Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 6B_11/8/2001 ,.., „ T_ ,f.G VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA na,.. 0 Q DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT P'_;,eSt .,...: Post Office Box 3273 9 '' it' 250 Tequesta Drive •• Suite 305 3 ill, Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 h (561) 575-6220 • Fax: (561) 575-6224 VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES JULY 25, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Tequesta Community Appearance Board held a meeting in the Village Manager's Office at 250 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta,Florida, on Wednesday, July 25, 2001. The meeting was called to order at 9:33 A.M. by Chair Vic Strahan. The roll was called by Betty Laur, Recording Secretary. Boardmembers present were Chair Vic Strahan,Vice Chair Steve Parker,Boardmember Richard Sterling, Gerald Wenta and Molly McCormick. Boardmember Robert Stein was absent from the meeting. Also in attendance was Clerk of the Board Jeff Newell. • II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Parker made a motion to approve the Agenda as. submitted. Boardmember Wenta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote. • III. COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS Wade Griest offered condolences from many people to Boardmember McCormick for a recent death in her family. IV. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES Recycled Paper COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES July 25, 2001 Page 2 Boardmember Wenta made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 27, 2001 meeting as submitted. Boardmember Parker seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote. V. NEW BUSINESS 1. An application from Tequesta Terrace, 400 U.S. Highway One, North, Tequesta,for modifications to the previously approved extended care and special care facility as follows: a. Courtyard awnings b. Exterior paint colors c. Building elevations d. Lettering of site signs e. Fountain A. Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications All members of the Board reported they had driven by the site but had spoken to no one. B. Swearing In of Witnesses, if Required Clerk of the Board Jeff Newell swore in New Wayman and Bill Burckart, representatives for the applicant. C. Testimony of Witnesses and Cross Examination, if any. Ned Wayman and Bill Burckart were present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Wayman reviewed changes made to the fountain, signage, and colors of the building. The number of colors had been reduced to soften the building to two basic colors, eliminating the darker colors at the suggestion of the architect and interior designer. Changes to the building elevation including adding windows, changing the shape of windows, replacing screens with impact doors at the back of the property for security purposes. Mr.Wayman indicated all changes had COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES July 25, 2001 Page 3 been done to improve the visual from the street. In addition,dark green awnings and railings had been added to the interior courtyard. Chair Strahan indicated he would have preferred keeping some darker colors to highlight the building. Boardmember Parker commented medium colors would have warmed the building. Boardmember Sterling commented he wished the applicants had come to the Board before they made the changes, and he felt the building looked somewhat washed out. Mr.Wayman invited any of the Boardmembers to come to the project to see how the internal and external colors tied together, and noted opening was scheduled for early September. Signage was discussed. Boardmember Parker commented he would like the first letter larger. Chair Strahan commented he thought it wise to use block capital letters. D. Finding of Fact Based on Competent Substantial Evidence Boardmember Sterling made a motion to approve the application from Tequesta Terrace, 400 U.S. Highway One North, Tequesta, for modifications to the previously approved extended care and special care facility for courtyard awnings, exterior paint colors, building elevations,lettering of site signs and fountain as submitted except to revise the lettering for Assisted Living to 8" capital letters for the first letters of both words and the rest of the letters to 6",to match Tequesta Terrace. Motion was seconded by Vice Chair Parker and carried by unanimous vote. Vice Chair Parker commented that there were two varieties of oak trees, the taller appeared not to be Florida No. 1, the smaller ones did. Cyrese Colbert questioned discussing landscaping since it was not in the agenda and stated that was not legal. The applicant requested any thoughts on the landscaping. Mr. Wayman indicated they planned to have their landscape architect come to check the trees after they were all installed; and invited the Boardmembers to come to the project to review the trees . The applicant indicated that landscaping on the southeast side at the one story building would be increased, and COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES July 25, 2001 Page 4 requested that Vice Chair Parker come to see the landscaping. Vice Chair Parker commented on the poor quality of oak trees he had seen at the project,but questioned whether it would be appropriate for him to go to the project to make recommendations. Chair Strahan advised that Mr.Parker could do it as an individual; and told the applicants that perhaps they should have their landscape architect come out now rather than waiting for all the landscaping to be installed. Cyrese Colbert asked Vice Chair Parker if he was in that business; he responded that yes, he was a landscape architect. Boardmember Parker indicated he would talk with Mr. Newell, who would be inspecting the project. Boardmember Wenta commented it would be in the best interests of the applicants to have their landscape architect return now to change out inappropriate trees since at this point it would be a lot easier and less destructive. Vice Chair Parker commented the landscape architect should have a book on Florida grades and standards to use as a guide. Mr. Newell noted that the landscape plans in his packet were for the next project. Mr. Wayman complimented Village staff on working with him, and asked the Board to stop by to see the project. 