HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 9C_6/12/1997 •
Village of Tequesta
Village Council
June 12, 1997 '
Staff Report and.Recommendation
Tequesta Plaza Redevelopment Site Plan: Fehlhaber Corporation, property owner
and applicant. Request for plan approval and landscape waivers. The property is
located at 190-222 Tequesta Drive and is in the Mixed-Use(MU)zoning district.
Background
The subject property is located along the south side of Tequesta Drive at 190-222
Tequesta Drive and has an area of approximately 4.7 acres. It is within the Mixed-Use
(MU) zoning district.
Currently existing on the property is an older commercial strip plaza.
The general area is primarily commercial in nature, as north of the subject property there
exists commercial uses, as well as south and east of the property. To the west, across Old
Dixie Highway is the FEC railroad right-of-way and then more commercial uses. Further
north of Tequesta Drive, within the vicinity of the subject property is a downtown
residential project,the Tequesta Oaks Development,which will consist of approximately
158 townhomes. All property to the north and south of the subject property is zoned MU.
East, across U.S. Highway One, and West, across Old Dixie Highway and the FEC right-
of-way is zoned Community Commercial (C-2) and General Commercial(C-3).
The applicant intends to modify the current site by proposing a modified sign for the site,
new facade and exterior building work, new landscaping and parking area design and
resurfacing. This proposed site work has been reviewed by the Village of Tequesta
Development Review Committee(May 30, 1997). The site appears to be in much need of
modifications as many elements currently existing on the site appear to be either non-
conforming or in need of repair.
Previous proposed improvements to the site by the applicant included a modified sign.
This sign was not approved by the Village Council during a regular Council meeting on
October 13, 1994. As a part of the current site plan, the applicant is proposing a modified
sign, which appears to be the same sign previously proposed by the applicant.
According to the records, both the applicant and the Village of Tequesta have shown an
interest in modifying the current site, as there appears to have been various items brought
before the Village Council and/or appointed Boards of the Village Council in the past.
These seem to trail as far back as 1989. However,there have not been any changes made
DRC Staff Report and Recommendation Page 1
Village Council,June 12,1997
Tequesta Plaza Redevelopment Site Plan
j
on the site to this point in time. In the past, both the applicant and the Village, it appears,
have not been able to improve the conditions of the current site.
Development Review Committee and Village Staff Review
On the proposed site plan, the applicant indicates that an"out-parcel" exists on the
northeast corner of the subject property. This"out-parcel"is designated as a`Future
restaurant". If this site plan were to be approved as submitted, this out-parcel area would
only be permitted to have the indicated use developed. Unless it is the intention of the
applicant to have this area designated specifically for the use of a"restaurant", this
description for the out-parcel should be eliminated. Also, there is no record of plans
submitted for the development of this out-parcel. Therefore,the applicant will need to
incorporate the appropriate site modifications to this area, along with the other sections of
the site.
•
Also on the proposed site plan,the applicant indicated where"light poles"would be
placed, however there did not appear to be specifications regarding lighting in the plan.
This information should be included in the plan
The following items have been reviewed by the Development Review Committee
regarding the current proposed site plan by the applicant:
1. The proposed sign does not appear to meet the intent of the MU district. As a
requirement of the MU district,the sign must meet the intent of the district. The
currently proposed sign is 20' in height, and 15' in width, from column to column,
with a face area of approximately 58.7 square feet. The intent of the MU district does
not reflect a sign as high, nor as large,in general, as the proposed sign.
2. Signs indicating"One-Way"P'Wrong-Way"are missing at the west lane, along the
western end of the existing plaza.
3. Irrigation plans are missing, with appropriate details, such as notations of intended
water source and use of moisture sensors are missing.
4. Fire exits are not identified on plan, which need to be, along with paver markings and
signage that indicate"no parking" around such exits, in order to prevent blocked exits.
5. Loading/unloading zones are not indicated, nor identified with appropriate paver
markings and signage which is needed to prevent these areas from being blocked.
6. Area proposed to be resurfaced is not indicated, along with appropriate details of the
resurfacing material.
7. Proposed curbing, including island curbing is not indicated in plans along with details,
in association with drainage system.
DRC Staff Report and Recommendation Page 2
Village Council,June 12,1997 -
Teque9a Plaza Redevelopment Site Plan
7
8. Refuse container areas are not indicated, along with appropriate paver markings and
signage, in order to prevent these areas from being blocked.
9. Plans are not signed and sealed by the appropriate professionals, such as landscape
plans by a State of Florida Registered Landscape Architect, site plan by a State of
Florida Registered Engineer.
