Good morning. >> Uh, welcome to the planning board regular meeting on Thursday, January 8th, 2026. Please silence your cell phones. Let me make sure I get mine. Okay. Uh, roll
call. Mr. Hart, please. >> Member Bobby, >> present. Member Brown, >> member Powell, >> member Axelrod, >> uh, Vice Chair Person Rosen,
[laughter] >> Chair President Mendlesson, >> present, >> Town Attorney Ruben, >> present, >> and member David is absent. Thank you. >> All right, please all rise for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Okay. Do I have a motion to accept the agenda as presented?
>> So do. >> Okay. All in favor? I >> I Okay. Swearing in of the public. For those giving testimony, please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn by and provide testimony for the
application you are affiliated with. Mr. Hart, please swear in those giving testimony >> by the authority vested in me as a notary of the state of Florida. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you.
Um, minutes. Are there any corrections to the minutes of December 11th? Hearing none. May I have a motion to approve the minutes of December 11th? >> All in favor? I. Unfinished business.
None. Okay. New business. Development order application number P25-35. Andrew Megabo application by Eileen Gonzalez Breezy Permits LLC requesting a
special exception to install a 30,000lb capacity boat lift in slip number 10 for the property located at 2727 South Ocean Boulevard number 9002. Do any board member member members have
any exart communications to disclose? Okay. Hearing none. At this time, I now open the public hearing. Town planner Allen, please present the application. Morning. And here you have the
view of Kina looking and um this specific request is for slip number 10. So I've gone ahead and a little note there for slip number 10. Um as indicated this is a request for a special exception to install an eight post 30 capacity in slip number 10 at
the back. The request is on behalf of the property owner that's residing at 2727 Boulevard due to number 902. According to the applicant, there was a previous post 24,000 lb capacity lift located on the split. Um it was removed town code
violation for work without a permit was issued by the code compliance officer. Um and I've gone ahead and provided you that case number on the top of page nine. Uh we'll go ahead and take a look at the survey and the plans. These are the 11 by17 plans that are in your
packet. Um here you have the survey and actually for the next item which is in the same property. Well, you'll have the same survey. You could see uh slip number nine and 10 are called out here. And here you have the section view, the
plan view and a a site plan as well. Uh the applicant has obtained both uh the Florida Department of Environmental Protection as well as Army Corps authorizations. I've gone ahead and provided you those file numbers um on the top of page nine. Now there was a small discrepancy between the plans
submitted to FGP and Army Corps. Uh regarding the width of the lift on those agency plans, you'll see that the width of the lift is 18 ft, but on the plans that were submitted to the town, the width is 14 ft. uh the applicant has provided correspondence email correspondence from both agencies
indicating that that change in width will not affect the validity of their authorizations. Um according to the boat lift section which is on sheet one of that 11 by7 sheet in your packets the top of the lift measures approximately 6 feet from the existing top of seaw wall the
existing dock. Um the applicant hasn't dimensioned the superructure of the boat on the section view. Um, I've said this several times. It's not a requirement of the code. Uh, but that said, staff does ask the applicant to put a note, and the applicant has of course indicated the
note. Um, that the boat lift will be in compliance with the definition of boatlift. Um, as provided in section 30-131 in your code, and I've provided that definition for you on the middle section of page 9. Uh, the Villa Magnum Marina does accommodate perpendicular docking. As you can see from the
previous aerial, um I've gone ahead and provided you the perpendicular docking regulations that are in the code. Uh starting on the midpage of page 9 to the top of page 10. Um we have not had any issues or complaints about any type of navigability um in this particular
marina. Um and the planning board may approve approve the conditions or deny the request. Um if the planning board approves a request, the applicant will be required to obtain a building permit uh from the town. Commencement of construction shall be initiated within two years following the date of approval
by the planning board. uh staff should review the applicant's proposed request to include the plan set which was dan state date stamp received by the building department on December 16, 2025 and finds that it is consistent with the special exception provisions which are
found in section 30-36 of the town code where applicable and consistent with the town comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. Um I'll be glad to address any questions and we do have the applicant's authorized agent here to address any questions as well. Do any of the board members have any questions for
staff, especially those who know things about boats? >> I'm sorry. >> So, why why is that pier longer than the other peers? >> I don't know why that pier is longer than the other peers. I'm not sure how
long this all any of those peers are have been there. So, I'm I don't have the answer to that. Maybe authorization does, but I I don't know why it's longer. >> Yeah. >> Well, according to I guess the guidelines that we just recently passed, you can go out 25 ft from the seaw wall.