2. An application from Gee &Jenson Engineers-Architects-Planners,Inc., Robert Massarelli, as agent to the Village of Tequesta, for the construction of a new one-story public safety facility for the Village of Tequesta's fire and police services to be located at 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta. Cyrese Colbert, Gallery Square North, commented they had not been given notice this would be on the agenda, which she did not think was right, and a citizen had let them know. Ms. Colbert announced that she and Dottie Campbell were upset they were never notified of this meeting indicated they were adjacent to this project and there had been an agreement between Tequesta and Gallery Square North and they were present without representation from their lawyer because they were not given enough time. Mrs. Campbell commented it was standard procedure for adjacent property owners within a certain distance were notified. Cyrese Colbert commented they did not know if they had not been notified because they had brought up that they were not happy with the plans. Chair Strahan responded he did not COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES July 25, 2001 Page 5 believe it had ever come up before that adjacent property owners were notified; that notices were made in the press and notice given as for any other Village meeting. Ms. Colbert stated she would give you that but commented several years ago the Village had been put on notice that they were to be notified of anything to do with Gallery Square North. Chair Strahan indicated she needed to take that up with the Village Manager. Ms. Colbert responded that she would. A. Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications The members of the Board reported no exparte communications except discussion among themselves regarding the ficus and that they had tried to identify species submitted on the plan.. B. Swearing In of Witnesses, if Required Clerk of the Board Jeff Newell swore in representatives for the applicant: Brian Tavares,Scott Barber,Landscape Architect,Maureen Kussler, Architect, all with Gee & Jenson. C. Testimony of Witnesses and Cross Examination, if any. Brian Tavares presented the project, and began by reviewing the site plan, showing the existing park and the proposed new facility, which would contain separate quarters for Fire and Police,and operations and administration for each. Two driveways were provided, one for emergency and police cars and one for fire trucks to the apparatus bay. The traffic circulation was described, as well as components of the project including vehicle wash area, mechanical room, gas tank, dumpster and bypass. The building roof material was a blend of light and dark brown Spanish S-tile made of concrete. Mr.Tavares reported that a variance had been approved for parking since only 51 of 92 required spaces were provided. Three colors were used on the exterior, with the darker yellow being use for the walls. The stucco was to be an even finish with reveal lines. The wainscoating was described as being 1'x2'x4" thick applied to the wall of the building to break the stucco. COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES July 25, 2001 Page 6 8" medallions were placed along the colonnade. Dottie Campbell questioned what the wall on the west side of the property was made of, to which the response was that a fence with a hedge was proposed, or an alternative could be a precast wall but that would cost$65 per lineal foot for a total cost of$30,000. A wall would be built on the portion of the property line in the rear that joined the school, which was a code requirement, and a fence was proposed for the rest of the north and west sides with posts placed 20'on center with caps. Vice Chair Parker commented the Board needed details for the wall and fences. The proposed chain link fence was described as 6' high with plastic slats inserted to make it opaque. Boardmember Sterling commented he found that objectionable. Chair Strahan indicated it was industrial quality. Vice Chair Parker suggested a possible variance to have just a hedge and keep what was existing, and that plant material would be nicer than walls and fences. The other Boardmembers indicated their preference was also plant material except where the wall was required next to the school property. Leslie Cook commented that could be chain link instead of a wall. Cyrese Colbert commented there was a chain link fence there now which Mrs. Campbell had donated. Mr. Tavares commented that a solid wall had been requested in the base bid. Discussion ensued regarding the options of a wall or hedge on the west side if the Village would grant a variance. Vice Chair Parker commented the Board needed to hear from the neighbors in order to make a decision. Mr. Tavares explained that a solid wall had been requested between the school and the new facility to