Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 7B_5/9/1996 3E B • rt. VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA DEPARTMENT OF CO\LMt'\TIY DEVELOPMENT . l ` 1''4; Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273•(407)575-6220 •',�y`CO. ' Fax: (407) 575-6239 VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES MARCH 27, 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, March 27, 1996. The meeting was called to order at 9 : 34 A.M. by Chair Leslie Cook. Boardmembers present were: Chair Leslie Cook, Vice Chair Vic Strahan, Paul Coben, Claudette Dalack, Alternate Molly McCormick andAlternate Marcia Nielson. Also in attendance was Scott D. Ladd, Clerk of the Board. II . APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as submitted, however, Boardmember Coben stated for the record that he intended to excuse himself from the discussion of the Lighthouse Gallery application. III. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES 1 . The minutes of the Community Appearance Board meeting of March 13, 1996 were approved with the correction of Boardmember Nielson' s last name. IV. NEW BUSINESS Boardmember Coben stepped down and joined the audience. 1. An application from Lighthouse Gallery for the Recycled Paper COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES MARCH 27 , 1996 PAGE 2 installation of three blue vinyl letter signs on the existing canopies : 1 . Gallery = 4 '3" x 10" 2 . Gallery Store = 73" x 10" 3. School of Art = 7 ' x 10" Harry Messersmith, stated that he had been appointed as Executive Director at the Lighthouse Gallery in September, 1995, and introduced Al Imle, Treasurer of the Board of Directors . Mr. Messersmith explained that this request was for the addition of blue vinyl lettering on three awnings to match the existing border on the awnings and to announce their presence to the public. Chair Cook announced that communications from citizens would be heard, to which Cyrese Colbert, the Property Manager for the shopping center, Gallery Square North, responded. Ms . Colbert stated they had previously asked to be notified of any meeting involving this sign, and they had not been notified of this meeting by the Village . Ms . Colbert distributed photographs showing various portions of .the shopping center, explained that in 1991 she and Mrs. Dottie Campbell had appeared before the Board and had been told they could only have one sign for Patchington, and that multiple signs were allowed with Community Appearance Board approval so long as they were uniform in color, style, and type. Ms. Colbert expressed her opinion that the Lighthouse Gallery awning signs did not conform to any of the three requirements for multiple wall signs, and stated an objection. Ms . Colbert stated the color must match the existing .sign, which was black; and must be the same type, however, one was raised lettering and the other flat . Ms . Colbert stated that unless the building sign was removed that code could not be met. Clerk of the Board Ladd commented that the shopping center had originally been approved allowing three color choices for signage: black, brown, and blue. Ms. 'Colbert commented that Mrs. Campbell paid • for the maintenance of the shopping center and the parking lot, therefore, the center had a big investment in making the shopping center look good; described the Lighthouse Gallery awning signs as tacky, and requested 4 • COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES MARCH 27 , 1996 PAGE 3 they be removed; expressed the opinion that the signs were not necessary for anot-for-profit organization; and suggested the signage could be placed on the windows . Dottie Campbell suggested the Board walk next door to view the signs . Boardmember McCormick commented the signs would benefit the people going in, and it was good to designate the separate businesses . Ms . Colbert stated that they tried to conform with the Village Code to make the Village look good, that this did not fall within the parameters of the Community Appearance Board, and that she and Mrs . Campbell objected. Ms . Colbert expressed the opinion that if this request was approved that the Community Appearance Board would be opening the door for every other shopping center to do the same thing by setting a precedent . Mr. Ladd read from the code, citing uniformity of color, style, and type . Mr. Imle explained that for the past 5-6 years sales at the museum store for the Lighthouse Gallery had been flat . A new Board and Executive Director had been installed, a new store manager had been brought in for the museum store, operations were in place patterned after those of the Norton Gallery' s museum store, and with those changes plus the new signs the store was doing 4-5 times more than it ever had. Mr. Imle explained that Lighthouse Gallery owned their own building and was a not-for-profit organization and therefore not in competition with other retailers in the center; however, they needed the funds that the museum