10. One-hour separation walls and smoke stops are not indicated on plan.
11. Waiver requests for landscaping are incomplete. The applicant has indicated a total of
6 (six)waiver requests for landscaping. These consist of:
A) Waiver for the required rear and side buffer areas. The applicant is proposing
0' of buffer from rear property line(10' is required), and no landscape buffers
along the sides of the property(5' buffer from property line is required). This
waiver request is indicated as"Waiver#1"on the proposed site plan.
B) Waiver for 12% of parking area green space(where 15% is required). This
• request is indicated as"Waiver#2" on the proposed plan.
C) Waiver from the required 4' planting area adjacent to the building. No planting
area is being proposed. This request is indicated as"Waiver#3"on the
proposed plan.
D) Waiver from the required 5' island between parking rows. There is an area in
the rear parking lot, on the west side of the site,where parking spaces abut and-
no island exists. This request is indicated as"Waiver#4"on the proposed
plan. The applicant shows good intentions toward this requirement, as the
separation islands in the front parking area are proposed at a width of 10',
when the requirement calls for a minimum of 5'.
E) Waiver from the required maximum of 10 continuous parking spaces with no
island. There exists 11 continuous parking spaces with no island in the
southeast rear parking area of the site. This request is indicated as"Waiver
#5" on the proposed plan.
F) Waiver from striping requirement as single striped parking spaces are
proposed, and double striping is required. This request is indicated as`Waiver
#6" on the proposed•plan.
Also, the proposed plans indicate as a notation that there are 42 Live Oak trees, 16
Washingtonia Palm trees, 6 Phoenix Robellini trees and a total of 65 trees proposed
(including other types of trees on plan). This information appears incorrect, according to
the types and number of trees represented on the proposed plan. The proposed plan
DRC Staff Repot and Recommendation Page 3
Village Council,June 12,1997
Tequesta Plaza Redevelopment Site Plan •
shows 49 Live Oak trees, 18 Washingtonia Palm trees, 4 Phoenix Robellini trees, and a
total of all trees as 71 trees(including other types of trees on plan).
In comment and addition to the proposed landscape waivers:
a. Specifically, landscape improvements are proposed in the right-of-way and a
waiver(Waiver#1 on proposed plan) is requested for the required 10' buffer
from the rear property line(south line). Landscaping in the right-of-way
requires specific approval from Village Council. Therefore, the appropriate
request for such right-of-way improvements must be clearly requested by the
applicant.
b. Where terminal landscape and interior landscape islands exist in the front and
east portions of the parking area of the proposed plan,the applicant indicates
the planting of 1 palm tree, except for one of these islands where 2 palm trees
are indicated. One(1)canopy tree or three(3) palm trees are required in these
areas. Either a waiver indicating this proposal on the plan must be added, or
these trees be added to the plan. Also, palm trees are required to be clustered,
single trees do not meet Village regulations.
c. Specifications required regarding landscaping do not exist on the proposed
plan, such as the percentage of native, salt and cold tolerant plants proposed
and existing on the site.
Staff Recommendation
The proposed site modifications/site plan,with appropriate conditions, could be
implemented. As the comments made by the Development Review Committee and Village
Staff apply to the submitted plans, and if the applicants request is considered for approval
by the Village Council, staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
1. That the section of the proposed site plan indicated as"out-parcel", be eliminated and
appropriate landscaping and site improvements be applied;
2. That the proposed sign be reduced to meet the intent of the MU zoning district as
defined by the Village Council;
3. That appropriate signage be placed at the west-end lane on the site, indicating"One-
Way"/"Wrong Way";
4. That irrigation plans be provided with appropriate details and notations, including
water source and moisture sensors;
DRC Staff Report and Recommendation Page 4
Village Council,June 12,1997
Tequesta Plaza Redevelopment Site Plan
•
5. That fire exits be identified on plans,including corresponding paver markings/signage
adjacent to these areas, in order to prevent these areas from being blocked;
6. That the area proposed for resurfacing is indicated on plans, along with appropriate
details for proposed resurfacing material;
7. That proposed curbing, including island curbing is indicated on site plan, with
appropriate details showing relationship to site drainage;
8. That proposed refuse container areas are indicated in plans, along with appropriate
paver markings and signage, in order to prevent these areas from being blocked;
9. That plans be signed and sealed by appropriate professional, as landscape plans require
the signature and seal of a Florida State Registered Landscape Architect, and site plans
require the signature and seal of a Florida State Registered Engineer;
10. That one-hour separation walls and smoke stops be identified in plans;
11. That a hedge be provided and indicated in plans in the rear parking lot, west side of
site, where a hedge is not indicated on the proposed plans;
12. That the appropriate number and location of palm trees, or canopy trees, be provided
and indicated in plans where terminal landscape and interior landscape islands on
proposed plans do not show such required trees;/or/., that such a waiver be added to
the list of waivers provided on the proposed plan;
