was requesting a change to a couple of the tree selections. Mr. Gentile reviewed the following waiver requests : 1 . 5' landscape strip to screen parking required: hedge 24 ' height provided, 1 tree per 30 linear foot: none provided. 2 . 4 ' landscape strip with hedge required: 12" provided with 6' wood fence. 3 . 5' landscape strip adjacent to residential required: 3 ' provided with 6' wood fence. • COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 22, 1996 PAGE 3 4 . 1 tree per 30 linear foot required: none provided. 5. Planting island every 10 parking spaces required: 14 spaces with no island provided. 6. 1 tree per landscape island required: none provided. 7 . 5' landscape strip adjacent to residential required: none provided. 8 . 24 ' continuous hedge for vehicular use area required: none provided. 9. 1 tree per 30 linear foot required: none provided 10 . 60% native vegetation required: 43% native vegetation provided. 11 . 50% maximum palms allowed: 60% palms provided. Mr. Gentile explained that boat owners were very concerned about leaves dropping onto boats, since they caused the fiberglass to stain, therefore, the mahogany trees and five of the oak trees were requested to be changed to coconut palms, which was a change from the plan approved by the Village Council . Discussion ensued regarding the requirement that palm trees be clustered in groups of three to equal the requirement for one tree. Since one area was too small to accommodate clusters of three, double palms were suggested in parking islands . Mr. Gentile clarified that Green Maypan Coconut Palms would be use with 3' graywood, to which Jan Strauss, owner of the Jib Club, agreed. Mr . Gentile explained that the Village Council had granted a variance to the finish floor elevation to allow 5. 9' MGVD in lieu of the 8 . 5' now required, and the applicant would file a hold harmless agreement so that the Village would have no liability in case of flooding. Mr. Gentile commented that a total of 20 trees and 38 wax myrtles would be added, and that everything else was COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 22, 1996 PAGE 4 existing landscaping. The number of trees was reviewed and found to be 18 coconut palms, 5 live oaks, and 1 mahogany. The coconut palms were discussed, and it was decided they would have one foot graywood and be 16' in overall height. Boardmember Coben made a motion to approve the application for the building change as requested. Vice Chair Strahan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote of 5-0. Boardmember Coben made a motion to approve the changes to landscaping as modified at today' s meeting which included removal of five live oaks from the plant list and four mahoganies from the plant list, and addition of 18 coconut palms with one foot graywood, 16 feet overall . Boardmember Parker seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote of 5-0. Several members of the audience complained they could not hear. Tom Little, 486 Dover Road, commented that many times the audience could not hear what went on at meetings, including the Village Council meetings, because people leaned back in their chairs to get comfortable. Mr. Little suggested the Village purchase small TV pin mikes. Mr. Little explained that as a member of the audience he did not like conversations going on that could not be understood by the audience, and that pin mikes could solve the problem. Chair Cook questioned how much that would cost the Village. Mr. Little' s response was to question how much it was costing in arguments over items that could not be heard. After discussion, Chair Cook stated that Mr. Little' s recommendation would be mentioned to the Village Manager. 2 . An application from Parker-Yannette Design Group, Inc. , for review of landscape plans for Ordinance 377 compliance for Island House SW, 325 Beach Road. Boardmember Steve Parker stepped down and was replaced by Alternate Marcia Nielson. COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 22, 1996 PAGE 5 Steve Parker, representative for the petitioner, reviewed the proposed waivers : North Property Line 1 . 5' landscape strip required, 2 ' to 8 ' provided. East Property Line 2 . 10 ' landscape strip required, 0' provided. South Property Line 3 . 5' landscape strip required, 2 ' provided 4 . 13 canopy trees required (30' o.c. ) , none provided. (Eleven Coconut Palms provided along the property line on the neighbor' s property. Parking Areas 5. 6 ' x 20 ' landscape end island with one tree required, none provided. 6. 6 ' x 20 ' landscape end island with one tree required, none provided. 7 . 6 ' x 20' landscape end island with one tree required, none provided. 8 . 6 ' x 20 ' landscape end island with one tree required, none provided. 9. 6 ' x 20 ' landscape end island with one tree required, none provided. 10 . 15% of gross parking area to be landscaped, 11% provided. 11 . 