Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 6A_4/11/1996 • V' . = VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA ., , . ,. - DEPARTMENT OF COMLMUNTIY DEVELOPMENT .mil '' If o Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive 'a"'��� o Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273• (407)575-6220 •,,'cM couM�`" .` Fax: (407)575-6239 VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD • MEETING MINUTES • FEBRUARY 28, 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, February 28, 1996 . The meeting was called to order at 9: 38 A.M. by Chair Leslie Cook. Boardmembers present were: Chair Leslie Cook, Vice Chair Vic Strahan, Claudette Dalack, Alternate Molly McCormick, and Alternate Marcia Nielson. Also in attendance was Joanne McCabe, sitting in for Scott D. Ladd, Clerk of the Board. II . APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as submitted. III . APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES Chair Cook referred to the Community Appearance Board section of the minutes of the Special Meeting of the Village Council and Community Appearance Board held on December 28, • 1995, and commented that she believed there was a mistake on page 15 regarding discussion of the motion where it stated . Vic Strahan suggested that another sketch come back to the Board for consideration with a different roof color, possibly using asphalt shingles, which would be closer to that recommended by the Board. Chair Cook recommended deletion of the word asphalt, or possibly to replace asphalt shingles with the word tile, since she believed that had been the intent of the Board. During discussion, points Recycled Paper . COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE 2 • were raised that these minutes were not on the agenda for approval and had already been approved by the Village Council; that a verbatim transcript of the entire motion and discussion had been made and provided to Clerk of the Board Scott D. Ladd; that Acting Clerk of the Board Joanne McCabe would obtain the verbatim transcript and make copies for the Board, and that this matter would be discussed on an agenda possibly under Unfinished Business. 1 . The minutes of the Community Appearance Board meeting of January 24 , 1996, were approved as submitted. 2 . The minutes of the Community Appearance Board meeting of January 30, 1996, were approved with the addition of the words "to be able to" added on page 6 in the first sentence of the second paragraph immediately after the words "that the Board wanted" . 3 . The minutes of the Community Appearance Board meeting of February 14 , 1996, were approved with the last sentence in the first paragraph on page 13 changed to read: "After discussion, it was decided to plant Cattley guava along with the spider lilies . " IV. NEW BUSINESS 1 . An Application from Barron, Sign Mfg. for a Change in Color of the Identification Sign for Cliveden, 425 Beach Road, from Blue to Gold. Mike Meenen, Barron Sign Mfg. representative, agent for the petitioner, presented a proposal for a change in color to the previously approved sign from blue to gold letters, and explained that the letters would be reduced one inch in size. Vice Chair Strahan made a motion to accept the application as submitted. Motion was seconded by Boardmember McCormick and unanimously carried by vote of 5-0. COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE 3 V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1 . Reconsideration of revised plans for Sterling House, Creech Engineering as agent for SDR Development, Inc. Mr . Pete Russell of SDR Development, representing Sterling House, addressed the Board, and explained that the new proposal eliminated the dormers, lowered the roof pitch, and lowered the cupola so that it was not as prominent. By lowering the pitch of the roof, the building height had been reduced approximately 4 feet, which would accentuate the landscaping, so that the trees would now come up four feet higher when viewed against the building. The new proposal for the roof was to use a concrete villa tile on the front elevation, with the sculptured fiberglass shingles previously proposed to remain on the other roof portions . Sample tile which matched the proposed fiberglass shingles in color was presented for the Board' s consideration. Kevin Donahue, Architect, explained that use of the villa tile on the front facade was the same concept used by many other buildings which emphasized the front, which would be viewed by the public. Discussion brought out the point that the building setback from the roadway would be approximately 90 feet, and that a great deal of fill would be added to the property to bring it to a grade as high as the slope of the street. Although the building pad would be level, the grade on the west side of the building would slope off, following the slope of the street, and the view of the building from the west would be only of the west elevation and no other parts of the building. Architect Donahue explained that no matter where one stood to view the building, each view would be framed by landscaping, so that the point of change in roof material would not be noticeable, especially since the colors matched so well . Mr. Russell explained that the Board was viewing the samples straight on, but on the roof they would be seen at an angle, so that the low profile of the villa tile and the sculptured edge of the fiberglass shingles would appear similar. Mr. Russell responded to questions from the Board that the reason for not covering the whole roof with the tile has been cost, COMMUNITY. APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE 4 and that doing the roof in 100% tile versus 100% shingle would have added approximately $70, 000 to the cost . In response to an inquiry of where there were other examples of two types of roof materials on the same building, Mr. Russell responded that their roofer had given them an example, which was Carriage House condominium in the Village, where tile and also another type of roof had been on the building for years . Joanne McCabe explained that Carriage House had been built prior to establishment of the site plan review process, so that they had not been under any restriction regarding roof materials, and that was why they had recently been able to replace