So, is if that pier is 25 ft and the other ones are not, are the other peers allowed to be elongated to 25 ft? >> Right. The 25 ft or 20 25% or 25 ft does not apply to um accessory main facilities that are along the inter coastal.
>> It does not. >> No. and the perpendicular docking is allowed because nobody's complained, >> right? Um unless the board feels that you want to bring a marine expert if you feel there's some navigation issue.
Again, um we haven't had any complaints. It didn't really trigger bringing in the marine expert, but uh the code allows the board to bring in a marine expert if you feel it's warranted. >> No, I'm I'm actually a fan of perpendicular documents. >> Okay. How long has it been there?
>> But this pier, this pier according to the drawing says it's 43 feet. >> Okay. >> I just want to make sure I understand that cuz this says 43 ft. So it must be grandfathered in. >> Right. So we have a lot of legal non-conforming structures in this town.
Not only peers, but we have um seaw walls, we have docks. Again, this is for the lift. There's no changes to the pier. This is specifically for the lift. So the pier, as I said, I'm looking at the code right now. Again, that 25 ft or 25% excludes docking and moing
facilities located along the inter coastal. Um, so any issues you may have with how far it's going out, it's again a legal non-conforming situation. >> Anybody else? I I was just curious how it's been there a long time. As long as I can remember.
>> Yeah, I'm not sure of the date. Again, maybe the authorized agent has more background. I mean, I typically don't check, you know, when these things are built. Um, when I'm doing the development review, it's sort of like, you know, the pier's there, right? >> This is about the boat lift. There's no changes to the pier itself. >> Are these are these deed slips?
>> Um, I believe they are. I think there's some >> No, they're owned by the V. >> Oh, a sign. Okay. >> So, they're owned by Villa Magna and then a homeowner. >> Okay. So, not every homeowner has slips because there's not
>> You'll have to come up, please. Thank you. >> We need that on the record. >> My name is Eileen Gonzalez. For the record, not every homeowner has slips. It's a very big condominium unit. And to answer your previous question about the why the that part of the finger period
is a little bit longer, they did get an authorized extension with the town of Highland Beach a couple years ago. It's a approved building permit with the town, but the whole entire marine structure has been there for at least 40 years plus. >> So a few years ago they extended that >> per and they got they got Army Corps's
approval, DP approval, and then they went in front of the board as well for it. >> I think maybe 2017. >> Yeah, it was a couple years ago, but the same engineer that made these plans, he actually made the plans for the extension, but it was it was a couple years ago. I'm not really sure when it
was, but >> it was it was a couple years ago. >> I'm just curious. Do you sign up for that? Like you go to the condo and you say, "I want one," and then you pay for it, or >> maybe one of the homeowners in the audience. >> I'm just curious. >> We're getting beyond the scope of the
application. >> Interesting. >> That's a curiosity question. Sorry. >> Okay. I'm sorry. Just [clears throat] want to, for the record, just want to make it clear that I'm a strong proponent of perpendicular docking. Nice. Yeah. Good. Okay. >> Yeah. The only question I have um
obviously there are setback requirements to the actual to the inter inter coastal. >> Yeah. And >> the actual channel. Um >> okay. And but that's not depicted on this diagram. I assume it's in compliance by just pictures I saw. If
you look at the Army Corps's approval, the Army Cores, whenever we're dealing with them, specifically with an inter coastal waterway, they make us get an XY survey, which shows them the X and Y coordinates of the most waterward point of the structure and it does get sent to navigation so that they can make sure it's not impeding on anything. So, it
was reviewed by navigation and it is in the packet in the Army course bracket. >> Okay. >> Yes, sir. Any other questions for staff or the applicant? Okay. Um, are there any members of the public that would like to talk about
this? Okay. Um, the hearing no other questions from anybody in the room. I'm going to close the public hearing. Um, is there a motion to approve to approve with conditions or a motion to deny the request?
>> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Could you please call the role? >> Yep. Got it. Member Bobby, >> yes. >> Vice Chairperson Rosen, >> yes. >> Member Brown, >> member Powell, >> yes.
>> Member Axelrod, >> yes. >> Chairperson Mendelson, >> yes. >> Thank you. Okay. All right. Let's move on to its cousin. Um, [laughter]
>> development order number P-25-36, David Dreman, application by Eileen Gonzalez, Breezy Permits LLC, requesting a special exception to install a 30,000 lb capacity boat lift in slip number
nine for the property located at 2727 South Ocean Boulevard, apartment 503. Do any board members have any exarty communications to disclose? No. Therefore, at this time, I now [clears throat] open the public hearing.
