Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 5B_7/17/1996 airy. VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ', Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive �o Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273•(407)575-6220 •(4,M\\c �M�.inFax:(407)575-6239 c VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES JULY 17, 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, July 17, 1996. The meeting was called to order at 9: 30 A.M. by Chair Leslie Cook. Boardmembers present were: Chair Leslie Cook, Paul Coben, Claudette Dalack, Steve Parker, and Alternate Molly McCormick. Alternate Marcia Nielson was also present and was available to be seated if needed. Also in attendance was Joanne McCabe, Acting Clerk of the Board. Vice Chair Vic Strahan arrived at 9: 37 A.M. II . APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Cook announced that the agenda was approved as submitted. III. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES 1 . The minutes of the Community Appearance Board meeting of May 22, 1996 were approved with the following corrections as requested by Boardmember Coben: the word "Go-Jo' s" on page 12 was changed to "Jo-Go' s"; and the word "thee" on page 13 was changed to "three" . IV. NEW BUSINESS 1 . An application from Donaldson E. Hearing, Cotleur Recycled Paper Community Appearance Board Meeting Minutes July 17, 1996 Page 2 Hearing, Inc. , as agent for Garden Square Shoppes, Ltd. , owners of the property on Tequesta Drive formerly known as Lighthouse Plaza, for the development of Tequesta Oaks, a 160-unit duplex townhome planned mixed-use development, and the construction of a 5,950 square foot, 200-seat restaurant. Also included are review of signage and landscaping for both residential and commercial portions of proposed project. William Shannon, Attorney for the Developer, explained that Donaldson Hearing had been unable to attend, and introduced the following members of the development team who were present and who would participate in the presentation: Mr. Rick Green, Certified Planner and member of the Planning Department for the DiVosta Company' s Development Team, who would speak regarding colors, textures, and layouts; and Steve Gillespie, Landscape Architect, from Cotleur Hearing, Inc. , who would speak regarding overall appearance issues. Mr. Green explained that he would first review the townhomes, after which the restaurant would be discussed. Mr. Green described the project as consisting of 160 attached 2-story townhomes with an arched entryway portico to provide for private entrance into each one, located on the present old Lighthouse Plaza site which would have a consistent theme throughout the development. The size of each townhome would be approximately 1, 400 square feet of air conditioned space, in addition to a 2- car garage. Mr. Green referred to a color board which indicated the four colors which would be used for the building exteriors and the color options for shutters of green, white, and black. The exterior colors would be designated for each building by the developer so that a purchaser desiring a certain color could pick one of the buildings designated for that color, if it were available. Mr. Green provided clay roof tile color samples of terra cotta, blond, and brown, which would be used in a mixed pattern for all of the roofs throughout the development in a mix of approximately 40%/40%/20%, and requested leeway in the percentages for each color. Mr. Green explained that the signage at the entry was proposed to consist of gold lettering reading Tequesta Community Appearance Board Meeting Minutes July 17 , 1996 Page 3 Oaks on cobalt blue tile set into a beige frame which was the same color as the perimeter wall. A similar blue tile feature would be located at the terminal vista of the recreation center so that anyone entering Tequesta Oaks would view the entry sign, the tree-lined street of oaks, and the terminal vista. Vice Chair Vic Strahan arrived and joined the Board at this point in the meeting, whereupon Alternate Mollie McCormick stepped down. Mr. Gillespie explained that the landscape theme had been designed to match Tequesta' s current native theme by using Live Oaks to line the main street as well as the side streets. The buffer landscape would consist of Live Oaks along the interior of the perimeter wall, with a ficus vine on the exterior, which would grow to cover the wall . Each lot would have its own typical unit landscaping, containing a street tree and an accent tree or palm in the front; and at least one palm in the rear alternating on each side of the wall where the units backed up to each other. Interior shrubs, ground covers, and accent trees would be planted in between the units . Space would be available for homeowners to add their own landscaping. Mr. Gillespie explained that the recreation center would also function as the mail facility for the whole development, and an accent fountain was planned for the front, enhanced with coconut trees and other accent landscaping. The pool would be buffered with fencing, shrubs, and palms . Mr. Gillespie pointed out three pedestrian accent points, one each on the west, east, and north sides of the project. Chair Cook questioned whether the lower portion of the building exterior would be stucco, to which the response was that the lower