Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 04_04/14/2005 VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA PLA►��TNING AND ZONING ADVI50RY BOARD MEETING MINUTES JANiTARY 26, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Village of Tequesta Planning and Zoning Advisory Boazd held a regulazly scheduled meeting at the Tequesta Recreation Center, 399 Seabrook Road, Tequesta, Florida, on Wednesday, January 26, 2Q05. The meeting was called to order at 6:33 P.M. by Chair Elizabeth Schauer. A roll call was taken by Village Clerk Gwen Cazlisle. Board members present were: Chair Elizabeth Schauer, Boazd Member Jeff Robbins, Soazd Member Leslie Cook, Board Member William Wilder and Alternate Member Cazl Blase. Vice Chair Steve CUkun was absent. Clerk of the Board and Director of Cornmunity Development Jeff Newell was also present. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Schauer noted the last pages of the December 1, 2004 Meeting minutes were missing frorn the packet. She suggested tabling the minutes until a complete set was distributed to the Members. M�JTION Boardmember Robbins moved approval of the agenda with the December 1, 2004 l�feeting Minutes tabled until the next Meeting; seconded by Board member Cook; motion passed S-0. III. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES a) Consideration Qf Approval of Minutes from meeting held on Decennber 1, 2005. -Tabt�cd until February 16, 2005 M�ting. IV. NEW BUSINESS a) Site Plan Review of S�aquesta Professional Center, located at 390 Tequesta Drive. Mr. Jeff Newell, Community Development Director presented the site plan. He reviewed the permitted. uses Item (3), Professional services, under Division 2. Schedule of District Regulations. Section 78-176. C-1 neighborhood commercial districts. He indicated this was a permitted use for C-1, and the use was in full compliance with the code. He reviewed the site data from Page A-1 on the site plan, and indicated it met all the technical requirements of the code. Planning and Zoning Advisory Board January 2b, 2005 Meeting Minutes Page 2 Mr. Newell mentioned the landscaping was in compliance with Ordin,ance 3-77, but pointed out the landscaping outside of the boundaries of the project were � within the right-of ways. He indicated there were no prohibited species within the plan. He reviewed the parking, noting there were 21 parking spaces. Board Member Cook questioned whether the applicant would be asking for new signage approval. Mr. Randy Hansen, Project Architect pointed out the signage was on the elevation drawings and would be adch'essed• Mr- Newell indicated the Board wauld be reviewing the aesthetics, since all technical requirements of the code were met. He reviewed the lighting for the project, and noted the Police Department had reviewed it and found it in compliance. He pointed out the light spillage from the property was low, which was favorable because of all surrounding residential properties. Chair Schauer explained years ago when she was an Couneil, the Village had to clean out the perimeter. She comrnented tha.t was one of C�aze Malone's biggest items, and explained she had asked Mr. Prestan, fhe Village's Public Works Directrn' So in and clean out the whole back area. She questioned whether the property owner had ever abandc�ned the easement. Mr. Newell indicated there was a record af the abandened easement. He mentianed anything to th� north of th� south fence line was integrated into the piece. Chair Schauer commented for the public, this was the second or third site plan review that the Baard had done sinee it's incepticm, and that Mr• Newell was teaching the members as they reviewed #he projects. Mr. Randy Hansen, Inteiplanning Architects, Project Architect and representing the owner Mr. Gceenburg explained he under�tood th� 1ea�rning pr�cess, and knew what it was like to go through that learning Pra�ess, since he beeame a member of ti�e Palm Beach Gardens Planning and Zaning Board two years a�o• Mr. Hansen mentioned althaugh the applicant was crearing a new building the owner �ranted to keep it architecturally comparible with the other building. He mentioned th� applicant was raising the overall height of the roof of the new portion to screen the mec�anical eqwPment, such as the air conditioning, etc. He noted the applicant tried to maintain the azched arcade look on the front of the building, and irzcreased xhe gitched area. of the �f over the �xont paztion ta giv� it a little mpre mass. He explained the applicant wrapp�d the pitched roof amund the corner, and to increase the arehitectural interest the applicant introduced tawer elements at the corner of the new portion, and also at the intersection where the new meets the old to make the transition between the two. He commented the color would stay the sarae as it was currently, with a white building and clay tile roof. He indicated one thing that would be changed werG the windows, sir�ec the applicant was going with the new bronze fia�es, and bronze tinteci glass. Board Member Cook questioned whether the applicant would be replacing the other buildings' windows to match the n�w building. Planning and Zoning Advisory Board January 