Templ Allen, please present the application. Okay. Um, so as indicated, this is a request for a special exception to install a six post 30 lb capacity boat lift in slip number nine, the Villa Magnum Marina. Uh this is on
behalf of the property owner residing at uh 2727 South Ocean Boulevard, unit number 503. Um as with the previous requests, according to the applicant, they also had a previous four post 24 lb capacity lift uh that was also located
in slip number nine which was removed. There was a town code violation for work without a permit on this uh particular slip. This was issued by our code compliance officer. The case number is provided on page 50 of your packets. Um, this aerial is exactly the one that I
showed you earlier. And then we have the rear view of the marina. And that now you could see the slip number nine. So that one's a little bit different than the previous one. Um, here you have the survey which you already saw similar mimicking the previous request.
Um, so as with the previous request, um, they did obtain Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Army Corps of Engineer authorizations. Um same situation as with the previous the agency plans show an 18 foot wide uh lift whereby the plan submitted to the
town show a 14t wide width uh boat boat lift width. Um the applicant has provided email correspondence from both agencies. It's in your packet indicating that those the change in the width of the lift will not impact the um authorizations that they receive from
those agencies. Uh the top of the lift does measure six feet. Um again it's not to mention the superructure of the boat which is again not a code requirement. Um and uh there is a little note um on the plan sheet which regard uh regards the
boat lift definition and that the applicant will be compliant with the boatlift definition. As with the previous request you have the perpendicular docking regulations given they apply here as well. Um the board may approve approve the conditions or deny the request. If it's approved by
the planning board, they will be required to obtain a building permit and commencement of construction shall be initiated within two years following the date of approval by the planning board staff to review the proposed request to include the plan set date st received by the building department on December 16,
2025 and finds that it is consistent with the special exception provisions of section 30-36 of the town code where applicable and consistent with the comprehensive plan and town code of ordinances. Again, I'll be glad to address any questions. And we do have the authorized agent here as well.
>> Anybody have any questions for staff? >> I'm sorry. Does Can you just tell me what an AMF I don't know what AMF means. AMF lift. >> Yeah. Um AMF is accessory facility. Yeah. >> Okay. Any other questions for staff or
for the applicant? Anybody in the public? Okay. Hearing nobody wants to ask any questions or speak. The public hearing is now closed. Is there a motion to approve? Approve with conditions or a
motion to deny the request. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Mr. Hart. >> Member Axelrod. >> Approve. >> Vice Chairperson Rosen. >> Yes. >> Member Bobby. >> Yes.
>> Member Brown. >> Approved. >> Member Pal. >> Yes. Chairperson Mendelson approve. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thanks. >> All right. We are now going to move to the last agenda item
which is discussion discussion on increasing the maximum square footage requirements for permanent signs. And uh town attorney Rubin is going to speak to this uh issue. >> Um I'll go ahead and go
wrote that for me. So I >> raise >> so >> um town planner Alen will give a presentation that that Mr. Rubin might discuss as well. >> Okay. Yes. Okay. Um so on page 84 of your packets I provide you a summary as
to how this discussion item came before the board today. So I'll go over that briefly. Um at the November 4th, 2025 commission meeting, there was a public comment that was made by the president of the board of trustees for the Villa Magna Condominium. This was regarding proposed replacement of permanent
signage um along their three driveway entrances on A1A. Um these new sign the these new signage exceeds the maximum square footage requirements for this signage found on chapter 23. Um on page 85 of your packets, I provide you a
table number one. And in that table, you'll see the last column shows what our permanent sign requirements are in terms of size of the sign and the middle column shows what Villa Magna is proposing. And you could see that they're what they're proposing, the size of the sign um exceeds what our code
requires. Um consensus from the commission at that November 4th meeting was to continue the discussion or have a discussion on this um at the December 2nd, 2025 meeting. Again, this was just a public comment that was made at the December 2nd, 2025 commission meeting.
Consensus from the commission was to have the planning board review the town's permanent sign code regulations, keeping in mind Villa Magna's requests as a real world example. The commission's d direction to the planning board was to consider the following.