13. That the appropriate quantity of trees be adjusted in the plan notation, in order to
properly match the quantity of trees shown on plan; and
14. That the appropriate lighting details be provided in plans.
DRC Staff Report and Recommendation Page 5
Village Council,June 12,1997
Tequesta Plaza Redevelopment Site Plan •
. D •r� -i tit•/U 4
E. l 4)T2 i t 1
`'11-t.n1...si 11E-0 1.44 v�-rs
,vac �? !•�j4
Village Council ;)
Meeting Minutes ram;f e D �f•h-�
October 13, 1994
Page 9
*A) Board of Adjustment; June 20, 1994
*8) unicipal Firefighter's Pension Trust nd Board of
stees Meeting; May 23, 1994
*C) Vi •ge Council Meeting; September 22, 994
*D) Vill- -e Manager's Report; September - October 7,
1994
VII. *C) Coneide • • tion of Purchase of o (2) Marquette
Eleetr . nics D1500 -SLP Full - Featured
Defibrill or/Monitors with -Invasive Pacer, 12
Lead Anal a Program, N -d Battery Packs and
Integral D :ct Digital Writer and Associated
Accessories, - on Marqu- a Electronics, Jupiter,
Florida, for - 4,183. • with Funding from the
Department of Fi ' Rae •e, EMS Division, and Having a
•
Budget Allocation \• $24,185. (Staff Recommends
Approval)
Mayor )sackail • -ad —went Agenda items to be
approveds I V: B, C, D, Item VII% C.
Counciime tuber ' uer mov- • that the Consent Agenda be
approved as ead by Me Mackail. Vice Mayor
Burckart : • •ed the motlo The vote on the motion
was:
Ron T. kail . - for
Willi, Burokart - for
Elis• • =th A. Schauer - for
Earl. . Collings - for
motion was therefore passed and : •opted and the
consent Agenda was approved as read.
VI. DEVELOPMENT MATTERS
A) Site Plan Review for a Free-Standing Sign at Tequesta
Plaza, Tequesta Drive. Ferrin Signs, Applicant, on
behalf of Fehlhaber corporation.
Building Official Ladd explained this was the last of
the non-conforming large free-standing signs to be
brought into compliance under the amortization of the
sign code, and had been approved by the Community
Appearance. Board, and if approved by village Council
they Would have one year to pull a permit. Attorney
Hawkins recommended against placing a lesser time to
pull the permit.
.L
e- Village Council
Meeting Minutes
October 13, 1994
Page 10
Dottie Campbell, 4 Tradewinds Circle, stated her
objection to the proposed design because she felt the
• columns were 'suggestive of giant phallic symbols, and
did not want Tequesta to get the reputation for having
suggestive signs. She urged the Village Council to
reconsider the design.
Discussion ensued as to what the owner's intentions
might be to improve the property. Building Official
Ladd stated that in one year the entire parking area
and landscaping would have to be addressed.
Councilmember Collings wade a motion to deny approval
of the sign for the moment and to schedule the
Fehlhaber Corporation at an upcoming Redevelopment
Committee Meeting to address all issues.
Councilmember Schauer seconded the motion. During
• discussion, Attorney Hawkins advised that this action
„•-` would preclude the Village from any action by the Code
Enforcement Board on this matter. The vote on the
motion was:
Ron T. Mackail - for
William E. Burckart - for
Elisabeth A. Schauer - for
Earl L. Collings - for
The motion was therefore passed and adopted.
VII. NEW susINBSS
A) Or• - - First Reading - Amending the Local Law
Retir- and Trusst for theme. refighters of the
Village of - • .- , by Ame , a Provision of the
Firefighters Pens - ;=_ - • , Exhibit VA' to
Ordinance No. 460, a •lion 7 Relating to Pro-
retirement Death so • fically Provide that
In-Line-of-Duty • Benefits _11 Not Terminate
Upon Remarriage;,- •viding for Sever:oility; Providing
for Repeal o •inancess in Conflict; Providing for
Codificatiof, Providing an Effective Date. (staff
Reooue • ' pproval)
Attorney 9c• " Hawkins read the above ordinance by title
only, on st reading.