portion was the same stucco as used on the upper portion except that it contained horizontal scoring as an architectural feature. Alternate McCormick questioned the use of blue tile in the entrance sign. Discussion ensued regarding the use of that color. Chair Cook announced that Acting Clerk of the Board McCabe had indicated that the Village Attorney Community Appearance Board Meeting Minutes July 17, 1996 Page 4 had advised that comments should be limited to the five Boardmembers, and that alternate members could speak during Communications from Citizens. Further discussion of the color of the signage tile continued among the Boardmembers . Mr. Green explained that the use of the same color at the recreation facility would provide a link from the southern end of the development to the northern end as a unifying theme. During discussion of the roof material, Mr. Green explained that the mixture would consist of primarily terra cotta and blond clay tiles and that the brown would be downplayed. One of the Boardmembers expressed a personal preference for solid color roofs. Mr. Shannon explained that use of the mixed clay tile would produce a virtually maintenance-free roof, since mildew tended to only enhance the look over time, and referred to the shopping center at the northwest corner of PGA Boulevard and Military Trail which had had the same roof since 1979 which had never been cleaned. Mr. Gillespie responded to a question regarding the type of fencing which was proposed for the pool area that the fence material would be black vinyl-coated chain link, however, it would be hidden from view by hedged maintained at a 6-foot height. Mr. Gillespie stated the proposed heights of the street trees and the palms. Chair Cook stated that she liked the overall look, and expressed her opinion that the entry sign was fine, with which all of the other Boardmembers agreed. The landscaping was discussed. In response to a question by Chair Cook regarding why all Live Oaks had been chosen instead of mixing in some Laurel Oaks, Mr. Gillespie explained that the Live Oak was hardier and would keep its green color more throughout the year. Mr. Shannon explained that he had Laurel Oaks at his home which lost their leaves in winter while Live Oaks did not, and that Live Oaks provided a better canopy and were more wind resistant. Boardmember Dalack expressed concern that the entranceway plantings might be too sparse, but stated that she could not tell from the rendering. The proposed Community Appearance Board Meeting Minutes July 17, 1996 Page 5 tree heights were discussed in relation to the height of the buildings, and the proposed calipers were stated to be 1-1/2" to 2" . Mr. Shannon explained that larger Live Oak trees would be much more expensive. Chair Cook expressed concern that the trees at the entry were not large enough, however, commented that she was not too concerned with the size of the interior trees. Boardmember Parker agreed that the entrance oaks were probably not large enough for a project of this density with 2-story buildings, and suggested that the 12 ' -14 ' Live Oaks be replaced with 14' tall Live Oaks with an 8- foot spread and 3-inch caliper. Boardmember Parker expressed concern that the landscape plan specified oaks at 10 ' -12 ' . Mr. Gillespie explained that the interior oaks were 10'-12' and the common area oaks were 12 ' -14 ' . Discussion ensued regarding too much paving with insufficient green areas, the fact that the applicant had already exceeded Code requirements, and that this project included no common areas of greenery as in other DiVosta projects. Mr. Shannon produced photographs of other developments more representative of the proposed traditional streetscape, and explained that the mixed-use district meant higher density, straight streets, and more walking, rather than the open space look as in the Tequesta Country Club and in newer cul-de-sac subdivisions. The cost of larger Live Oaks was discussed. Mr. Parker indicated that an 18-foot tree would cost $450 to $500 installed. Chair Cook commented that the Board wanted these units to sell, to which Mr. Shannon responded that the developer also wanted the units to sell but at a price that would not slow sales. Chair Cook expressed the opinion that the additional cost of replacing the twelve entrance trees with larger sizes would help rather than hinder the pace of sales. Mr. Shannon explained that the minimum code had already been exceeded. Mr. Gillespie explained that some of the proposed trees were not even required to be planted. Vice Chair Strahan commented that the applicant had developed an economically viable plan, that changes could affect both the economics and the overall effect of the project, that this developer was renowned for his business decisions made over many years, and expressed his opinion that if the entrance landscaping looked Community Appearance Board Meeting Minutes July 17, 1996 Page 6 skimpy after installation of the trees that the developer would make changes. After further discussion, Mr. Green indicated that the units were anticipated to market for approximately $120, 000; however, any changes would affect that price. Mr. Parker indicated his preference for a mix of trees instead of all Live Oaks, to which Mr. Gillespie responded that the Live Oaks were the theme of the project, the name was