Appropriate standard for maximum size sign. Um, how large is too large? Should larger condominiums have larger signs? colors and illumination for signs. What is the right signage look and size for Highland Beach and does it fit the
town's aesthetic? Safety of pedestrians and roadway, including visibility and sight lines, appeal or variance process for signage and review of other municipal uh sign codes. Now, several of these items that the board is to consider today are already addressed in
the town code, and I've provided these regulations starting at the bottom of page 84, and I'll go through those briefly as well. Uh section 23-5 of the town code provides size, color, illumination, aesthetic, and traffic traffic safety regulations for permanent
signage. So, with regards to size, on the bottom of page 84, um I referenced that the uh signs that are for ingress or egress, uh the code allows those, but they should not exceed three square feet. They may be illuminated or non- illuminated, and a permit is required.
You can see it says some of this language I bolded just for emphasis. Okay. Um in addition there's one permanent sign um that is permitt [clears throat] that is permitted. It should not exceed 10 square feet. Uh these type of signs must be illuminated but not with
intermittent or colored lights or animation. Of course permanent signs. >> What page is this? >> This is page 85. >> 85. Okay. >> 85 right now. >> That's okay. Um, with regards to the inter coastal uh properties, uh, one additional permanent sign identifying
the development may be allowed. Again, this sign can exceed 10 square feet. It may be illuminated, but not with intermittent or colored lights or animation. Uh, section 23-5 also references garishness. Um, garishness means signs that are too bright or
gaudy, showy, glaring, and/or cheaply brilliant or involving excessive ornaments. Okay. Um, with regards to traffic safety, no sign shall be hazardous uh to automotive or pedestrian traffic, nor shall have any sign or
light lighting of a sign to obstruct the vision of the driver or any motor vehicle where vision is necessary for safety. Uh, with regards to visibility triangles, again, this is all already in our code. So, I'm just letting you know what our code says about these various items that you'll be considering today.
Um, on the bottom of page 85, I provide you the regulations that we have about visibility triangles. In section 30-680, it says here, "Obstructions within visibility triangles are prohibited." And this does apply to signs. So, on the bottom of 85 and the top of 86 are the
regulations regarding visibility triangles. Um on the mid midsection of page 86 uh talk a little bit about appeals. So a variance you can only get a variance for reduction in dimensional requirement in the zoning code. The zoning code is
chapter 30. The sign code is in chapter 23. So in this case Villa Magna they can't get a variance for their proposed request because it's not in chapter 30. Now, um there is an uh in the sign code there is an appeal for a denied signed
permit and I provided you that regulation on again on page 66 in the middle. It says if a signed permit application is denied by the building official where there's an alleged um error in any order, interpretation, requirement, decision or or determination um then again an applicant
can appeal. But this is not about reducing you know the size of the sign. It's just if there was some um again error in some way. Um on page 105 and 106 of your packets, I did go ahead and provide you with a comparison table
looking at multifamily uh residential uses, what the the sign provisions are for Bokeh, Deerfield Beach, and Del Rey. Uh so again, those are on page 105 and 106. And then lastly, um, in your packet, starting on page 107, there's a
spreadsheet with the approximate height and width of all current condominium signs in the town. This is frontage sign. Okay. Um, and there's also photographs that were uh also provided showing you the signs that are currently in the town. Um, again, starting on page
107. I'll be glad to address any questions. We do have um some of the residents here from Villa Magna. Um, I'm sure maybe they want to address the board as well. >> Okay, >> I I understand this and I read Mr.
Rubin's memo about less restrictive and more restrictive. I have to tell you that being a regular driver on A1A, I I think that our existing sign limitations are too low. Uh it's very hard sometimes to see the signs whether because of the
sun or at night. So I'm inclined to favor some increase in the signage. I think looking at the comparatives of adjacent towns suggests what the appropriate limits should be um and
would request that the town commission consider those uh as well as the appropriate placement which I think is correct in terms of the uh regulation or statute and that maybe we should be um a
little bit more liberal in allowing slightly larger larger, more visible signs so that people can find us. >> You had a comment >> then I'll >> Yeah, I do. Um, first of all, I think
that some of these f signs are not attractive at all and they probably need to be updated and they need to be updated to a larger size. And it just happens to be that the ones that are proposed for Villa Magna uh I think are very nice signs and I happen to agree uh
with my uh compatriate here on everything except um being liberal. Okay. So, um I'm like it's interesting to me that in your list of condos, you don't have Tuscana since we're the biggest and I
was just curious, but >> um I I don't even know if our sign what our signs are for. >> So, we have it Yeah, we have it written on the wall coming in on both sides of the driveway. And then we have one like
in the and yeah anyway um I tend to agree that they should like it it they're very oldfashioned all of them and small and I think that um they should be
um larger and I think that if there's some kind of illumination at night I think that's a good thing so people aren't squinting to look at the signs. that they can't find and then slam on their brakes so that you're behind them.