•
IP
I�-VY V` 11 L O°. •
Vr II-V i
•
•
•
•
Y -- I I I
il G A. • • - . Ii. 1
r �— 1
TMIWA 1 - I "We:,
•
Li ANCHOR TENANT j 1 - -
I . k441,,,i i_e ' .,1 i_r_:, :),• , ,• •• yr,
••( `..
1 1
i • Z.
I I
G
0 � a� �a.. -CL., C` 57 �Q 7 -7 t!? {AP pitGV:.fpf,37WL7 incii•1 .•i:o.1 r
•
p .
, txNr�rT
(Ilk
• VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA =3 ;, isu,-,►.,,,„,DEPARTMENT OF.COI`L`iLVIT( DEVELOPMENT • Lrw DSe.&Ps r0,„,c,+.LTS
. ' Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive
i''',I'N�f;' I Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273•(407)575-6220
.0;4 Fax: (407)575-6239
Cy CO 0
June 4. 1997
Ms. Julie Fehlhaber .
Fehlhaber Corporation
2020 West McNab Road
Fort Lauderdale,FL 33309
•
Dear Ms. Fehlhaber:
RE: Tequesta Plaza Site Plan
Attached to this letter,please find a list of items discussed at a Development Review Committee meeting,
held on May 30, 1997,regarding the proposed modifications to the existing Tequesta Plaza site,at 190-
222 Tequesta Drive,Tequesta,Florida.
This site plan review incorporated all aspects of your proposed plan for modifications to said site
including landscape,sign,building facade and parking plans. The process involved with this review
includes review and approval by the Village Council and the Community Appearance Board The Village
Council review is scheduled to take place on June 12, 1997,at 7:00 p.m. at the Village Hall Council
Chambers, Village of Tequesta,357 Tequesta Drive. Following approval by the Village Council,the
proposed plans,along with any conditions placed by the Council,will be reviewed by the Community
Appearance Board(CAB). Upon approval by the CAB,permitting time frames and phasing of your
corporation's project will be in effect.
If you have any questions regarding this information,please do not hesitate to call me at(561)575-6223.
. Thank you.
Sin y,.
'an Peduto
Village Planner
c. Thomas G.Bradford,Village Manager,with attachments
Scott D. Ladd,Community Development Director,with attachments
Scott McGuire,Knight,McGuire&Associates,with attachments
Recycled Paper
Village of Tequesta
Community Development Department
•
May 30, 1997
Development Review Committee
Summary of Event
In attendance, representing the Village of Tequesta were:Chief Steve Allison,Chief of Police; Mr. Al
Oslund, Stormwater Utility Coordinator, Mr. Gary Preston,Public Works&Recreation Director,Mr.
Tom Hall, Water Department Manager, Chief Jim Weinand,Chief of Fire-Rescue; Mr. Damian Peduto,
Village Planner,and representing the Fehlhaber Corporation,the applicant,were: Mr. Spencer Bass,Ms.
Julie Fehlhaber and Mr. Scott McGuire,Project Engineer.
Discussion which took place at the meeting included:
1. Proposed sign did not appear to meet the intent of the Mixed-Use(MU)zoning district. Staff
indicated that the proposed sign met all Village requirements,however,after further review of the
Village codes,it is apparent that the proposed sign does not meet the intent of the district,which is a
requirement of the district.
2. Signage indicating"One Way"/"Wrong Way"will need to be placed at the west-end traffic lane,at
the west end of the subject property and indicated in plans.
3. An irrigation plan will need to be provided with notations regarding status of any required South
Florida Water Management District permits,proposed/intended water source,and the intended use of
moisture sensors within the system.
4. Indicate in plans where all fire exits exist,and paver markings/striping,and/or signage that will be •
used in order to prevent blocking such exits(i.e. "No Parking"signs,etc.).
5. Where appropriate,loading/unloading zones need to be identified with paver markings/striping,
and/or appropriate signage.
6. Area proposed to be resurfaced needs to be indicated,as well as details of proposed materials and
method. As it was discussed, 1"pavement overlay is intended to be used. This information must be
indicated in the plans.
7. Proposed curbing,including island curbing needs to be indicated in plans along with details of
proposed curbing in association with drainage system.
8. Refuse container areas need to be established in plans and appropriate signage1paver markings and
striping(such as"No Parking")in order to prevent these areas from being blocked.