block the view of fire trucks from the children Mrs. Campbell commented the existing fence was on school property, and it would be good for the Board to visit the site. Cerese Colbert commented that she had several concerns: that when the request for parking variance was presented to Village Council the plans had shown a wood fence on the west side; and they would prefer a wall there. Ms. Colbert showed on the plans the portion of land owned by Gallery Square North and by the Village and how the land dropped off on the portion owned by the shopping center. Ms. Colbert indicated she and Mrs.Campbell were concerned about runoff, and Gee&Jenson had already caused problems for the shopping center with something they previously did to the parking lot, so they were skeptical when told "things would be okay". Ms. Colbert recommended a retaining wall to contain the higher elevation, and COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES July 25,2001 Page 7 indicated the cost should not be a concern because the shopping center had spent a lot of money fixing things up because the Village wanted it to look nice and there was also a reciprocal parking agreement with the Village; and there were now two walkways joining the two properties. The Village plan was now to have a solid wall with no cut- throughs,which made it hard to have the reciprocal parking agreement, on which the Village had insisted. Ms.Colbert spoke about the planned huge canopy trees which would extend over the shopping center property and create a mess in the parking lot. Ms. Colbert commented the plan seemed to change;that the plan she was provided by the Mayor at the Council meeting was different than the one presented. Concerns expressed by Ms. Colbert were regarding the reciprocal parking agreement, and that she would definitely object to a chain link fence with plastic slats, which would look tacky and the wind blew the slats off. Ms. Colbert explained they tried to make Gallery Square North look beautiful, and really objected to that type of fence, runoff problems, and not having access that was written on paper, so their lawyer was talking to the Village lawyer. Mrs.Campbell indicated she had a problem with a 6' high wall or fence. Leslie Cook commented a 6' high wall or hedge all the way to the road would block off view of the beautiful new building. Chair Strahan requested the neighbors clarify their preference for the west boundary; Dottie Campbell stated she would like a low hedge similar to the existing hedge plus a low retaining wall. Mr. Tavares explained the grading issues, which required the building to be at 100-year flood requirement to withstand a hurricane category 4, and how the runoff would flow and that a retention wall would assure no runoff to other properties. Ms. Colbert asked if Mr. Tavares knew it was illegal for his company to design anything that would cause water runoff to their property, to which Mr. Tavares responded yes, he knew that. Mrs. Campbell commented she did not have comfort because Gee & Jenson had done a previous drainage design that caused the southwest corner of Gallery Square North to flood. Vice Chair Parker indicated it needed to be clarified there would be a retaining wall along the west. Ms. Colbert commented at the Village Council meeting they were told everything would be level, and agreed with Mr. Parker that would be impossible. COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES July 25, 2001 Page 8 Mrs.Campbell commented they had attended today to find that today's plan was not last week's plan. Mr. Tavares indicated the property sloped front to back; Vice Chair Parker commented there was no plan showing that. Chair Strahan commented this meeting was not to determine drainage,a retaining wall,or any engineering functions.Vice Chair Parker indicated the Board needed to know how it looked.. Ms. Colbert commented they had to keep pointing out to Tequesta that they had a problem and if there was going to be a retention wall the Community Appearance Board should have a say about how it looked, as opposed to a fence with slats. Boardmember Wenta commented it was a combination of both, regardless. Mr. Tavares explained that the bottom of the retention wall would start at 36" and slope down toward to the back of the property, and the top would be level, and the fence was to be on top of the wall. If a hedge, that would have to be on Village property, so the view from the shopping center would be a retaining wall with a hedge behind it. Vice Chair Parker requested a cross section through the property to the west through to the fire station, to see the retaining wall, landscaping, and building. Boardmember Sterling requested several cross sections at different locations. Boardmember Wenta requested an elevation showing a wall fence • combination. Boardmember Sterling requested finishes on the wall be shown. Ms. Colbert commented the Village's concern for safety had been mentioned at the Village Council meeting from the access and she had brought up the access existed now and had never been a problem, and asked why there would now be a problem, and if the referendum passed the Village Hall would be there and access to cross parking would be needed. Chair Strahan indicated new projects must meet current code and restrictions. Ms. Colbert commented what was one more variance, and that she agreed with a hedge since if done properly that could look beautiful. Chair Strahan clarified that as neighbors Mrs. Campbell and Ms. Colbert had given clear indication they wanted a hedge. Chair Strahan, speaking for the Board, indicated the Board preferred