And I I always find people in Highland Beach like crawling along looking for where they're going and trying to turn in and you can't. I mean, and then they stop short. So, I think anything that makes it um not anything, but some a a
change that makes it easier for people to find these condos along this one street um would be good. Um I don't mind illumination at night. I you know I think the garishness standard should stay and I think then when it comes to
the planning board or the commission whoever it comes to should be able to discuss garishness um >> what >> who commission >> or the building department >> right so if somebody comes in for a sign
that's done by building department >> building department okay >> so I think maybe you want to bring that If you if we change all these uh sizes and regulations and have standards about them, maybe it should go to the planning
board, but you know, that's something that the commission could decide. I mean, is that something that our ordinance would allow that to come to the planning board or not? >> I don't believe so. This is a building permit and you know that's that would
really tie up it would extend the time for people to get a sign just to >> but I have a question then >> if if they want to have a sign larger than the proposed 20 square ft that was there
for a variance right >> and and that's pro that's one of the things you're supposed to discuss like do you want and I know we discussed this with the town attorney we can provide some regular ulations where there is a variance process. Now the variance process goes to the board of adjustment and appeals not the planning board. So
they would go to the board of adjustment and appeals. If they get it approved then they can be issued the permit. >> I and I I I agree with Eileen that it it's nice to have these signs but I think that they should have a path to be able to have a nicer sign cuz like the Tuscana sign is very nice and it's
freaking giant. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, it's big. Yeah, but just concerned about so if you put in a standard of garishness which you have now. >> Yeah, there's in the code >> building department people decide what's garish or not.
>> Uh yes. Yes. >> And then that that determination could be appealed theoretically. >> Right. It can be appealed that there is that provision. So if somebody had an issue well we don't think it's garish. They take it. >> Okay. Because I'm saying that if we agree that they can be illuminated
um at night then illumination can lead to garishness. [laughter] You know, >> not only that, with illumination, we do have to take in the turtle rules because you can't from October to March, you're not supposed to have >> you can't see it has you cannot be
visible from the beach, right? So, we have to be >> minds otherwise I think we should allow them to lodge it, >> right? >> And that's why we don't have Do we really need a vote or we just make Finish? Let them finish. Okay. answer. >> Let me make a >> Okay.
>> So, oh, do we have to vote on this or can we just make a recommendation? Basically, >> what what I would suggest is you have the list of what the commission wanted you to consider. Okay. >> On page 84, I would suggest that you take each one of those considerations and provide some sort of consensus. So,
that way you give the commission um the information that they're requesting from you from you. So, again, the first one is appropriate standard for maximum size. How large is too large? Should larger condos have larger signs? So maybe you want to address each one. You all can discuss each one so then we can
give them some like a comprehensive perspective from the board. >> Chair Mendlesson, can we also maybe uh consider adding a few components to that to the uh commission list because we have some other good ideas on here that we
>> Okay, one second. >> Wait a minute. >> No, let him general. Okay, I'm trying to keep this like in order. >> So, I do favor that um making the signs more visible because I do also uh witness many people crawling up and down
A1A trying to find their destination, right? >> Um but I think that we need to have some level of definition of what is garish and what is not because as I look across the signs that are out there today, some
are very attractive and some aren't very attractive. And and so how do you how do you do that because garishness is becomes a very subjective right >> that's a subjective measure so do we do we look at materials that it's made from
or do we you know I don't can we define more of of what what is what is something that we view to be aesthetically pleasing for Highland Beach would be my my concern. >> Okay. Yes,
>> I I was going to suggest that the word garish garishness probably should be eliminated and in fact to your point >> there should be some factors that are considered with respect to sizing. So
size, lighting, reflectiveness perhaps, other things that the building department or the any other commission has has had experience with. So that
there are factors that when a per permit is is requested for this change, you can ask whether the proposed sign meets those factors. And then I would suggest that the standard for maximum sign
be aligned with what Bokeh is doing since many people go north and south on A1A. And it would be nice to have some consistency in terms of sizing and I'll
defer on the other questions in case anybody else has some input. Well, so I understand like if you don't want to have um subjective kinds of, you know,
someone comes to the building department and the person says it's garish. Okay. So you if you take out garishness, but I'm just wondering if and I know this is probably like not something we could do, but you know, I know we don't have any
aesthetics, you know, for what you build in this town. I understand that and I understand it would get too bogged down probably but maybe if you're going to increase the sign sizes and you know make all
these new you know allowances for signs maybe you do want to have some kind of a body that looks at it and passes on it. Is that like totally out of something that we could do or