9. Plans must be signed and sealed by appropriate professionals(i.e.landscape plans by a State of
Florida Registered Landscape Architect, site plans by a Sate of Florida Registered Engineer,etc:).
10. Elevation plans must include notations regarding one-hour separation walls and smoke stops,where
they exist. One-hour separation walls are required between tenants' spaces,and smoke stops are
required every 20 feet.
11. Fire lanes must provide at least a 50'radius for 360 degree turn-around area,and must be indicated so
in plans, if lanes are intended to be close-ended.
12. The time frame for acquiring a permit had been discussed. Upon approval of the plans by Village
Council and the Community Appearance Board(CAB),the applicant, in accordance with established
policy,has 30 days within which a permit must be applied for the landscape portion of this site plan.
Upon approval of the submitted permit, the applicant has 6 months within which work must have
begun and the first inspection performed. For other portions of this site plan,upon approval of the
plans by the Village Council and CAB, the applicant has one year within which permits must be
applied for. And upon approval of the submitted permits,the applicant has 6 months within which
work must have begun and the first inspection performed.
In addition to the these comments,staff has the following comments regarding requested landscape
waivers by the applicant:
1. In reference to the attached comment sheet titled"Ordinance No. 377 Waiver List",please see the
following:
• Waiver#'s 1, 1A,2,2A,3,4, 5,6,7 and 8,as per Mrs. Joanne Burned
xNf(31Trt
?7
�x
• VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA �
DEPARTMENT OF comma n, DEVELOPMENT
410
"•ig Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive
i'.�'j�� y�o Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273•(407)5:5-62220
•'. y •co�. v Fax:(407)575-6239
June 3, 1997
Julie Fehlhaber
Fehlhaber Corporation
2020 West McNab Road
Fort Lauderdale,FL 33309
Dear Ms.Fehlhaber:
RE: Tequesta Plaza Application and Review Fees
I recently received an inquiry from Mr. Bass of your corporation regarding overpayments and outstanding
fees by your corporation to the Village of Tequesta,corresponding with a current project involving the
Tequesta Plaza property. Mr. Bass asked me to refer to a letter be received from Mr.Ladd(attachment 1
of 3 to this letter),of the Village of Tequesta Community Development Department,dated May 21, 1997.
After reviewing the letter;and the Village of Tequesta Code of Ordinances, it became apparent to me that
Mr. Ladd, in his letter,was indicating that your corporation paid the Village of Tequesta Community
Development Department a fee of S350.00 for Community Appearance Board(CAB)review of your
project,when,according to the CAB fee schedule(attachment 2 of 3 to this letter),your corporation was
only required to submit a$75.00 fee. Therefore,your corporation had a total of S275.00 overpayment.
Also,your corporation has an outstanding fee for the site plan review of your project. That fee may be
determined by appropriately allocating the total project estimated cost within the site plan review fee
schedule(attachment 3 of 3 to this letter). Once you have determined the appropriate fee due,you may
apply the S275.00 overpayment,mentioned in the paragraph above,as credit to this figure. Therefore,
your corporation has a"credit"of S275.00 that may be used toward the determined,appropriate site plan
review fee(which,again,depends on the estimated cost of your total project).
The site plan review fee due to the Village of Tequesta Community Development Department by your
corporation,must be submitted prior to the regularly scheduled June 12, 1997,7:00 p.m. Village Council
Meeting,at which time your corporation's project will be brought before the Council. ,
If you have any questions regarding the above information,including the attachments to this letter, please
do not hesitate to call me at(561)575-6223. Thank you.
S'
i7e12
Damian Peduto
Village Planner
c. Thomas G.Bradford,Village Manager,with attachments
Scott D.Ladd,Community Development Director,with attachments
•
3 attachments
Rank?ed Paper
•
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA Attachment 1 of 3
(�,j DEPARTMENT OF CO\LM1NITY DEVELOPMENT Ms . Julie Fehlhaber
. '��y' Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive Tequesta Plaza Applicat
�; Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273•(407)575-6220 and Review Fees
•;`` •k Fax: (407)575-6239
• M
May 21, 1997
• Julie Fehlhaber
Fehlhaber Corporation
2020 West McNab Road
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309
Dear Ms. Fehlhaber:
•
Re: Site Plan Review for Tequesta Plaza
Renovation of Existing Free-Standing Sign and Building Facade
190 - 222 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta
As you discussed with this office this morning, the Village would like to proceed with the site
plan review for the renovation of the existing Tequesta Plaza free-standing sign and the building
facade as shown on the plans you submitted some time ago. We would like to place these items
for review on the agenda of the Village Council meeting scheduled for June 12, 1997 and are
enclosing herewith an application for site plan review which wwe ask that you sign and return to
this office with the appropriate review fee as outlined on the enclosed fee schedule. You had
previously submitted a check in the amount of$350.00 for the Community Appearance Board
review. The fee for CAB applications which also require review by the Village Council is
S75.00; therefore, we are in receipt of S275.00 of the required site plan review fee. Please
submit the above requested items by Monday,June 2, 1997.