store generated. Mr. Imle stressed the cultural benefit to the community, and stated that Lighthouse Gallery was on a roll in terms of community service. Mr. Imle explained that proper identification for the store had been needed, and the extra awnings had been needed to .prevent sun damage to the merchandise. Mr. Imle explained that proper permits had been obtained for the awnings, which had been purchased from American Awning, who had assured the Gallery that approval for the signage would be taken care ♦ COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES MARCH 27 , 1996 PAGE 4 of by them. Mr. Imle apologized for the fact that evidently that was not done; however, stated that code was not violated in terms of square footage, sales had improved dramatically, and the other businesses in the shopping center had benefited. Mr. Imle requested the Board' s approval . In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Imle explained that only one awning was new, the one in the middle, and that it matched the existing awnings on either side. Ms. Colbert responded that they had no objection to the awnings, only to the lettering on the awnings; expressed her opinion that the sign did not identify the store entrance; stated that other shopping center occupants did not like the awning signs; and commented that if signage was wanted to bring people in that it could lead to flashing signs . Chair Cook assured Ms . Colbert that flashing signs were not acceptable in the Village . Mr. Imle stated they had tried hard to do the right thing, and needed the cooperation of the Village now more than ever. Mr. Ladd advised the Board that this application could be denied on the basis that a permit had not been obtained for the signage. After discussion, the Community Appearance Board agreed that color met requirements and was therefore not an issue. Mr. Ladd confirmed that two occupational licenses were issued to for two separate businesses in the same building, those being the museum store and the school of art . The Executive Director commented that they were both under the same not-for-profit organization. The Board discussed the redundancy of double signs, and the issue that the flat lettering did not match the existing raised lettering. In reviewing photographs of other businesses in the shopping center, double signage was discovered on Howard' s Meating Place, which Ms. Colbert explained had been grandfathered in. The Board considered options of removing the top sign, removing a part of the top sign, adding the store to the top sign, or removing lettering from the two outer awnings and • • COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES MARCH 27 , 1996 • PAGE 5 leaving the center awning lettering identifying the store . Mr . Imle verified that the lettering on the center awning was the most important to the Gallery, and that the signs were necessary to the Gallery' s existence, and that removal of the lettering could cost $3, 000- $4, 000 which Lighthouse Gallery did not have. Mr. Imle requested assistance from the Village. Mr. Ladd explained that as the staff person who enforced the sign code he must caution the Board that any deviation from Code could spread and other shopping centers could request double signs, dissimilar signs, etc. Ms . Colbert stated that the awning signs were objectionable, to which Mr . Imle responded the Gallery had had nothing but compliments . Boardmembers agreed that the signs looked fine visually, however, the issue of conformity in type of lettering was a problem since the top sign had raised lettering and the awning signs had flat lettering. After extensive discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to leave the Gallery Store sign so that people would know the museum store was there. Vice Chair Strahan made a motion to approve the sign on the Gallery Store awning but not the signs on the Gallery and School of Art awnings. The motion was seconded by Boardmember .Dalack. Discussion ensued. Mr. Ladd pointed out that lettering could not be raised on an awning. Jo-Go' s signage was discussed, which was almost. an identical situation with the addition of some cabinet signs. Discussion included the ease of removing stick-on vinyl letters from awnings; however, Mr. Messersmith explained the lettering on the awnings was inked on in this case with special ink for vinyl material, and could not be removed or covered without still being able to see a faint outline of the lettering, so that new awnings would be required. The Board voted to. approve the motion 5-0. Mr. Ladd requested that the Board begin roll call voting • so that the tape would pick up each Boardmember' s vote, which was important in case of any future challenges. COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES MARCH 27 , 1996 PAGE 6 Property Manager Colbert requested a letter from the Village stating the Community Appearance Board had gone outside the realm of the Village Ordinance in allowing a sign which did not conform. Mr. Ladd responded to Ms . Campbell that procedure was that Lighthouse Gallery would be notified by letter to remove the signage and would typically be given ten days to comply. Boardmember Coben rejoined the Board. Comments were made later in the meeting by Chair Cook that the awning company should be held responsible and should have to replace the awnings since they had not obtained the permit for the lettering. Boardmember Coben explained that the blue border on the awnings had never been associated with signage in the past . 