the tile roof portion of their building with shingles . Architect Donahue pointed out that the concept of placing emphasis on the front facade was commonly used by commercial buildings, especially those with flat roofs and a front mansard of tile, and commented that the sides and rear of Sterling House were much more attractive than, for example, the rear of the K-Mart building. Chair Cook expressed her opinion that $70, 000 was not a great amount of money in a project the size of Sterling House. Vice Chair Strahan explained that part of that $70, 000 difference was being used by placing tile on the front facade. During discussion regarding the fact that the drawings received by the Boardmembers had not clearly indicated the change in types of roof materials so that they had not known that two types were proposed, Ms. McCabe commented that the Building Official probably had been under the assumption that tile would be used on the whole roof and had evidently eliminated the indication on the drawings, believing it to be an error. Gary Van Brock commented that St. Jude' s church had a combination of tile and metal roof materials . Architect Donahue objected to Chair Cook' s comment that $70, 000 was nothing in this size project, stating that as an architect he had to live every day with budgets that could not be exceeded. Architect Donahue responded to Boardmember McCormick' s question that as an artist he was comfortable with the two roof materials, and explained that Sterling House buildings • throughout the country were handsome buildings, and COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE 5 that they would not intentionally deliver a building inferior to their other projects . Mr . Donahue again reviewed the roof portions which were proposed for tile, and explained that where the natural change of directions in roof slopes occurred was where the joining of the two materials would be most compatible . Mr. Donahue explained that the proposed landscaping placement would cast shadow lines on the building and on the roof, would break up the facades of the building, and would definitely have an impact on the composition. Mr. Donahue commented that the front ridge line of the roof was a tile ridge line and the back slopes of the building which were not visible to the public were really not an issue, and explained how the different slopes would appear. Mr . Donahue explained that the applicant had been most concerned with the coloration, because without that match this concept would not work, and a very close match had been achieved. Vice Chair Strahan pointed out that the shingle portion of the roof would not last as long as the tile portion, which would be an expense for the applicant . Chair Cook commented that money was being saved by eliminating the dormers . Discussion ensued that saving money was not the Board' s focus, since they were only concerned with appearance. Gary Van Brock made further comments that as a representative for the adjacent property owner they had no objections to this design and the appearance of this building with the two roofing materials; and commented that when the property to the west of this building was developed that there would be buildings closer to the road than Sterling House. When questioned regarding their timetable, Mr. Van Brock responded that the Village Water Department might be using their property in the next 3-4 months, and that there were no immediate plans for the owner's proposed project. Mr. Van Brock also commented on the economics of a project and explained how the market dictated the budget. Chair Cook stated the Village did not want to be stuck with a warehouse type looking building, to which other Boardmembers objected that the building did not look like a warehouse. Mr. Donahue remarked that in all the comments from previous meetings that the building had never been described as unattractive, and the building had not been changed and COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE 6 was as attractive as before. Architect Donahue explained that the reason for putting emphasis on the front of the building was that the Board had made previous comments that they were not so concerned about the other elevations but were concerned with the front. Vice Chair Strahan commented that he was not sure the use of two roofing materials would be good economics for the applicant in the long run, but believed that the applicant had come up with a pretty good compromise as far as the front appearance, and agreed that was what the Board was concerned about. Vice Chair Strahan made a motion to accept this application as submitted. There being no second to the motion, the motion died. During ensuing discussion, comments were made that K-Mart had already provided landscaping in the rear, that the building would not really be visible from Old Dixie or Village Boulevard, that this applicant should not be penalized because there was no building next to them, that the Board did not know before this meeting that two types of roof materials were proposed and had never seen this actually used, that the applicant had not omitted the indication on the drawing that referred to change in roof material, and that there was nothing in the code against fiberglass shingles . Boardmember Nielson made a motion to accept this application if the roof were all concrete tile. Vice Chair Strahan seconded the motion. Discussion ensued: Architect Donahue suggested that he believed this was an issue of approval or • denial . Boardmember Dalack stated that building color had not been discussed. Architect Donahue explained that the colors were the same as previously submitted, which were a salmon-bisque building color with a coordinated color masonry sign. Vice Chair Strahan commented that at the last meeting a choice of building colors had been offered. Chair Cook made comments to the effect that the project should be spending more money, to which another boardmember objected that cost was not the issue. Architect Donahue inquired whether the Board conceptually would have objections to a flat roof with raised mansard on the front elevation, and stated that when the applicant had inquired about COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD • MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE 7 Mediterranean style