Please feel free to contact this office should you have any questions regarding this matter.
Very truly yours,
),(1 edit Q, & u_�J
Scott D. Ladd
Director of Community Development
jmb
Recycled Paper
Attachment 2 of 3
Ms. Julie Fehlhaber
•
Tequesta Plaza Application
and Review Fees
COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD FEZ SCHEDULE
COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD REVIEW. FOR EACH APPEARANCE. PER ANY
APPLICATION:
Requiring only Community Appearance Board review for final
approval:
A. Sign • 75. 00.
B. Satellite antenna $ 75. 00
C. New construction, additions. renovations,
remodeling. including landscaping pla.ns;
based on cost of work as follows:
• 0. 00 to $ 9.999. 99 *100. 00
• 10.000. 00 to $ 24.999. 99 *150. 00
25.000. 00 to $ 49.999. 99 *250. 00
$ 50.000. 00 to $ 99.999. 99 *300. 00
$100,000. 00 to $199,999. 99 $350. 00
*200,000. 00 and over S400. 00
•
Other Community Appearance Board
applications requiring Village Council
review for final approval $ 75. 00
Attachment 3 of 3
Ms . Julie Fehlhaber
Village of Tequesta Community Development Department Tequesta Plaza
Planning Division Application and
357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, FL 33469
Review Fees
Phone: (561) 575-6220 Fa:: (561)575-6239
The following fee schedule,as set forth in the Village of Tequesta Code of Ordinances, Chapter 16, .
reflects the appropriate fees for site plan reviews:
Sign S 125.00
Satellite antenna S 125.00
New construction/additions,
renovations/remodeling
based on cost of work as follows:
S 0.00 to S24,999.99 S425.00
S 10,000.00 to S49,999.99 S625.00
S 50,000.00 to S99,999.99 S1,250.00
eO100,0000.00 to$199,999.99
$1,875.00
Over$200,000.00 S7300110
Site modification:One-fourth(1/4)of original base site plan review fee for each resubmittal.
Site plan review time extension:One-half(1/2)of original base site plan review fee.
Expedited site plan review: In addition to
the applicable site plan review fee listed above S1,000.00
*Also,as stated in Section 16-3,Additional Costs, in the Village of Tequesta Code of Ordinances:
"To cover all additional administrative costs,actual or anticipated,including,but not limited to,
engineering fees,consultant fees and special studies,the applicant shall compensate the village
for all such costs prior to the processing of the application or not later than thirty(30)days after
final application approval whichever is determined as appropriate by the village."
The preceding fees do not include other village processes and/or permits,which may be required as a
result of the proposed development
•
•
Fee Sdtiedule/DRC
(2/'97)
TEQUESTA PLAZA
ORDINANCE NO. 377 WAIVER LIST
Waiver #1: 10' landscape buffer required inside the property line on the south side of property, 0'
provided. The rear of the center (south / Bridge Road) side of the center has paving and parking up to
the property line although there will be created(behind the old Publix store) or already exists a 25' to 30'
green space area within the road right-of-way.
Waiver 1A: East and west sides of property provide no landscape buffers . Both side property lines
have access drives which are used by adjacent property owners.
Waiver 2: A waiver is being requested for the required 5' landscape buffer on the east and west
property lines; therefore,no trees or hedges will be installed.
Wajver 2A: Applicant has provided for the required hedge in the proposed landscape buffer located
within the road right-of-way along the south side of property (Bridge Road). The existing landscape
buffer located to the west of this area and along Bridge Road has 6 existing trees but no hedge, which
the applicant should provide in lieu of waiver request.
Waiver 3: Applicant has provided the required landscape islands every ten (10) parking spaces of
fraction thereof in all but one location at the rear of the east end of the building where there are 11
spaces and then a landscape island.
Waiver 4: 1 canopy tree or 3 palm trees required for each terminal landscape island and additional
interior landscape islands. The applicant has indicated the planting of 1 palm in 16 terminal landscape
islands (center entrance and east end) and 2 palms in one location throughout the front portion of the
property-
Waiver 5: Applicant had provided the required 5' divider median between abutting rows of parking
spaces in all but one location which is located towards the center in the rear of the property.