6' x 20' landscape island every ten parking spaces, none provided. Mr. Parker further reviewed the plan and verified that a COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 22, 1996 PAGE 6 total of two trees were being added and the reason for not adding trees in front was lack of room. Waiver 5 was discussed further, and it was pointed out that there was not room for an island because of electrical connections in that area and sanitation trucks would not have room to maneuver. Mr. Parker explained that additional palms had not been added to the front because anywhere palms were added the ocean view of a resident would be blocked. Norfolk Pines were discussed. Vice Chair Strahan questioned whether they were prohibited, to which Clerk of the Board Ladd responded that although not on the prohibited list, they were not a desirable tree and suffered in high winds. Vice Chair Strahan made a motion to accept this landscaping plan as submitted. Boardmember McCormick seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote of 5-0. Steve Parker rejoined the Board, and Boardmember Paul Coben stepped down during consideration of the Lighthouse Gallery application. Chair Cook recommended that procedure be changed to listen to the applicant, then ask for comments from citizens with regard to that particular application, and then hold discussion by the Board. Boardmember McCormick questioned whether there was a procedure that must be followed, to which Clerk of the Board Ladd responded that the Chair could set procedure. After discussion, it was agreed to adopt Chair Cook' s suggestion. 3 . An application from Lighthouse Gallery, 373 Tequesta Drive, to remove the existing raised black letter sign "The Lighthouse Gallery and School of Art" and replace it with blue raised plastic lettering to match the style and font of the awning lettering and reading "The Lighthouse Gallery Inc. " Al Imle, Treasurer of the Board of Directors explained that the Lighthouse Gallery had served the Village for COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 22, 1996 PAGE 7 the past thirty years, and approximately a year ago a new Board of Directors and a new Executive Director had made a renewed commitment to serve the cultural needs of the Village. Mr. Imle explained that at the previous meeting where this request had been made, since they had had many, many compliments on what they had done to the outside of the building, they had been so surprised by the turn of events that they had not properly presented their case. Because the prior decision by the Community Appearance Board would require the museum to spend money that it could not spare, this request was presented for the second time to be sure that the Community Appearance Board was fully aware of the whole situation and to show that the redundancy of lettering, styles, and differences in color in lettering on the same signage listed as the reasons why their signage should be changed was not exclusive to their storefront, but was similar to other business signage within the shopping center. Mr. Imle presented photographs of other signage in which the same redundancy existed. Mr. Imle explained that each member of the Board of Directors had contributed $1, 000 of their own money to remove redundant materials from the inside of the building and to build offices for employees and the new Director. Landscaping had been improved. The identification on the signage for the gift shop had been done to help business, which it had. Mr. Imle stated that the Lighthouse Gallery believed they were a credit to the area and because of their increased activity were bringing in customers for the other businesses . Mr. Imle requested a reconsideration by the Board of their previous decision, and stated that if the Board did not change their decision that the Lighthouse Gallery would spend the necessary estimated $2, 000 which they believed would not make their signage any better because of the number of compliments they had received; and commented that he could not believe anyone would force them just to spend the money unnecessarily as a harassment . Mr. Imle explained that these were some of the things that should have been said at the first meeting. Mr. Imle commented that the Village had always been very supportive, and therefore, must be proud of the Lighthouse Gallery' s cultural representation to the COMMUNITY APPEARANCE HOARD munrim MIMUTIS MAY 22, 1996 PAGE 8 coram_nity. Mr. Imle commented that if the Gallery was not able to grow with the community that someone else wou ft: move in to do their job. Mr. Imle mentioned that the Gallery was facing a space crunch which would be ado:essed in the coming years, but meanwhile they would be an active participant in the community. Mr. Imle askec again that . the Community Appearance Board rc:•:'r.sider their previous action and if they did not charge :heir decision, then move on to consider the new sio -.age proposal offered by the Lighthouse Gallery. Char Cook clarified that the prior decision had been to regiet_ that the lettering only remain on the center awn ng, and that the new signage proposal was to replace the lettering on the top using the same lettering as on the awnings. Chair Cook commented that since the awning com:pany had not obtained a permit and Village approval bef -,re they had proceeded with installation of the lettering on the awnings, that the situation had not been the fault of Lighthouse Gallery, and expressed the cpi ^ion that the Gallery should not have to pay the awning company to correct their mistake. Discussion eni -ie.d regarding the signage and the guidelines within whi r; the Community Appearance Board must make their deciion. Clerk of the Board Ladd verified that the add:.tior.al lettering was within that allowed by Code; and explained that the awning company could be required to rern,:.ve the two awnings which they had lettered without Vi ! i ?oe permission, and that the Lighthouse Gallery had the tight to try to get an approval, which was what was hei i dr ne . Chair Cook commented that it was apparent tha- Lighthouse Gallery did not wish to hold the awning co' rany, American Awning, responsible because they liked the rew signage. Mr. Imle stated that the community liC�.r the signage, as evidenced by the many compliments received. Hare, Messersmith, Executive Director of the