Tequesta Oaks, that all streets were named for Live Oaks, and that the pool area would contain a mix of Coconut and Sabal palms and Ligustrum trees. Mr. Parker suggested a different type of tree on the side streets. Mr. Shannon commented that the applicant would like to proceed with the plan for Live Oaks as presented and to take a suggestion back to the developer that the Community Appearance Board would like him to consider replacing the oaks on the side streets and increasing the height of the entranceway trees. Chair Cook explained that the Board was making suggestions from the viewpoint of people who might purchase these units and trying to provide insight as to what purchasers would be impressed with; and commented that she did not remember another DiVosta project where the landscaping was as skimpy as in this project. Vice Chair Strahan inquired whether this project' s landscaping specifications were lower than for other DiVosta projects, to which Mr. Shannon responded that they were not . Mr. Shannon commented that he respected that the Boardmembers could be representative of the buying public, however, this company was familiar with marketing in this area and what would appeal to purchasers; and expressed his belief that the Live Oaks as designed would be economical for the project, exceed Code requirements, and still provide the Board with the look they desired. Mr. Shannon requested that the Board approve the project with recommendations rather than requirements. Chair Cook questioned whether the applicant was concerned that the landscape buffer on the east would sufficiently block out the commercial shopping center, to which Mr. Shannon responded that no units faced or backed up to the center and there would be a wall as well as landscaping. In response to a question regarding the Fidelity Federal area, Mr. Shannon explained that area would not change. Mr. Shannon explained that an earlier comment regarding Community Appearance Board Meeting Minutes July 17, 1996 Page 7 the amount of paving was due to Village Code parking requirements, and further discussed the parking area. Mr. Shannon described the pedestrian access areas, and also the dry retention grass areas . Mr. Shannon indicated that 95% of the stormwater runoff was required to be retained on site. Chair Cook stated that she would like to make recommendations and would be willing to give up certain things, such as plantings along the north perimeter since the church already had Laurel Oaks planted on their side, so that the applicant' s budget could meet recommendations made by the Board. Mr. Parker questioned whether the applicant had considered that the oaks proposed for the northern perimeter should be staggered so as not to be in line with existing trees. Mr. Shannon again requested that the Board' s suggestions be made as recommendations and not requirements. Mr. Parker questioned how the Board would know the recommendations would be followed, to which Mr. Shannon responded that the Board could look at the track record of this developer. Mr. Parker expressed his opinion that this project' s landscaping was light compared to other DiVosta developments. Chair Cook expressed concern with so many proposed Crinum Lilies and requested that other plants be substituted. Mr. Gillespie indicated that the applicant would prefer the lilies but could add some similar plants. Chair Cook expressed her willingness to give the applicant leeway to adjust plants at the entry so that the landscaping would not be so simplistic, but suggested that a mix of plants be used where cocoplum and spider lilies were proposed since neither of those plants were cold hardy. Mr. Parker questioned whether the Ficus vine proposed to grow on the exterior wall met Code. Acting Clerk of the Board McCabe explained that was an addition by the applicant, and that the landscaping code only applied in vehicular use areas . Ms. McCabe indicated that 60% native plants was the only requirement except in the vehicular use area. In response to Mr. Parker' s concern regarding the perimeter wall, Mr. Shannon explained that the wall would have periodic columns which would break up the exterior. Mr. Parker suggested that a parking space be eliminated on each side at the entrance to the townhomes to provide Community Appearance Board Meeting Minutes July 17, 1996 Page 8 more space for landscaping, to which Mr. Shannon responded that parking was a serious concern and meetings were still being held with the Community Development Department regarding how to increase guest parking. Mr. Shannon indicated that a suggestion for valet parking at McCarthy' s would not be applicable for the cost-conscious patrons of that restaurant. After further discussion of Mr. Parker' s suggestion, Ms. McCabe verified that the applicant was required by Code to have a certain number of parking spaces and could not afford to lose one. Ms. McCabe explained that the Village had modified its requirements for parking spaces from 10' x 20' to 9' x 18' , and while these spaces were 9' x 20' , the extra two feet was necessary because of the location next to two- way traffic. Mr. Parker requested that changes be made on the plant list to include not only quantities but height, spread, and caliper of trees. It was explained that that information was included in other areas on the plan. Mr. Gillespie