to see a low retaining wall with a low hedge on the western perimeter. Boardmember Sterling objected to the large blank wall of the apparatus bay on the Fire House and recommended shade trees. Shade trees interfering with the fire engines were discussed. Mr. COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES July 25, 2001 Page 9 Tavares explained the by-pass drive for the fire trucks. Mr. Tavares indicated the Police Department objected to any opening from the adjoining property. Ms. Colbert commented if there was no access there would be a lawsuit waiting to happen. Mrs. Campbell indicated the Village did not want to give up the reciprocal parking agreement. Leslie Cook expressed concern that people driving down Tequesta Drive would see a blank wall. Mr.Tavares indicated that portion of the building was 50'long. Discussion ensued. Mr.Tavares indicated they had tried to dress it up with inserts and columns. Suggestions were that trees would break up the expanse, and that the blocks created by scoring could be painted different colors. Leslie Cook commented an elevation with trees drawn in was needed. Boardmember Wenta indicated the trees shown on the landscape plan needed to be bigger and spacing between trees could be decreased to make more buffer. Ms. Colbert indicated debris from the trees would drop into the parking lot, creating a cleanup problem. Boardmember Wenta indicated if they wanted a buffer the neighbors would have to have a level of acceptance. The type of ficus specified were discussed. Ms. Colbert was against trees that caused a maintenance problem. Chair Strahan commented the Village had settled the lawsuit giving Gallery Square North's building permission to comply considerably below code. The visibility of the new facility when driving down Tequesta Drive was discussed.. Chair Strahan expressed his opinion the east side would be more visible than any other part of the building, and since that was the front of the building,the architects were trying to make that a feature. Mr.Tavares explained they had tried to complement the park. Councilmember von Frank indicated putting a fence on the west boundary would create a problem for firemen who parked at Gallery Square North. Chair Strahan responded that Gee &Jenson was saying they would not need to park there. Ms.Colbert indicated firemen had contacted er and were unhappy about no connecting walkway. Chair Strahan advised the applicant that this application would have to be tabled in order to address the walk through issue and they would have to get direction from the Village. Boardmember Wenta commented this Board was only to approve a finished visual and not to discuss every other option. Wade Griest commented that the previous evening he had attended the third meeting regarding this whole site and asked if the Community Appearance Board decided on colors, etc., for this facility, how that would affect Village Hall if it were placed on this site because it COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES July 25, 2001 Page 10 seemed this approval would determine the colors for Village Hall. Chair Strahan explained that if and when that happened it would come to this Board and at that time the color scheme would be decided and the building colors would have to blend. The green area landscape calculations were discussed. Mr. Newell noted the minimum requirement was 25%-30% green space. A lot of that was retention area, and the requirement had been met . A comment was made that the green area was very split up. How to accommodate more landscaping was discussed. Vice Chair Parker expressed concern the front area shown on the plan was not deep enough to accommodate the parking,drive aisle,landscaping,etc. Mr.Parker felt the building could move back to provide more green space,but Mr.Tavares indicated that could not be done because distance requirements in the rear had to be met. An underground diesel tank was not possible because of requirements. The Board requested a wall around the air conditioner condenser. Mr. Tavares indicated they were working on the tie-ins for the sidewalks. Vice Chair Parker made suggestions for tie-ins,which the Board could recommend to the Village. Chair Strahan indicated applicant would need to return with materials showing details,retaining wall, hedge, sign, precast wall, and lighting. Boardmember McCormick left at this point in the meeting at 11:15 a.m. The Building elevations were reviewed.Vice Chair Parker noted a sign was shown and no plans were provided. Boardmember Sterling noted no lighting plan had been included. Chair Strahan indicated the most glaring item on the building was the large blank wall on the west as opposed to a lot of detailed features on the east. It was suggested the by architect that column effects could be created with tie-in inserts. Vice Chair Parker requested it be kept simple, and not too busy. Larger trees were requested for the landscaping. The wainscoating was discussed, which was described as being like a veneer depicting two rows of blocks all the way around 1-foot high, case stone glued to the wall with masonry. All windows shown on the plan were real windows. Mr.Parker commented the wainscoating would be expensive all the way around and it was not needed on the north side. Ms. Colbert COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES July 25, 2001 Page 11 expressed concern it would mildew and that the Village did not maintain their buildings well. The architect explained this was just like stone with a beveled cap on top and there would be no room for wasps to nest in it,and it had been specifically