Lighthouse Gallery, explained that the lettering could not be "whited out" since the blue would bleed through. Chair explained that should not even have to be con = i dered, and the awning company should just replace the .r nings at no charge since they had made a mistake by COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 22, 1996 PAGE 9 not obtaining a permit or prior approval . Director Messersmith restated that what the Board was saying was that the awning company had destroyed pre-existing awnings by adding non-permitted letters. Mr. Messersmith expressed the opinion that a lawsuit against the awning company would be necessary, and explained that Lighthouse Gallery did not want to pursue such an action and therefore had decided to first ask the Community Appearance Board to reconsider their previous ruling. Discussion ensued, during which Boardmembers commented that Lighthouse Gallery had not approached the awning company and therefore did not know that a lawsuit would be necessary. The Lighthouse Gallery was asking the Board to reconsider because they wanted the sign to remain. Discussion ensued. It was clarified that the ideal situation from Lighthouse Gallery' s point of view would be to leave the signage as it was, that their second choice was the signage plan presented at this meeting, and that the third choice would be that the awnings would be changed and the wording "Gallery" and "School of Art" would be removed. Cyrese Colbert, Property Manager for Gallery Square North, requested clarification of comments made earlier regarding the time citizens were allowed to speak, since she could not hear what was being said. Chair Cook clarified that the comments had referred to the Village Council meetings, not the Community Appearance Board meetings, and that the Community Appearance Board had decided to change procedure in future meetings to first hear the applicant, then to hear comments from citizens regarding that item, and then to hold discussion by the Board. Ms. Colbert asked to see the new signage plan, which was briefly reviewed. Ms. Colbert stated that Gallery Square objected to the signage as it was without any changes; stated that the signage for Howards Meating had been grandfathered in; expressed concern that if this signage was allowed that every other business could describe exactly what they did on their awnings; and objected to the word, "Inc." being included on the sign. Ms . Colbert indicated that if the top lettering was changed to match that on the awnings in font and color i COMMQNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 22, 1996 PAGE 10 they would have no objection, but did have some concern with including the word "Inc. ". Discussion by the Board ensued regarding the word "Inc." Boardmember Parker made a motion to approve the proposed revisions which include removal of all raised black lettering which currently reads "The Lighthouse Gallery and School of Art" and to replace with blue raised plastic letters that match the style and font and color of the awning lettering to read "The Lighthouse Gallery" centered over the three awnings. Motion was seconded by Boardmetnber McCormick and carried by unanimous vote of 5- 0. Vice Chair Strahan suggested that Lighthouse Gallery point out to the awning company their mistake, inform them that the alternatives had been that they should either correct their mistake by replacing the awnings, or contribute to the cost of the plastic letters; with which the other Boardmembers concurred. Boardmember Nielson verified that today' s action by the Board had replaced the previous approval . Tom Little, 486 Dover Road, quoted from the Village Code which he stated was on page 1208-2 : "Removal of unsafe, unlawful, and unconforming signs (1) When upon inspecting by Building Official any sign found unsafe or insecure, not properly constructed or erected or erected without first obtaining a proper permit, the owner shall be required to make it safe and secure of the proper construction or remove it, or obtain a proper permit within 48 hours from the time of notification in writing to this effect from the Building Official . Provided, however, this time shall be extended to 30 days when painting is only required. " Mr. Little commented that deviation from the law would come back to haunt the next Board. Vice Chair Strahan commented that this Board had been haunted by that section since on many occasions signs were not removed when businesses ceased operations, and it took longer than 30 days for the code enforcement procedure. Building Official Ladd commented that a COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 22, 1996 PAGE 11 certified letter had been sent out immediately, Lighthouse Gallery had responded back with a letter requesting permission to appear before the Community Appearance Board, which had been normal operating procedure in the Village for the past 28 years. 