26, 2005 Meeting Minutes Page 3 Mr. Hansen responded no, and indicated the applicant woutd not be doing anything with the other building at this time. He mentioned this would be treated as an existing building, and would be separate from the other building due to the code requirements for the new buitding. He explained the aPPlicant did want to move the tenants out, so na major changes were initiated. Board Member Cook questianed whether there would be a difference in the appearance between the two buildings. Mr. Hanson responded no. He indicated if it was the Boazd's preference the applicant would be agreeable ta stay with the atuminum windows similar to the ather building. Chair Schauer felt the tinted windows wauld reduce the glare on the inside of the building. Mr• Hansen agreed that was correct, and although the windows were facing north did not see a problem with the sun. Mr. Hansen noted the applicant was moving some of the lazger oak trees on the site, and. significantly enhan�inS the overall site in terms of the landscaping plan• He cc�mmented the landscaping would be 90% native. Board Member Cook questioned why the applicant had. planted. landscaping between the hedge and the sidewalk. Mr. Newell indicated that landseaping was in th� right-of-way and could not be counted toward greenspace. Mr. Hansen indicated the owner met with his landscape desigaer and they wanted to significantly enhance the overall �andscape appearance of the propert'y Board Member Cook mentioned she drives by the area everyday, and since it was such a tight space, she would prefer the applicant not add the landscaping within the right-of w�ay. She felt the atea was too busy, aud lool�ed good the way it vvas. Mr. Greenburg, the applicant and owner of S�aquesta Frafessional Center comimented if he kept it as lawu area it would need to be watered and mowed. He felt the more efficient way to go, and to eut dpwn on wat�ring, was to use the Xeriscape con�ept for the praperty and right-of-way. �+i�r. Hans�n noted the apglicant was willing to put the area back to grass if desired. Board Member Caak noted even though it was such a sm�il. spaee it still would need to be wate�ed whether it was grass or plantings. Mr. Hansen reviewed the signage, and nated the elevations were in the plans. He explained there would be a ti1e roof on the sign to pick up the feel of the building. He mentianed the sign faces north and south, yvould be 6 foot 8 inches high to the top of the roof; and another 1 foot 4 inches high for the rovf; and 4 fo�at wide. He commented the base of the sign was 2 facrt high, which was included in the overaJ.l height. Mr. Hansen reviewed the siga lettering, not�g the total signage area would not exceed 2 foot 8 inches, by S foot on the tower portion, and only on the side t�ba.t faces Tequesta Drive. Chair Schauer indicated it would be like the cunrent signage, Ivi�'. Ha�sen responded in the affirmative. Mr. Newell suggested the new tenants be required to meet the approved sign�ge styie far the building, and unless they deviate fram that style they wotil.d nat need to come back befare the Board. Board Member Cvok questioned w�iether the sign would be sitting in a bed of Loxahatchee grass. Mr• New�ll responded in the affrmative, and noted the sign would have to be 10 foot from the front properly line. Planning and Zoning Advisory Board January 26, 2005 Meeting Minutes Page 4 Boazd Member Cook questioned the size of the oak trees that were being moved, and whether the owner thought they would survive the move. Mr. Hansen � commented he did not know the size of the trees, and felt they would survive the move. Board Member Cook suggested to the Boazd that if the trees did not survive the move, that they ask the applicant to replace the trees wifh the same size trees. Chair Scha.uer agreed. Mr. Newell explained the code requirement was any tree that dies within a one-year period had to be replaced with the same size tree. Board Member Coak reiterated the landscaping in the right-of-way should be grass because it looked to busy. Mr. Newell indicated the motion would need to be clear regazding the right-of-way landscaping. He felt there should be an agreement on who would ma.intain the right-of-way landscaping. 1VIr• Hansen explained it was the owner's intention to maintain the right-of-way landscaping. Mr. Newell indicated if the landscaping were approved for the right-of-way, the Village would need in wril�ng the proPertY owner would be responsible for the mai�ntenance and irrigation of those areas. Mr• Greenbui'g indicated he wauld have no problem with maintaining the right-of-way. Chair Schauer questioned whether the visihility of the tra,ffic would be obstructed with the plantings in tlie right-of- way. Mr. Newell explained the visibility site triangl�, noting it was where the right-of-way lines intet�ect, not payment edge. Mr• Hansen mentioned all the plantings in the right-of way will be low, except the palm tree clusters. Chair Schauer questioned. why the applicant used crushed oyster shells. Mr. Hansen, responded for aesthetics. Board Member Caak felt that wauld be a maintenance headache. Chair Schauer pointed out �he children may ride by, pick