requested by the Village. Vice Chair Parker requested a sample of the wainscoating be brought in. Mr. Newell left to get a similar sample from his office. Mr. Parker indicated the color should be more natural. Boardmember Sterling commented the color needed to look like Gallery Square. The architect noted this was the color the Village Manager and Chief Weinand had directed. Chair Strahan noted direction on colors came from this Board but could be overridden by the Village Council, and requested alternative color samples be presented at the next meeting. Mr. Newell was requested to ask the Village Manager why that color had been specified. Mr. Newell explained they had visited several building in Plantation and one building had this wainscoating and it was very attractive in place. Gee&Jenson were to bring photographs to the next meeting. The architect explained the window sills were precast and the color matched the wainscoating. The architect explained the garage doors were green rather than the color shown, and the shutters and window frames were hunter green. Ms. Colbert asked why the rendering was not in color. Mrs. Campbell recommended removable mullions so the windows would not have small window panes that would be hard to clean. Thermopane windows with embedded mullions were suggested. Chair Strahan indicated maintenance was not this Board's concern. Boardmember Sterling commented energy efficient windows should be used to conserve energy costs, and a lot of money was being spent on details but energy efficient windows were not being put in. The architect indicated they had to stay within budget. Chair Strahan commented it had always been the objective of this Board to try to keep things as cost effective as possible. The architect explained each window was for a specific room, and none could be eliminated. Boardmember Sterling noted a lot of details were missing and a better color rendering was needed. Ms. Colbert commented she wondered if the Village was getting special treatment at this meeting because a lot of things were missing in order for the Board to work. Chair Strahan indicated the Board tried to be even handed with COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES July 25, 2001 Page 12 everybody and this was no exception,in fact he believed the Board was actually being tougher on them, which was why this applicant would have to come back. Ms. Colbert disagreed. The color scheme was discussed. Landscaping was discussed. Vice Chair Parker asked what variety the short leaf fig was and how it compared to other ficus. The landscape architect explained it was not a strangler fig,it had a different leaf from other varieties, and Vice Chair Parker requested he bring a color picture to the next meeting. This was not native. Vice Chair Parker noted there were enough native trees but shrubs were pretty far under the requirement. The landscape architect commented changing to an oak might work, and discussed the space requirements. Ms. Colbert suggested palms. The landscape architect responded those would not buffer well. Ms. Colbert commented they would cut the shade trees straight across if they overhung onto the shopping center property. The landscape architect responded they could not touch them legally. Ms.Colbert said, yes, they could, if they were encroaching on their property,that was the law. The landscape architect responded that was the trunk. Ms. Colbert responded that it was the branches. The landscape architect commented they could not trim without a permit; Ms. Colbert responded that yes, they could, and they had been so advised by their lawyer. Chair Strahan commented that the Board was trying to make a decision from the point of view of the Village and its residents and obviously neighbors must be taken into consideration where possible,but there were canopy trees all over the Village so they must overhang neighbors property somewhere and he had never heard anyone make a remark like Ms. Colbert just made that they would box cut the overhang on their side of the property. Chair Strahan commented that the Board would try to.accommodate Gallery Square North from the point of neighborliness as best they could and accede to their wishes as best they could, but the Board wanted shade trees. Possibly switching to oak trees was discussed. Boardmember Parker indicated if oak trees were not used the Board needed to know more about the proposed variety. Ms. Colbert commented they had no objection to oaks since they already had oaks and when they lost their leaves that would be at the same time their other trees lost their leaves. Ms. Colbert commented she was concerned about any figs whose root COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES July 25,2001 Page 13 system would hurt the retaining wall and she leaned toward using oaks. Vice Chair Parker indicated the Board was not used to seeing Ficus Benjamina used as a permanent hedge; but was more used to cocoplum,Florida privet,or Simpson Stopper. The landscape architect explained that they were having problems finding suitable cocoplum plants. Chair Strahan commented the Ficus Benjamina could have the same root system problems. Chair Strahan commented the Board was no longer talking about a 6' high hedge so it could be changed to another specie. Having the hedge on the inside or outside of the retaining wall was discussed. Ms. Colbert confirmed there was an existing wax myrtle hedge on the shopping center property. Buffering the wall adjacent to the school was discussed. The architect proposed a hedge inside the property line. Ms.Colbert indicated she thought the wall had