>> Well, again, we do have that appeal process. We have it in the code. If somebody feels that the building official or or whoever the design is, you know, >> finds it as garish, then they can they can appeal it right now. They can do that now. Right. So,
>> but I mean that takes as much time almost as just going to someone who has the right to say this is what you know this is what we think is attractive or you know works with the town or fits in with the town the way
the town looks >> but but even if if you assigned it to some board there would still be an appeal process >> right >> so what I was going to suggest just based on my review of other sign codes something you might want to consider a lot of sign codes say that um these
types of signs need to be compatible with the buildings. So essentially the same materials, the same look, the same >> yeah the same feel as the building. So if the building is white and stucco whatever then you just you know they
should be compatible with the architecture of the building. the sign should be. It's just something to consider. Okay. >> But the adjacent site because not all these signs are uh immediately adjacent to buildings. Uh some of them the ones
that ours for instance are not, you know, they're on the highway. They're not really near our buildings. >> Well, right, but you know, they're still part of your your parcel. You know, they're on the same parcel. But >> So, can I can I make an additional comment, please? >> I I disagree. Yeah,
>> with removing the words um garish garishness, I think that we should leave that in there because somebody's always going to look to bend the rules and break the rules and to be able to create a garish type sign. And it's better to
and I don't think it's a good idea to overregulate the signs because right now you 20 ft most buildings are going to want things to be bigger than 20 square ft. So, they're going to have to get approval anyway. But garishness is a relative subjective term. But if they
have to go to a board, then you've got the board of adjustments and appeals which is what six, seven, eight people. I mean this can't be that eight people are going to say that it's garish and and or not. So I think that overregulating this is going to be a
real problem. Increasing the size I think is good. I think that there's nothing wrong with that. But it needs to be tasteful and tasteful is a relative term, >> right? Like parish. >> Uh town planner, I question for you. Um you made a great table here with the
square footage comparisons of other towns. Did you make a table of the aesthetics rules? >> No. >> From surrounding towns? >> No, I didn't look at the aesthetics per se. Um I don't I don't know that there is an aesthetic component, but I mean I could look further. They're pretty large
sections of that. And the other question I had for you is why did you avoid Gulfream cuz normally we would do all of the surrounding town. >> Uh the this was a direction that was given by the town uh manager to look at cities that were comparable in terms of the condos. Bokeh has a lot of condos. Deerfield has a lot of condos. Delray.
Um so uh if the board wants staff to do some additional uh research, you know, you could put that in your u discussion. Uh >> okay. And >> how you wish to proceed. The the last thing to be mindful of is we cannot do anything more burdensome or restrictive.
So you know the garishness if you took it out then you can't put it back >> right. >> So we have to be careful in what we amend. >> Um you can increase the size that's fine because you're making it less burdensome and restrictive but um as far as other like corollary regulations we have to be
careful about that. So do I can I so we're supposed to go back to the commission right with some recommendation or okay >> again those considerations >> considerations >> so let me take a shot at listing what I think they'll be based on what I heard
and then please come you know so we'd like to increase the size and we'd like to use bokeh as a comparison of the size we would like to um retain our existing
language about garishness and safety, things like that. Um we um we might like to add that um as Len said that it or
fits in with the building that it's being assigned for. Um and uh we would like to retain the fact that the building department makes the decisions subject to the appeals to
the board of adjustment. Um did I miss any? >> What about the variance? Did you want to go ahead and move forward with allowing for a variance? Yes. A condo that wants to do something larger then they have the ability to go through the
>> varian larger than what we're proposing now. Yes. >> So further uh increases in size would go to for a variance to the board of adjustment. something I thought was a pretty good idea
>> was to not allow uh plastic plexiglass type signs to be more classier raised letters type. >> Well, then then do you say then are you already putting in like a definition of what garish is cuz you're saying that
it's or it's not nice or it's not high-end. I mean, I think if you're going to leave it up to the building department to say that it's not garish and fits in with the building that then you should leave it to them to make that
decision subject to the appeal. But I don't know. >> And and the definition of garish, I mean, I did does say that it's in harmony and compatible with the building. So that's sort of already built into the that airish definition. Yeah, I think what I was trying to get at is just to set some level of standard
since there's no building that I know of in town that has any plexiglass in its construction yet they have plexiglass signs in the front. And so that that's that's where I was trying to to to link those two. But if we if we actually enforce
the compliance with structure and the you know then that accomplishes that but clearly in the past we haven't. >> Okay. Well, >> I think that the that the commission should know that we, you know, we're
leaving in what we have and we expect it to be followed that if it's compatible with the building, it uses similar materials and if we need to enhance that in what we have already, we should.