4 . An application from Lazar Signs for new store signs for Subway, 104 U.S. One No. As follows: 1 @ 3' x 6' to replace Mash Subs sign on free standing sign (white & yellow copy) , and 1 @ 2 .5' x 16' 10" on the south store elevation (white & yellow copy) . Boardmember Coben rejoined the Board, replacing Alternate Marcia Nielson. Sue Weir of Lazar Signs stated that she represented Subway, and reviewed the application. Clerk of the Board Ladd verified that the location in the mixed-use district allowed the amount of signage requested. Chair Cook pointed out that the south fascia needed to be cleaned up. Discussion ensued regarding the requested placement for the signage, the existing signage, and the fact that Starvin" Marvin had not placed a sign on the south side. Boardmember Coben suggested that the sign proposed for the east side be reduced in size to 13 feet with 24" letters, and the Board agreed that same size should also be used on the south side. Further discussion regarding size and whether there was sufficient room to place the Subway sign on the same side on the fascia next to the Starvin' Marvin sign. Clerk of the Board Ladd recommended that the applicant be required to balance the white space. Boardmember Coben suggested that if the Subway signage were on the north end of the east side, placing the sign on the east end of the south side rather than centering it. During further discussion, Boardmember Parker proposed only two signs, one out in front, and one on the east fascia. Chair Cook discussed the landscaping plan which had been approved several months ago, which had not yet been commenced. Clerk of the Board Ladd stated that the recommendation would be to approve the 13' 6" size signage on both sides. COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 22, 1996 PAGE 12 Vice Chair Strahan suggested the neon sign in the window could be moved to the south window. The fact that there were three businesses--food, gas, and convenience store-- in the building was pointed out. Clerk of the Board Ladd reminded the Board they were not required to approve all of the signage requested. Boardmember Coben made a motion that the application be approved with the following revisions: That the #2 sign, 13 ' 6" with 24" letters, be installed on the east fascia at the north end centered in the space between the existing Starvin' Marvin sign and the end; and the same size sign (13 '6" with 24" letters) be placed in the eastern 1/3 of the south fascia after the south fascia is cleaned up, because it is in very poor repair right now, and the whole fascia be refurbished to remove stains that have appeared as part of the background for the new sign, and also that the requested Subway sign for the free standing assembly be permitted to replace the Mash sign . After discussion, the motion was seconded by Vice Chair Strahan and carried by vote of 4-1 , with Boardmember Parker voting against the motion because he did not want the sign on the south side. Alternate Nielson participated in the discussion but did not vote on the motion. Alternate Nielson left the meeting at 11 : 22 A.M. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Boardmember Coben requested an update on Go Jo' s to which Building Official Ladd responded that in retrospect they had agreed to install plate glass windows as had been recommended by the Community Appearance Board. Boardmember Coben questioned how long it would take to get The Flame sign removed. Clerk of the Board Ladd reported that matter had been turned over to Code Enforcement, and explained that Officer Davis had been waiting to get the Special Master which would help make the process work better, and that first reading had been held and second r COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 22, 1996 PAGE 13 reading would be in June. Mr. Ladd reported The Flame property had a new purchaser so the sign would be replaced. The new McCarthy' s restaurant location and Mr. DiVosta' s project was discussed. Mr. Ladd explained that since the process had been reversed that this would first go to Village Council before review by the Community Appearance Board. Vice Chair Strahan questioned whether there was a policy for following up on the landscape approvals, and why there had been no action on several approved projects. Mr. Ladd explained the procedure, and the problems experienced by specific projects. Mr. Ladd explained that 30 days to begin work after the Village Council' s approval was not realistic, because when Village Council made modifications that was not enough time. Boardmember McCormick indicated her desire that a list be provided to the Board of projects which had or had not complied. Boardmember Parker questioned the thee palms that Cliveden was supposed to install, to which Mr. Ladd responded they had not been able to install them in the requested location because of existing gas lines, but had installed them in other locations . Mr. Ladd reported that there were only 10 or 11 property owners who had not responded to the Ordinance 377 requirements, and Officer Davis had recently sent out certified letters . Chair Cook stated that Any Other Matters would be heard before Communications fran Citizens in order to accommodate Village Water System Manager Tom Hall . VI . ANY OTHER MATTERS Tom Hall, Water System Manager, explained that in February 1996 a bid had been awarded to Walker Design and Construction of Boca Raton for construction of a water/public works garage facility at 136 Bridge Road, which was now in the design process. Mr. Hall explained that the building was a combination of CBS and prefabricated construction and that the prefabricated portion must be ordered now, for which color selections must be made. v t COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 22, 1996 PAGE 14 After discussion of the available colors and the effect on energy consumption using a darker roof color, the consensus of the Community Appearance Board was that the walls should be Stone White and the roof Satin Gray. V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS There were no communications from citizens . VII . ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11 : 45 A.M. Respectfully submitted, J Betty L u �a r 11 Recording Secretary ATTEST: Lti), `J Dga Scott D. Ladd Clerk of the Board DATE APPROVED: 117 - 'V