to be inside so it could be maintained. Mr.Newell responded he would look that up in the code. Vice Chair Parker suggested a ficus pumola vine there on both sides of the wall. The landscape architect suggested a hedge inside and the vine outside. Vice Chair Parker commented that vine must be irrigated. Ms. Colbert asked if the vine would go into the wall; Mr. Parker responded it would go into the stucco but would not harm the structure. Chair Strahan asked if there was a cheaper type wall available if it was going to be covered by a vine. Mr. Tavares explained that the cheapest 4" wide wall had been chosen. Boardmember Sterling asked if there was such a wall installed that the members could view. The architect indicated he would show pictures at the next meeting. Chair Strahan commented there was one with a PVC insert at a new development on Loxahatchee Drive in Jupiter. The Board indicated they preferred a cocoplum hedge and if plants were not available they would rather wait until they were instead of having a type of material they did not like. Removing the wainscoating in the rear was discussed, which would save approximately $3,000. Chair Strahan commented that money could be put into taller trees, but it was not a big issue. Vice Chair Parker recommended ilex or Indian hawthorne hedge in the back unless the wainscoating was eliminated in the rear. On the east side, standard hibiscus was suggested. The landscape architect indicated he had seen plants removed in another project. The Village procedure was COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES July 25, 2001 Page 14 reviewed by Chair Strahan, who explained there was a landscape plan approved by this Board and ratified by the Village Council and the landscape plan must be maintained as part of the approval; if plants were removed or allowed to die, it became a Code Enforcement issue. Other suggestions for the east side were Florida gardenia or crepe jasmine. A suggestion for crinum liles was discarded, since those had been planted at the old Village Hall and had not done well. Chair Strahan commented the Dahoon hollies were doing well on Seabrook Road,but the spider lilies had died. Vice Chair Parker verified plants with the landscape architect planned for the front bed.The Village had specified no pavers because the weight of the fire trucks could depress them. Several plant choices for the west side were discussed, although availability would be a consideration. The wall requested around the air conditioning compressors was requested to be softened with landscaping Shrubs and clusters of sabal palms in an island was proposed; however, there was concern if that would affect maneuverability of vehicles. The landscape architect indicated he would check the radius on computer. Chair Strahan requested still looking at placing the diesel gas tank underground; Mr. Newell responded the State of Florida did not want underground tanks. It was agreed this application should be tabled with direction. Vice Chair Parker made a motion to table the application from Gee & Jenson Engineers-Architects-Planners,Inc.,Robert Massarelli, as agent to the Village of Tequesta,for the construction of a new one-story public safety facility for the Village of Tequesta's fire and police services to be located at 357 Tequesta Drive,Tequesta and ask the applicant to make the following changes: 1. Provide details and elevations for the retaining wall along the west side with a section through that in a couple of locations to see how it works exactly and how it looks. 2. No fence along the west property line, only a retaining wall and hedge material. COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES July 25, 2001 Page 15 3. Provide design for front monument sign. 4. Provide design and cut sheets for site lighting. 5. Recommend a wall in front of air conditioning units in front and on south side. 6. Provide samples of cast stone wainscoating in the recommended color and other color options. 7. Provide recommendations for options to break up large blank wall on west elevation. 8. Provide a sample of the Hunter green color. 9. Clarify garage doors are light cream. 10. Make sure there is 60% native landscape material overall. 11. Look at another hedge option other than ficus benjaminia and use native varieties instead. 12. Propose ficus primola on outside of north wall with irrigation provided. 13. Provide a picture of the ficus tree variety being recommended and more information on it or revise to another native such as live oak, laurel oak or East Palatka holly. 14. Bring sample of cast stone and other available colors and pictures buildings with the color combinations. 15: Bring specifications, details, elevations of north wall. Boardmember Wenta seconded the motion which carried by unanimous vote. COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES July 25, 2001 Page 16 VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Clerk of the Board Jeff Newell explained that a meeting was needed regarding the historical tree board ordinance passed by the Village Council. The Board requested the Tree Board meet before a regularly scheduled Community Appearance Board meeting at the convenience of the Village Attorney. VIII. ANY OTHER MATTERS There were no other matters to come before the Board. IX. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Boardmember Wenta, seconded by Vice Chair Parker and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 12:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Betty Laur Recording Secretary 44. / ' , _ of :_4 _ J ��ewe! �'rk of t - Board DATE APPROVED: lv by t) /