2 . An application from Tamwest Realty for the installation of three 18" x 18" directional signs to be placed at three entrances to County Line Plaza, 500 - 722 U. S. One North. Mark Neary spoke representing the property management for County Line Plaza, and stated the Plaza had installed a lot of landscaping in the past couple of months which was constantly damaged by trailer delivery trucks running over the plants and the irrigation systems, causing a serious problem. A larger sign in the shape of a ,stop sign had first been installed, however, since the shape had been a problem, replacement triangular signs had been designed. After discussion, it was pointed out that signs of less than 2 x 2 feet were not required to be brought before the Board for approval, although it was believed that staff may have had a question about the position of the signs . Mr. Neary explained that the signs would encourage entrance from Village Boulevard. Mr. Neary explained that the real problem was that Winn- Dixie was a front-loading store and if there was any way they could be required to become a rear-loading store that would solve the problem, which was really a COIMMUN I TY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES MARCH 27 , 1996 PAGE 7 dangerous situation. Approximately 14 large trailer trucks per day unloaded at the front of the store, and unloading at the rear would require Winn Dixie to hire another employee to accept the orders at the rear. Chair Cook stated that for safety reasons it did not make sense for the trucks to unload at the front . Mr. Ladd commented that another problem was the heavy landscaping had restricted the space for trucks to turn around. Mr. Neary explained that Pepsi and Coca Cola trucks were 50- foot trucks which could not make the .turn. Vice Chair Strahan suggested that an employee could walk to the back of the store to accept a delivery, however, Mr. Neary responded that the problem was when 4 or 5 trucks were at the front to unload that another employee was not available to man the rear entrance . • Vice Chair Strahan made a motion to accept the application as submitted. Boardmember Coben seconded the motion, which was approved by unanimous vote. 3 . An application from Tequesta International Corp. To enclose the window openings (wood interior and stucco exterior to match the existing) of the open dining area at Jo Go' s Restaurant and Pub, 686 U.S. One North in County Line Plaza. No representative from Jo Go' s Restaurant was present. Boardmember Coben asked Mr. Ladd whether he believed the construction stages taken were intentional. Mr. Ladd responded he believed this was an afterthought resulting from the realization that people would not sit outside in hot weather. After discussion by the Board, Mr. Ladd was requested to inform the applicant that the feeling of the Board was that windows were needed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Chair Cook requested the status of the newspaper boxes which had been discussed at a prior meeting. Mr. Ladd was not sure of the status, but commented he believed something else must occur before Mr. Preston could write to DOT regarding the boxes being located in the right-of-way. Mr. Ladd aj COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE 8 explained that the property manager for the shopping center had written a letter to all the newspaper vendors which notified them to remove their boxes within so many days or they would be removed to the dump, which the Village had nothing to do with. Mr. Ladd expressed the opinion that if the boxes were in the right-of-way that the property owner might only be able to require they be moved back, which might create a parking problem, and if so, the Village would require the owner to fix that problem. In any case, the Village would not deal with the vendors, only with the property owner. Mr. Ladd explained that the Village had no ordinance regarding newspaper boxes; however, other municipalities such as Palm Beach Gardens did have an ordinance . Mr. Ladd commented that boxes on Ryder Cup Boulevard in PGA National were green and blended into the landscaping so well that they were almost not noticeable . Mr . Ladd stated that boxes could not be prohibited, but could be regulated. Further discussion included suggestions of placing the boxes in a specified area of the shopping center out of the way of traffic congestion and away from the front entrance, or placing the boxes in a park where there