agreed to change the plant list to include the requested information. Chair Cook discussed the idea of leaving it to the developer' s discretion to consider and implement the Board' s recommendations. Mr. Green indicated that Mr. DiVosta would certainly consider the recommendations seriously and would make any modifications that could be implemented. Mr. Green reviewed the proposed McCarthy' s restaurant which was proposed to open November 1, 1996, would be similar in architectural design to the present McCarthy' s restaurant with bay windows in the front, and indicated that the building would be the same color as the perimeter wall of Tequesta Oaks. The proposed roof would consist of barrel tile in a mix of two colors to be approximately 80% terra cotta and 20% brown. The restaurant signage was described as a 16' pole sign with a wood frame and two 4' x 3' wall signs. The landscaping included flower beds under the windows and planter boxes by the windows . Chair Cook questioned how the landscaping would be maintained, to which Mr. Green Community Appearance Board Meeting Minutes July 17, 1996 Page 9 responded that the Homeowners Association for Tequesta Oaks would be responsible for maintaining the landscaping. Ms. McCabe explained that the maintenance plan had been approved as a part of the Site Plan approval . Mr. Parker suggested that the 30 to 40 existing Sabal palms be donated to the Village, with which the applicant was agreeable so long as the Village had means to remove the trees in accordance with the construction schedule which anticipated clearing the land the first week in August. Ms . McCabe advised that Gary Preston be contacted regarding that matter. Boardmember Parker made recommendations as listed below. During this process Boardmember Coben expressed his opinion that the sense of the second recommendation should be that the Board would be happier if the higher number in the specification was used, but the more important recommendation was that the applicant consider significantly larger trees at the entranceway, and that the way the recommendation was proposed was insulting to the developer. Vice Chair Strahan commented that the applicant had surpassed Code, which Ms . McCabe confirmed. Boardmember Coben requested that the more important recommendations come first. Chair Cook stated that she was not asking the applicant to increase their budget but to manipulate their budget by placing fewer trees in the back in order to increase the size of the entryway trees, to which Mr. Coben responded that would require a change in the plans . Mr. Parker questioned what the elements were that made the landscaping exceed Code. Ms . McCabe explained that she did not have the numbers in front of her, but the applicant had added a lot of plantings not required, such as the trees in the back yards and the vines. Mr. Parker suggested the trees in the back yards be made smaller, to which Ms. McCabe responded that was a specification of the project. Boardmember Coben explained that the applicant could add but could not take away from the landscaping without changing the approved plan. Boardmember Coben commented that the approval must include the lamp poles. The Boardmembers agreed that the lamp poles were acceptable. Chair Cook summed up the Community Appearance Board Meeting Minutes July 17, 1996 Page 10 recommendations as requesting larger trees, most importantly in the front, and substituting plant materials. Mr. Parker added a recommendation to mix Sabal Palms and Laurel Oaks in with the Live Oaks; which Boardmember Coben questioned since that would require the applicant to return. Vice Chair Strahan urged that the applicant not be required to come back for further approvals . Chair Cook questioned the applicant as to whether they had hurriedly prepared this plan, to which Mr. Green responded he could assure her that a considerable amount of time had been spent on the plan, that the townhouse portion had gone through at least four versions, and that the landscaping plan had also been throughly considered. Mr. Green explained that the developer began with what he thought best, compared that to Code requirements--which in every case had exceeded those requirements--and that Mr. DiVosta felt landscaping was important in order to market units. Mr. Green stated that any DiVosta project could be viewed to see that landscaping was always of the highest quality, and that this landscaping plan had gone through numerous revisions and was felt to be a good plan for this project. Mr. Green assured the Board that the developer would do his best to implement any recommendations if possible. Boardmember Coben questioned whether the applicant intended to erect a temporary sign. Mr. Shannon explained that the intent was to set up a sales office in one of the existing Lighthouse Plaza shops, and that some temporary sales signage would be erected. Mr. Shannon discussed the possible demolition schedule. During comments from the public, Alternate Marcia Nielson commented that she did not agree with mixing other trees in with the Live Oaks. Alternate Mollie McCormick commented that this was the most professional presentation she had witnessed since becoming a member of the Board, and was very excited that this project would be built. Chair Cook questioned the decision to build two-story units which might not be an attraction to the many elderly people in the area, to which the response was Community Appearance Board Meeting Minutes July 17, 1996 Page 11 that this project was intended to attract a wide range of people and that this design was very popular in both Dade and Broward counties and would probably attract a younger market . The recommendations made by Boardmember Parker were as follows : 1 . Recommend that existing Sabal Palms on site be donated to the Village if possible. 