>> Yeah. And the only thing I was going to add because I agree there should be a procedure for variance but I think that it needs to be restricted to consideration of uh modification of the existing guidelines that are in the
whatever is passed. So in other words the varants can't all of a sudden say you can use plexiglass or that it can be garish. Um so we have to be careful in terms of what the variant process >> right so our current language for
variance is a dimensional requirement keep it at that you can't get >> keep it at dimension if I keep it at that you can't get a variance >> just worries me that you just put in variance without some control wording >> so you know >> that it's already there
>> the underlying rationale for variance is that properties you know are unique some properties are unique so I think we would just if the board was inclined to recommend um a variance procedure as Ingret said it really should just be to the dimensional requirements and perhaps
because of the topography the size the whatever the case might be unique to that parcel would justify a larger sign. So just clarify that in your >> one question we are going to say about going to mention the size of the sign. Are we going to give a number at this
point in time of recommendation? >> Said to use bokeh. >> What? >> Said to use bokeh. >> Do we know what that is? >> Yeah, it's in her chart. >> It's in your chart. >> Chair, I have three additional things that panel might want to consider. Um, one of the things that was brought up in here and we probably should give the commission some guidelines on is um
universal rules. Do we want universal sign rules uh no matter how large or small the condo is or uh do we want different signs for different size of condos? I would think we'd want universal rules across. >> So like a a 100 unitit condo could have
a bigger sign than a fiveunit condo. Some of these other towns have that themselves. >> I tend to disagree. I think that you have to look at what the lot looks like. I mean there are some smaller buildings that have larger frontage. So I think if
the issue is visibility and readability then I wouldn't put that restriction in per se. Okay. >> I agree. It should be universal. Yeah. And then that could go to an appeal if
so let's say that um somebody came in and said well it should be bigger because that fits in with the building because we've said it you know then they can appeal that to the adjustment board. >> Okay. So just to be universal you want
to give guidance to not have universal size then is that what you were saying? >> No we want it want it to be universal. >> Universal size. Okay. >> Uh so that's one thing. The second thing was um do we want separate rules for um monument sign size versus wall unit sign
size because some of these towns have >> uh different rules on that. Like if it's on a wall it can be a bigger sign. If it's a monument size >> we have that already, right? But we're we would increase all of them. >> Yes. Like with the wall signs, we we basically measuring this 10 square feet
with the letters, right? Because it's on a wall. We're not measuring the whole wall. We're measuring where the sign is. And then if there's a like a true monument sign, then obviously we we would look at the 10 square feet of that sign. So that's how staff has been interpreting. >> Right. So I guess if we're using Bokeh
as a model to increase the size, we should increase the size how they do the other ones too. Yes. Or so that they're all increased commenurately. Now, keep in mind when
you look at the uh chart on starting on page 105 for Bokeh, um they have a a variable which is number of units. So, they have that one ground sign um at each entrance. It's a maximum area of 72 square feet. That's specific
for units where there's a minimum or I should say where there's a minimum of 50 units. So, you know, they break it down by number of units in a >> again. Yeah, I >> I think it should be um based on what what the the the land looks like,
>> right, >> where the property is. I just think if somebody has a wide open front and only 20 units, >> it isn't necessarily appropriate to limit it to three, you know, five square
feet. It's just doesn't work. >> I mean, Deerfield Beach uses frontage. >> Yeah. >> Maximums. I don't know if that's something the board wants to consider. You know, there it's based on the frontage, but then there's still a maximum and a minimum that you're allowed.