them up, and throw them. Boazd Member Cook suggested keeping the landscap�ing simple since it was such a smail a�'ea- Alternate Member Blase pointed out the scale of the plan was 1" equals 20 feet. He felt tb.e area was large enough that the landscaping would improve the area. Board Member Cook le, f� the raeeting at 7: 00 P.11�1. Mr. Greenburg felt the grass would be a maintenance headache. Chair Scha.uer questioned wh3� the applicant used the oyster shell instead of mutch. Mr. Hansen pointed out the oyster shell would be more permanent, and less maintenance• Chair Schauer questioned. whether the oyster shell would have some type of edging from the sidevvalk. Mr. Hansen indicated there would be edging around the oyster shells. Alternate Member B1as� mentioned concerns with the parking• He noted when he visited the site that some of the vehicl+es were pazki.ng in the side lot where the new building was being proposed. He felt there could be five or six cars per office space at any one given time, and suggested 21 spaces was a marginal number. Mr. Hansen agreed it was a tight site. Mr. Greenburg felt the offices do not generate much traffic. Chair Schauer suggested there was pazking in the real' of the building. Planning and Zoning Advisory Board January 26, 2005 Meefing Minutes Page 5 Alternate Member Blase noted the back parking was very hard to get into off the lobby. Chair Schauer felt the people who work there could park in the back. � Board Member Robbins questioned whether anyone had. reviewed the drainage far the site. Mr. Newell noted the dra.inage statement in the packet. Boazd Membex Robbins asked whether the applicant was planning on re-stripping or re- asphalting the existing parking lot. Mr. Hansen indicated he did not know if it � would be re-sealed or re-asphalted, but noted the pazking lot would be re-stripped. ;, Mr. Greenburg mentioned the entire parking lot would look the same. Boazd � Member Robbins questioned whether the stucco patterns would be consistent with the existing building. Mr. Hansen responded in the affirmative. Board Member Robbins asked if the applicant would be able to match the roof tiles. Mr. Hansen indicated they would be ciay tiles, but may not be the exact color, but very similar. Alternate Member Blase questioned whether the Village had any policy or provisions that could request an upgrade from the barrel clay tiles, since they sustained the worst damage during the hurricanes. Mr. Newell explained when an application was submitted it had the product approvals included. He noted the reason most roofs failed was due to the attachment method. Chair Schauer questioned whether this project was in an area that required barrel tile roof. Mr. Newell responded no, and indicated this was an aesthetic issue. Chair Schauer suggested to the owner that if they wanted to find something instead of the barrel tile roof, even though it would have to come back for approval, the apglicant was not required to have barrei tiles. She suggested it might be easier to change the whole prajeet. Board Member Robbins noted on the drawing it looked as if there were two separate types of �oiumns on the new portion. Chair Schauer pointed out on Page A-1 the column appeared to be thicker. Mr. Hansen noted the old columns were 4 x 4 wood columns, and due to the hurricanes and the wind load design, the new anes were upgraded to 8 x 8 cancrete column block. Boaxd 1Vl�mber Rabbins asked if they would be square instead of round. Mr. Hansen nodded yes. Boazd Member Wilder noted. he had reviewed the traffic survey, and felt the project should not generate any more tca�fie than what was currently there. He mentioned concerns with the veh�icles e�ting onto Seabrook Road, and turning left. He pointed out the eXit was very elose to the intersection, and felt there could be a traff'ic or accident prablem. He felt the pro}ect would add some traffc, and suggested placing a stop sign. Mr. Hansen mentioned the current e�cit was being use�i, and it would have a stop sign. He commented he did not have a solution for relocating the exi.t. Chair Schauer mentioned Board Member Cook had brought up the point as far as the landscaping. She indicated if the Baard makes a motion to approve the site plan, it wauld need to include the understauding that the property owner will maintair� th� right-af-way landscaping, and that the apgroval would be for the landscaping on the site plan. Planning and Zoning Advisory Board ' January 26, 2005 Meeting Minutes Page 6 Mr. Newell read for the record Board Member Cook's comments regarding the `; project: 1) "If the oaks don't survive the move, I would recommend that they be -�' required to replace with the same size; 2) Concerned about the size of the ; monument sign and the appearance — seems to be ok; and 3} Too much stuff between sidewalk and the hedge, I'd recommend leaving it the way it is, sixnple, grass and palms." Chair Schauer asked for a motion to approve the site plan as submitted, with the recommendation that the property owner continue to maintain the right-of-way. Mr. Newell suggested for the ease of understanding the motions; the right-of-way be one motion, and the site plan as submitted