Waiver 6: The 4' planter area adjacent to the buildings cannot be accomplished because of the tight
constraints concerning parking and access. the,building was designed to accommodate paving or
walkways right up to the building line. We have made provisions such that no portion of the building is
visible from the street without looking across a green area except where driveways are shown and on the
east/west building lines. These two sides are subject to existing driveways which cannot be closed or
moved.
Waiver 7: The two access ways located on Bridge Road and the east access way on Tequesta Drive are
all approximately 30'-35' ,and provide both for both ingress and egress.
Waiver 8: Existing green space is 1%. With proposed landscaping the green space will be 12%. This
amount of green space is the most that can be accomplished without adversely affecting the use of the
center.
ORDINANCE \O. 377
CO\IPLI.%NCE CHECK LIST
•
I. PERIMETER I_.\NDSC.APING:
1J4(Vae— .' ( [v& J 10' inside property line ‘khere vehicular use areas abut public or pri' ate streets
(JO ' North, d' South, N/A East, N/¢ West)
M}tclE2 *-/f}- WI 5' inside property line where vehicular use areas abut adjacent land uses
( N/At North, N/A South, Q' East, D ' West) •
® Perimeter Landscaping Required '
} '' ' Parking Area r '
call/fence—s�-;, (open land use) ��.
K. w
r
i )
Residential ' Ccrwercial
Use Building L.
14 L Propert
7 t Line
r`r,rr��;�nfi
j : tiu
' ?f.«.,•►
Public/Private Right—of—Way
t.AM 1 t/ /At [v✓] 5' off-street parking to off-street parking .
t N/A- North, N/f1' South, D' East, 6 ' West)
_ Mt - P.
etyr Mk
AW
ozie fie:
MP r a ( jjJ
ding
Building f
pa it*
PR
r.Ar.r,r "'sip' Al•�`1►`3'!f' r.� 10
. ,r,r ♦•� : �^ti��r w�,ti^
Aitr kUs_. :_ i;`i:si;`i.`10W4• • . • • . . . .%.1 ;i ti •— : i',.?
Property Lines Public/Private Right-of-Way
. P}'r�4 Perimeter Landscaping Required
r✓e( (w' ( I canop% tree per :U linear feet of landscaped area ( 1 high 5' clear trunk
OR
[XI 3 palm tree cluster per 30 linear feet of landscaped area t 12' gray ‘tiood)
[X J Only fifty (50°0) percent of all trees provided in landscape plan shall be palms
\, we A NJ J 2' min. in height at planting'hedge to grow to min. 4' max. 6'
[ X] Balance of planter strip provided with grass or other ground cover material •
Cross-section of Perinecer Landscape ReQuirenents
3O'Max
•.:: ::: 12 •..Ln
5S# ii�i i` ♦ c
5'Min
hedge Vat ►1 �1���1 e1 ►1►��''�1 ►��1�� ��� r����'
Commercial properties abutting and/or immediately adjacent to residential:
Pik [ ] Hedge not more than 6' from residential property line
it'/, - [ ] Planted min. on center and maintained at min. 6' max. 10'
tv/fr [ J 5' min. 6' max. solid opaque fence and or wall
Buffer Required at Contnercial/Residential Abuttnent .