>> So again, the number of units of the building is not something that the board is worried about or concerned about. Okay. [clears throat] >> I think it's more how the property looks. We keep going back to this idea that the sign should fit in with what's
there and um >> and not be garish. >> And not be garish. >> Yes. What was your >> And then one last question, chair, and this is also for uh the town planner. Do any municipalities have a minimum letter size? because you could actually have a
very large sign and tiny letters and it still doesn't make it very easy to read or does no other town have that? >> Well, I just looked at these three. I could do some additional research in the three here. I didn't see anything with regards to letters. Um, I could dig a
little bit deeper. Again, these are very large code sections. So, I was just trying to give you all just like a snapshot, you know, of what these municipalities um are providing, but I could take a little further deep into the letter. You could say that. Um, you know, the we're trying to increase the
size of the signs so that they're more visible to drivers looking for something. So, obviously, if you had tiny little letters, you know, it it's got to fit in with, >> right? I mean, if you have a 10 square foot sign, you're not going to have super big letters, right? On the wall
and you're limited to 10 square feet on the wall, it can't be very big letters. But >> perhaps she should I'm sorry. >> Yeah, go ahead. I was just going to say perhaps we can say that the the s the letters should be proportional to the to the signage. >> I mean nobody's they're not going to
want to put tiny little >> Yeah, they're not I mean I hope this is really visibility identification. So that's >> all right. I know maybe that's garish, but >> I think you have to leave some of it for the building department when they see something >> and they go, "Oh, this is ridiculous."
And they go, "No, you this is not visible or it's garish or whatever." And they go, "We're go back and that's what Bokeh does. Go back and redesign it." And so, um, I've I've done that firsthand with Bokeh. We don't like it.
And then you appeal it or you go fix it. You know, one of the two. I I I do think that part of the discussion in comparison to other um municipalities that we haven't really discussed is you know for instance in Bokeh they have
larger areas but they also have a 10-foot from right of way restriction which makes a huge difference you know for the you know if I look at the neighborhood I live in which is Ocean Cove we're pretty far from the
right away and our sign is pretty Okay. But there are some others that exist today that I think are actually in the right away. Um, and so that makes a pretty big difference. So as we as we talk about size, do we have to also
address, you know, right of way? >> Isn't that something the building department would also deal with if it's in the right of way? Yeah, we have um you know in our sign code, we don't really specifically call out a setback,
but um you know, you have the FDOT rightway, >> right? It can't be in the right >> can't be in the right way. >> You can't construct in the rightway, but I guess it could be right up against the rightway. We don't have anything that restricts that, >> right? I think we do have a regulation somewhere in the code. It may not be in the sign code where you can't have a sign in the rightway. Thought I saw that.
>> You cannot have signs in the Yes, it is in the sign code that you can have signs in the right way. So I don't know if FDOT >> they would never allow a sign in the rightway. >> No, >> but you can do as um member Powell was saying about a setback from the rightway
the the rightway line. >> So just for clarity I mean there are the exit and entrance signs not the main signs on many developments are clearly in the right away. I
>> I mean the setback from it's 100 foot wide from the center of the road is what the if I'm not mistaken >> it is 100 foot rightway. So, so they're definitely in the rightway, >> right? And there are other properties
that I mean, again, I could survey were the actual center of the road because the road isn't necessarily the center of the right away. Um, that appear to be close. And again, I so I think to an earlier comment, part of it, our issue is we may have the right regulations in
place, we just haven't applied them over the years correctly. Well, I think it's also again that issue of the legal non-conforming. Um, you know, again, if you're going to put in a new sign, then you have to comply with current code. So, I I
>> Well, Understood. >> Yeah. >> Understood. >> Yeah. I don't think that the town has assessed the signs and whether they're in the rightway or not. Um, and again, FDOT hasn't necessarily gone knocking on the doors to say, "Hey, your signs in our rideway." Um I haven't heard of that
but again as we see with you know lifts and seaw walls we have a lot of non-conformies but the minute you want to put something in new you have to comply with the code. So if a condo came in and there was they were in the rightway well they would have to then move it um for a new sign. Yeah.
>> Okay. So, do we think we have a list to give to them to consider? And they can always come back to us and say, "We saw all these and we want you to consider more." Right. >> Um, I did get all of yours, but I just wanted to uh just to clarify. So, you
also wanted to add the universal rules across all the condos, right? >> Right. Um, subject to that um the overall um the overall criteria that the sign
should fit in with the property and the building. >> Right. So, it's more about the property and the building. Right. >> Right. Okay. >> Okay. I think we need >> So, do I have a motion that um Ingred can send that on back to the commission
her list that we just made and you could hear it on the >> So moved. >> Okay. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Mr. Hart, can you call the role on this for the vote? >> Yeah. >> Vice Chairperson Rosen.
>> Yes. >> Member Bobby. >> Yes. >> Member Axelrod. >> Yes. >> Member Pal. Yes. >> Member Brown. >> Yes. >> Chairperson Mendelson. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. I think that's it. So, um, anybody
else have anything else? You're happy. Okay, good. Um, okay. The meeting is adjourned at 10:22. Thank