buildings they had been referred to the K-Mart building; therefore, he was making the point that if this project had been presented with a flat roof that there would not be an issue about the material used on the flat roof--it would be neither fiberglass shingle or tile . Several Boardmembers indicated agreement with that comment . Architect Donahue stated that he would suggest that this building was far more attractive than if a flat facade had been presented, and he was therefore confused that the point of disagreement seemed to be what would happen at the point of transition between the materials, because palm trees could be planted at those particular points to completely obscure the intersection of the two roof materials . Boardmember Neilson commented that it was unfortunate that this applicant was getting caught as the first project to be developed in that area and questioned what would stop the next developer from doing this in a less attractive way, to which Architect Donahue responded that this Board could stop them. Chair Cook commented that she would say that a 20- foot hedge would obscure the transition points, and that continuity of building materials made a project a better quality. Vice Chair Strahan commented that he believed the Board should temper this design with economics, and the applicant had compromised adequately; and if the applicant was prepared to beef up landscaping at the transfflon points from one material to the other that he believed the Board should accept the application. Vice Chair Strahan made a motion that the Board accept the application in the colors as presented and with the matching sign, with the condition that the landscaping at the transition between the villa . tile and fiberglass shingles is at least as high as half way up the roof edge, planted at that height, to camouflage the fact that there was a transition between one material and • the other. After a short discussion, Chair Cook stated that the first motion had not been voted on. Boardmember Neilson stated her motion had been to accept the project only if it were completely tile, and she would amend it to say in color • choices as submitted, with terra cotta colors.• Boardmember Dalack seconded the amended motion. Chair Cook, Boardmember Dalack and Boardmember Neilson voted in favor of the motion. Boardmember McCormick expressed concern that voting on this motion would negate the second motion. Vice Chair Strahan wanted to re-introduce his motion. After discussion, Vice COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE 8 Chair Strahan and Boardmember McCormick decided to abstain, which Vice Chair Strahan stated was a "no" vote. Boardmember McCormick stated if it were a perfect world and Sterling House had the money, she would like to see that . Boardmember Dalack stated the Board had to vote on what the appearance was to the eye. Boardmember Dalack asked why everyone was talking about what might happen next door to this project, to which Boardmember Neilson responded that was discussed because all of that came into play regarding setting a visual precedent, and Boardmember Dalack responded that her opinion was the Board was only concerned with the visual aspect, and with it being a quality project and that she was not concerned with the applicant' s finances at the moment. Chair Cook stated that her problem was that $70, 000 to her was a drop in the bucket. Village Clerk Manganiello was called into the meeting to explain proper procedure, and advised that the motion on the floor must be completed, and that a vote to abstain was the same as a "yes" vote. .Vice Chair Strahan expressed his opinion that with three votes in favor of the motion it did not matter whether the other two votes were to abstain or "no" votes; however both he and Boardmember McCormick changed their votes to "no" votes. Boardmember Neilson questioned what would happen if two opposing motions should be passed. Architect Donahue commented that the motion had not been to approve or to deny the application. The Village Clerk explained that was the way the motion should be stated in order to provide direction to the applicant. Village Clerk Manganiello explained that a motion could be introduced to amend verbiage of a previous motion which had been passed, but the amendments must be made very specific. Chair Cook stated that it was obvious how the Board felt and why not just turn this back to the Village Council and let them make the final decision. Landscaping for the project was discussed further. Vice Chair Strahan commented that this was the • third presentation from this applicant and he believed they had compromised adequately and that the Board was standing unnecessarily in the way, using reasons that the Board wanted in the Village Code but that were not within the Village Code; and that was not the general consensus of the Board' s opinion and purely Mr. Strahan' s opinion. Vice Chair Strahan made a motion to accept this application as submitted with the addition of four Queen palm trees on COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE 9 the southeast corner to come up to ridge height as indicated and the colors as indicated on color samples as provided today with the sign in matching colors and masonry construction. Boardmember McCormick seconded the motion. Discussion ensued during which Chair Cook questioned the hedge material on the west side of the building and was advised it was 24" native Simpson Stopper. Village Clerk Manganiello returned to the meeting to explain that a Boardmember could only abstain from voting if they would realize direct personal financial gain from the vote, and if that situation existed, the Boardmember must declare a conflict of interest and fill out a form which must be submitted to the Village Clerk and which would become a part of the minutes and a part of the vote. Chair Cook commented she was worried that the hedge was too small to hide the roof. Vice Chair Strahan commented that the Simpson Stopper would grow. Chair Cook called for the vote. The vote on the motion was: Leslie Cook - against Vic Strahan - for Claudette Dalack - against Molly McCormick - for Marcia Nielson - against Acting Clerk of the Board Joanne McCabe advised the applicant that their submittal had been denied, and that the Board had told them that if they changed the roof to all tile that the Board would accept it; and if they wanted to continue with the .two roof materials then they could appeal to Village Council. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Chair Cook expressed concern that the Board had approved spider lilies for the Rinker Plant' s landscape plan for compliance with Ordinance 377, since she felt they would not survive in the event of cold weather. Comments were made that a letter could be written to the landscape architect, and that if the plants died that they must be replaced. Boardmember Neilson referred to the minutes of the Board' s COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE 10 January 24, 1996. meeting where Vice Chair Strahan had suggested that the Village Manager be requested to include in the newsletter an article naming those businesses and condos that had complied with Ordinance 377 to express the Village' s appreciation for what they had done, which would provide a reminder to those who had not yet complied. Chair Cook explained that she had not yet done that, but would contact the Village Manager. Boardmember Neilson commented that she felt that was a really good idea and that people could come to Church of the Good Shepard on Seabrook where she worked to see the xeriscaped courtyard. .Boardmember Neilson suggested that the photograph idea presented at a prior meeting be pursued in the future. Vice Chair Strahan commented that the Board had had a workshop some time ago where they had carefully worked out proposed changes to the Village Code and inquired whether that had ever been presented to the Village Council . Chair Cook reported that it had not been presented and that it should be pursued, since at a meeting the Village Council had requested that the Community Appearance Board come up more specifics . Chair Cook stated that initially she had not wanted to be specific to give people leeway. Discussion ensued regarding complaints. that Sterling House had not been given direction, and of the presentation made by the Sterling House attorney at the Village Council meeting where he had referenced the Village Code regarding what the Community Appearance Board could and could not do. The view was presented that the attorney had only provided his interpretation and that did not mean he was right. Boardmember Neilson stated this was the Community Appearance Board, that Appearance was it' s middle name. Boardmember Dalack and Chair Cook also stated the concern was appearance. Boardmember McCormick commented that money was the bottom line, and that if the Board kept turning down projects because they wanted a tile roof when no one in the world could afford one or pay for it, that would result in an empty Village. Boardmember Dalack stated she preferred. an empty Village to asphalt. Both Boardmember McCormick and Vice Chair Strahan disagreed, since their perspective was from the standpoint of people who had businesses in the Village . Vice Chair Strahan commented he had had many inquiries as to when something would ever be done about the COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE 11 empty buildings in the downtown area . Discussion ensued regarding the fact that economics and growth should be considered, and further discussion of Sterling House and their budget . VII. ANY OTHER MATTERS There were no other matters to come before the Board. VIII. COMMUNICATION FROM CITIZENS Pat Hartley, 279 Country Club Drive, commented she thought the Board was right in requiring tile since her opinion was that if buildings approved in prior years had been done right in the first place they wouldn' t have to be ripping them down now. Mrs. Hartley commented that the streetscape on Tequesta Drive was very nice, and inquired whether a streetscape plan would be implemented on Country Club Drive. Director of Public Works and Recreation Gary Preston responded that was currently in discussion stage and that there was nothing in the current year' s budget for a Country Club Drive streetscape. Mrs. Hartley commented that she understood this matter had previously come before the Board and had been defeated. Wade Griest responded that in the Capital Improvements projects being considered for financing that there was an amount allotted for a Country Club Drive streetscape, so it was being considered. Mrs . Hartley was advised that she and others who lived on Country Club Drive could attend the Budget hearings to request a streetscape program, and that the Community Appearance Board would notify her of the time of their next meeting to discuss ideas for the streetscape so that she could provide her input. Mrs . Hartley commented that she believed the Country Club Drive streetscape was a very important project for the Village. Mrs . Hartley referred to the landscaping project at the Country Club and questioned why the hedge between the home and the new parking lot was a nice size hedge, while the hedge between the parking lot and the street was very small . Chair Cook expressed disappointment with the small hedge which allowed a view of the entire parking lot from the roadway. Joanne McCabe responded that there had been confusion on the location of the property line between the COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD FETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE 12 residence and the Country Club, and in order to reach an amicable agreement a hedge higher than the 24" required by Code had been planted; also, the hedge along the roadway was at 24" and met Code. Chair Cook stated that the Board should have required the hedge to go beyond Code so that residents would not have to stare at an asphalt parking lot, and that the Board had let that slip by. ' Joanne McCabe explained that the landscaping had been installed according to a plan which had been approved by the Community Appearance Board and by Village Council and was available for review. Steve Parker commented that the Tree Board would recommend the location for the next streetscape . • VII . ADJOURNMENT Upon motion made by Boardmember Neilson, seconded by Vice Chair Strahan, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 11 : 10 A.M. • Respectfully submitted, 4Dett--- Betty Laur Recording Secretary ATTEST: C�Joan McCabe Act ' g Clerk of the Board • DATE APPROVED: 3 -13 y6