5-6 opaQue ,1 4-1*e
wall/fence ►O hedge
i1N
(Reaidentiall ' '11 1Corweroiel1
tt
a � �1.in•
• I planting area
to
■
Prooerti
• Line
- 2 -
2. INTERIOR LANDSCAPING COMMERCIAL PARKING AREAS:
[X ] 6' X 20' landscaped islands at each end of parking row
9roundcoverisod/shrubs 6' min
. A I (-4
i
one nrerlor island) per 10 pal king) spaces lid
• 29
•••
S M i I
1 2 3 4 S 6 de 9 10
canopy tree-min 1 per island
kAMI Jae 3 [NJ] 6' X 20' landscaped island every ten (10) parking spaces or fraction thereof
WAAVa. M'V [a] 1 tree planted in each island (o,L 3 PALLS)
tAhli Jdtt 5 WI 5' divider median between abutting rows of parking spaces and
rows of parking spaces and driveways
[ ] 1 canopy tree or 3 palm trees per 40 linear feet between abutting parking
rows and rows of parking spaces and driveways
[' 'I balance of island landscaped with grass, ground cover, shrubs,
or a combination of same
I I
parking spaces
ou
114
n
AltV
:•
:
v\IRtiIG"a% 3. LANDSCAPING SURROUNDLNG PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES:
fine] Parking rows and traffic aisles separated from principal structures on the side
and front by a landscape strip of at least 4' in width. (Where a building fronts on
two(2) streets, all sides, except for designated loading areas, must by around
sides and front of primary structure
( 0' Side, 0' Side, 0 ' Front)
•
- 3 - •
•
ir
4. ACCESS (INGRESS / EGRESS):
Uh�Je4 447 Access ways from public rights-of wav max. 24' in width
S. XERISCAPE REQUIREMENTS:
[X ] Moderate drought tolerant
[ ] Very drought tolerant
[X] Non-invasive species
[x ] Hardiness zone (other than Tropical)
[ ] Salt tolerant
[X] Medium or high wind tolerance
6. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS:
[x] 6010 landscaping indigenous to So. Florida
WMVa2 8' [vi)] 15°o min. gross parking area landscaped
[X] Automatic irrigation facilities provided
[X] Tree survey indicating all trees of three(3) inches in diameter or greater
[—] Prohibited landscaping identified for removal
[x I Graphically indicate quantities, types, sizes at planting and
at five (5)years maturity
[)( ] Indicate botanical and common names
7. COMPATIBILITY WITH STREETSCAPES:
[ ] U S One
EX] Tequesta Drive
4
.
Knight, McGuire & Associates,Inc.
Consulting Engineers and Planners
2901 Cardinal Drive
Vero Beach, Florida 32963
David S. Knight, P.E. Phone 561-231-2533
Scott B. McGuire, P.E. _ FAX 561-231-1398
March 20, 1997
Mr. Scott Ladd •
Village of Tequesta • r_
357 Tequesta Drive •
Tequesta, FL 33469
RE: Tequesta Plaza
Dear Mr. Ladd,
Enclosed please find ten revised sets of the above referenced
plan which has been revised per your and JoAnn's verbal comments
(March 10th meeting) . We have made the following modifications:
1 . Additional waivers No. 4, 5, and 6 have been added.
2 . Trash container locations have been shown.
3.. The parking spaces on the west side of the building have been
made compact (8 x 16) and have been changed to 45° to allow
for better backing.
4 . The rear of the building has been reworked to reflect its
current layout rather than converting it to a front. This
modification to the plan was made at your request because
changes to the building limits cannot be accomplished through
this Ordinance # 377 process.
5. The Bollards in front of the center have been removed.
6. The restaurant area in the front has been labelled "Future
6000 ft2 Restaurant Out Parcel. " It is our understanding that
approval of this site will be via separate process. The
parking which now exists beneath this site has not been shown
since it is not required parking.
Waiver Justification is as follows.
1 . Waiver #1 Bufferyards - We have shown a full 10 ' bufferyard on
the most important side (north side) . The side property lines
have access drives which are used by adjacent property owners
and there is not any opportunity to provide green area. The
rear of the center has paving and parking up to the property
line although there will be created or already exists a 25' to
30 ' green bufferyard.
Re yded/Recydable ®
l T
2 . The total green space created is 12% of the total site up from
less than 1%. This conservatively represents a 1200% increase
in green space. This amount of green space is the most that
can be accomplished without adversely affecting the use of the
center.
3. The 4 ' planter adjacent to the buildings cannot be
accomplished because of the tight constraints concerning
parking and access. The building was designed to accommodate
paving or walkways right up to the building line. We have
made provisions such that no portion of the building is
visible from the street without looking across a green area
except where driveways are shown and on the east/west building
lines. These two sides are subject to existing driveways
which cannot be closed or moved.
4. The 5 ' island cannot be placed between the two rows of parking
behind the center. To offset this we have provided 10 '
islands in the front rather than the 5 ' required.
5. We have shown one instance in which 11 spaces are proposed in
a row without an island. We have provided a large island
adjacent to and east of this area to offset this situation.
6. Single striped parking is requested because we feel it is
adequate parking
Per our discussions it is our intention to go through the
C.A.B. and the Village Council approval for this Ordinance # 377
modification and the sign as soon as possible. We are also
currently working on an application (Development Review
Application) for the modification to the facade and restaurant
parcel . Our goal is to have all of these applications approved and
begin construction on Phase I (front) of the landscaping this
summer.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to give me a
call .
Sincerely,
- jam l
cott B. McGuire, P.E.
\tequesta\codify