were benches that people could sit on to read a newspaper. Tom Little, 486 Dover Road, commented that the easiest way to deal with the situation was to express concern to DOT regarding the safety of Tequesta response teams which would deal with accident situations created by the boxes being located in the right of way. Clerk of the Board Ladd stated he would speak with Mr. Preston to ascertain the status of this matter. Boardmember Dalack referred to an article in the Palm Beach Daily News regarding the town of Palm Beach workshop meeting that morning to deal with architectural styles and details that did not mesh with the Palm Beach look, and to establish focus and design guidelines . Boardmember Dalack requested that Palm Beach and Gulfstream be contacted to obtain their guidelines referred to in the article. Chair Cook agreed, since a lot of time might be saved by using the parts of their guidelines which were applicable to the Community Appearance Board' s vision for Tequesta. Boardmember Coben COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES MARCH 27 , 1996 PAGE 9 suggested that the results of the workshop also be obtained. Boardmember Nielson suggested that the information be obtained so that it could be utilized by the Board in preparation for the upcoming Community Appearance Board workshop with the Village Council . Boardmember Coben requested information regarding why the Tequesta Motorcars sign was still up, which was supposed to be down two years ago. Chair Cook questioned the activity in front of the Village Hall . It was explained that the Village was complying with Ordinance 377, at a cost of $25, 000 . Mr. Giba' s letter in the newspaper was discussed, which had expressed the opinion that it was a shame to waste money beautifying the Village Hall when new facilities were needed. Councilmember Carl Hansen, who was in the audience, explained that while it might seem that the Village was spending a lot of money, any changes would not take place for some time, and that meanwhile the Village must comply with its own codes, and could not stop living at the present location just because they were planning to make changes in the future. Mr. Hansen explained that the building was also not in compliance with some codes . Mr. Hansen briefly reviewed the plans in progress, which included research to see if police and fire facilities could remain on the existing site and the administration moved to another location, possibly utilizing vacant buildings within the Village. Chair Cook pointed out there were not many more Village residents than there had been fifteen years ago, and residents could .not be taxed too much, so that another way must be found to pay for such a project. It was pointed out by Boardmember Nielson that the former K-Mart at Lighthouse Plaza was going to be razed soon. Chair Cook expressed her hope that more tax- paying residents would be brought into the Village, and stated that many residents only had average incomes . Mr. Hansen stated that there were also other serious considerations such as the new reverse osmosis plant which was necessary to provide future drinking water to the Village. Mr. Hansen explained that the Village Council was hoping for an increase in real estate values and that the Community Appearance Board would play an important part in that by creating certain standards in order to keep values COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE 10 up. Mr. Hansen complimented the Community Appearance Board for the good job they were doing in helping the Council do that . VI. COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS Wade Griest, Dover Road, commented on additional projects which were needed in the Village and how much those would cost, which would make the cost per person almost $6, 000 . Mr. Griest stated that Tequesta was 95% filled now and the only thing left to be developed was the downtown area where Mr. DiVosta and Mr. Van Brock planned to build. Mr. Griest expressed his opinion that people should know about these matters . Mr.- .Griest commented that the Village had no debt, and he agreed that was not a healthy situation for a Village the size of Tequesta, which should have some debt, especially now since interest rates were low. VII . ANY OTHER MATTERS In response to Chair Cook' s question regarding the status of Sterling House, Mr. Ladd explained that plans had been submitted with the full green concrete tile roof as approved by the Board. In response to Chair Cook' s question why Mr. Ladd had been in Court, Mr. Ladd explained that it was in connection with a suit brought against the Village by Mr. Felhaber of Tequesta Plaza, but could not discuss the case as it was still pending. VII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10: 57 A.M. COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES MARCH 27 , 1996 PAGE 11 Respectfully submitted, Betty our Recording Secretary ATTEST: zJetffD 'add Scott D. Ladd Clerk of the Board DATE APPROVED: 4-JO- 9 '