be another motion. MOTION: Board Member Robbins moved to approve the site plan as submitted, with the property owner maintaining the right-of-way area; seconded by Board Member Wilder; motion passed 4-0. MOTION: Board Member Robbins moved to approve the site pdan as submitted; seconded by Board Member A'ilder; motion passed 4-0. V. COMMIINICATIONS FROM CITIZENS - None VI. ANY OTHER MATTERS Boazd Member Wilder questioned the date for the next Planning and Zoning Advisory Board Meeting. Chair Schauer announced the next Planning and � Zoning Advisory Board Meeting would be February 16, 2005, at the Tequesta. Recreation Center at 6:30 P.M., and a Joint Meeting with the Planning and Zoning Advisory Boazd and Village Council would be February 24, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. at the Tequesta. Recreation Center. Chair Schauer mentioned she had advised the Village Clerk to make sure, at the request of the Board, to have the uniform signage for the Municipal buildings on the agenda to discuss with Council. She asked if any Boazd Member �ad any other items they would want on the agenda. Board Member Wilder agreed the primary one was the signage. Chair Schauer noted she would review the previous minutes for any items, and asked that the Village Clerk contact Vice Chair Okun. Village Clerk CarlislE agreed to contact Vice Cha.ir Okun. Chair Schauer noted if any member thinks of any items to contact the Village Clerk. Mr. Newell reviewed the items that would be addressed at the February 16, 2005 Planning and Zoning Boazd Meeting: 1) Intersection of Tequesta Drive and Old Dixie Hwy; 2) Village Hall Site Plan; and 3) return of �he Walkers Warehouse sign. Planning and Zoning Advisory Board January 26, 2005 Meeting Minutes Page 7 Mr. Newell indicated Mr. Tom Paterno, a resident had questioned the proposed signage for the Walker's Wazehouse property. He mentioned he had � investigated the code on the signage for the property, and explained a point was brought up, that the east side of Walkers Warehouse was not an intersecting street, that it had the raikoad. He commented it would appear that on the east side of the building a sign would not be permitted, because the way the code. Chair Schauer agreed and felt that was the way the code read, and noted the new building across the street would be affeeted the same way because the railroad was on the east side of it also. Mr. Newell indicated that was the Palmeri Building. Chair 5chauer felt Walkers Warehouse should not be permitted to put the sign on the east side. She pointed out to Mr. Newell to make sure the applicant covered the dumpster on all three sides. Mr. Newell noted he had an appointment with the Village Attorney regazding the signage, and was going to speak with him about the code. Chair Schauer suggested Mr. Newell check with the owners af the new building (Palmeri) regazding their signage. Mr. Newell explained when the building went through site plan review there was no signage on the east side. Gha.ir Schauer asked what was planned for the Palmeri building. Mr. Newell stated it was very similaz to the Broedell building, behind Budget Tire. He indicated it was an officeJcondominium, with the off'ice up front and storage and inventory to the rear. He indicated the Palmeri offices would be on the second story, and the first floor was office/ retail. Board Member Robbins pointed out it has taken a long time to build. Mr. Newell agreed. Chair Schauer questioned whether there was a limit on the number af permits issued during the building process. Mr. Newell noted when a building permit is issued there has to be some type of activity in the first 180 days, or if there is no activity in the 180 days, then it is considered abandoned and the permit comes to an end. He indicated the permit has the life of one year, and if the construction takes two years, you would need to be renewed after the first year. Chair Schauer menrioned she ran into the problem in Tequesta. Pines, with a property owner who had a dumpster sitting in their driveway for two years. Mr. Newell noted if there was no activity, no inspections, or anything, within the 180 days, then the perniit would be considered abandoned. Mr. Newell sta.ted it generally was the owner/builder who gces on for a long period of time. He explained if the owner allowed the permit to exgire, then they would have to pay the fees all over aga.in. Boazd Member Wilder felt the rental of a dumpster was not cheap, and noted the owner has so many days to get it out of there. Chair Schauer felt they were charged by the load, because the trash sat there for quite awhile, and they would not pick it up unless it was full. Boazd 11�tember Robbins questioned wha.t recaurse di.d the Village have. Mr. Newell mentioned as long as the owner was doing something, there was not much the Village could do. Planning and Zoning Advisory Board ; January 26, 2005 Meeting Minutes Page S VII. ADJOURNMENT . MOTION: Board �fember Wilder moved to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Board Member Robbins; motion passed 4-0. The Meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, �� �� � "�eL�i C..•d1l.�T/�- e'� wen Carlisle Village Clerk