2 . Recommend that all Oak trees with 12 ' to 14 ' specifications be changed to 14 ' x 7 ' with 3" caliper and that trees planted along the property line bordering the church be staggered rather than planted in line with existing trees . 3 . Recommend that the 12 entry trees from Tequesta Drive be changed from 12 ' to 14 ' to 18 ' x 12 ' with a 4-1/2" caliper. 4 . Recommend additional cold hardy plants of similar type to the Cocoplum and Spider Lily be mixed in with those plants . 5 . Recommend that the perimeter wall along Dixie Highway have columns on the outside of the wall to break up the wall. 6. Recommend additional shrubs or trees along perimeter wall exterior to provide additional greenery since the vine could take awhile to grow to cover the wall . 7 . Recommend plant specifications be changed to provide more detail for palms and trees to reflect height, spread and caliper. 8 . Recommend King Sago Palms and possibly Bird of Paradise (plants of similar plant material type) be mixed in with Crinum Lilies. Community Appearance Board Meeting Minutes July 17, 1996 Page 12 Boardmember Parker made a motion to accept the project as presented with the recommendations listed previously, with emphasis on the portion visible from Tequesta Drive. Vice Chair Strahan seconded the motion. The motion carried by unanimous vote, with none opposed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Chair Cook questioned why many approved projects had not been implemented, specifically Rinker. Ms. McCabe responded that the landscape architect for Rinker had contacted them and that they would be on the agenda for signage at the next Community Appearance Board meeting. The cleaners on Cypress was discussed. Vice Chair Strahan commented that they had installed the Sabal palms and irrigation but not the landscape islands. Boardmember Parker commented that the owner was working on that, and explained that the Village Council had added other conditions . Ms . McCabe explained that the Stop & Go landscaping had been delayed due to Village curb, gutter and sidewalk installation, and that they were now working with their landscape architect to redesign the parking lot. Chair Cook stated that the goal was to get all of these projects completed by next season. Ms . McCabe explained that everyone had been notified the week before that they had 15 days to submit, and notice had been given to the shopping center across from Tequesta Oaks that they had 30 days before turning the matter over to Code Enforcement. The Flame building' s sign which had not been taken down and that property' s noncompliance with Ordinance 377 was discussed. Boardmember Dalack commented that the Juno Beach Town Hall provided free coffee, donuts, and newspaper daily. Vice Chair Strahan commented that Community Savings Bank had not completed landscape plans and that their plants were dying. Ms . McCabe reported the landscaping at Speedway had been completed. Community Appearance Board Meeting Minutes July 17, 1996 Page 13 Chair Cook commented that she would look up the minutes on Community Federal Savings to discuss that project at the next meeting. Vice Chair Strahan questioned whether the Country Club was doing something with their parking lot, to which Ms. McCabe responded that they had planned to do additional work after the season was over, and she would go there that day to check. Chair Cook questioned the raised paver section located to the side at the Seabrook Road entry to Constitution Park. Boardmember Parker stated that those pavers were supposed to have been centered, but because no parking spaces could be given up they had to be placed to the side. Chair Cook commented that the pavers had been left too high, and asked the Boardmembers to go look at the pavers . Chair Cook commented that ENCON should be approached to do a better job on their landscaping. After discussion, it was decided to take pictures of the landscaping in question and to write a letter stating that the Community Appearance Board was not happy. Chair Cook questioned why the oak trees had died, to which Boardmember Parker responded he believed a bad batch of trees had been received from the nursery and reimbursement should be received from the nursery in the form of replacement trees. Boardmember Dalack reported that a former Boardmember had requested that oleander flowering trees be installed on U.S. One instead of live oaks. VI . COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS There were no communications from citizens. VII . ANY OTHER MATTERS There were no other matters to come before the Board. Community Appearance Board Meeting Minutes July 17, 1996 Page 14 VIII . ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11 : 38 A.M. Respectfullyk' submitted, Betty Laur Recording Secretary ATTEST: • )610 , ( Qch f it f In Joanne McCabe Acting Clerk of the Board DATE APPROVED: