Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout03 05 2020 MeetingMINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 2020 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE WILLIAM F. KOCH, JR. COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. I. Call to Order Chairman Smith called the meeting to order at 8:30 A.M. II. Roll Call Present and Participating: Thomas Smith Malcolm Murphy Robert Dockerty Curtiss Roach Jorgette Smith Chairman Vice Chairman Board Member Board Member Board Member Also Present & Gregory Dunham Town Manager Participating: Edward Nazzaro Staff Attorney Rita Taylor Town Clerk III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing 02-27-2020 Vice Mayor Murphy pointed out a sentence needing to be added on page five. Board Member Dockerty moved and Board Member Roach seconded the motion to approve the minutes of February 27, 2020 once the changes have been made and all voted AYE at roll call. IV. PUBLIC HEARING A.Declaration of Ex -Parte Communication There was none. B.Administer Oaths Town Clerk Taylor swore in Hassan Tajalli, Roger Ramdeen and Dan Stanton. C.Continuation of consideration of a VARIANCE from the provisions in Section 70-73 that require the second story to be setback from each first story side elevation a minimum of 15% of the width of the first story of the house to be granted for the east elevation. Chairman Smith explained that he would like those presenting to go through the eight criteria one at a time, with discussion allowed after each point. He then confirmed with Town Manager Dunham that all eight points needed to be met for the variance to be approved. Mr. Roger Ramdeen, a Land Use Planner from Shutts & Bowen LLP, stated they were engaged by Mr. Stanton to provide the justification as to the need for the variance. Mr. Ramdeen began by saying he wanted to emphasize Section 70-73 c. New construction of a second floor for a single-family house within Place au Soleil zoning districts shall include additional side setbacks for the second -story portion of the building. The second story shall be setback from each first -story side elevation a minimum of 15 percent of the width of the first story of the house. Mr. Ramdeen stated that, in his opinion, when the Code was written it didn't take into consideration new construction in the traditional sense. He added what they had was a renovation and an Minutes of ARPB Special Meeting & Public Hearing Held 3-5-2020 @ 8:30 A.M. addition to an existing home and the reason for the variance was that they needed to utilize the structural integrity of the first -floor elevation and fagade to support the second floor. Mr. Ramdeen stated had it been a new construction situation, the second floor could have been accommodated with structural support from the first floor. Mr. Ramdeen then moved on to the eight criteria beginning with number one: "Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district". He stated that the special circumstance was the existing building and the need to utilize the first -floor structural wall to support the second - floor component. Mr. Ramdeen stated the building was designed so as not to have one wall going straight up, accommodated by the eyebrow to get the illusion of the setback. Board Member Smith asked if they were saying that was the only place to put the second -story wall. Mr. Ramdeen stated it was his understanding that they needed to utilize the first -floor wall structurally to support the second -floor component. He added if they didn't utilize the first floor and had to meet the setback there would have to be improvements on the inside of the home to support the second -floor component. Board Member Smith stated that it could be done. Mr. Hassan Tajalli, from Urban Design Studio and agent for Mr. Stanton, stated it could be done but it would defeat the purpose of keeping the structure as it currently existed. Mr. Tajalli explained everything would have to shift over, which would then have a domino effect on landscape savings, construction savings, etc. He then handed out a sheet with the landscaping super -imposed, which the Board had asked him to bring to this meeting. Mr. Tajalli noted that you could barely see anything of the second -story portion of the house. Board Member Smith stated she was understanding this as it could be built a different way, but due to cost and ease of build they are choosing to build it this way. Mr. Tajalli agreed and added it was a $350,000 to $600,000 savings. Vice Chairman Murphy asked if the renovation was greater than 500 of the existing floor plan, doesn't the entire building have to meet the Code. Asst. Town Attorney Nazzaro explained if there were any existing non -conformities, they would have to be brought into conformity if it's over the 50%. He added that he didn't know if there were any existing non -conformities on either lot that didn't meet the Code. Mr. Ramdeen stated there were no non -conformities on this property, and they were just seeking relief from an existing Code Section that may have been written in the past to address new homes being constructed. Board Member Smith asked if the cost created a special condition and Board Member Dockerty echoed the same question to which Mr. Ramdeen stated it should not be considered. Mr. Tajalli added this was a special condition because it was an irregular site and there was no site, after combining the two, that existed in Gulf Stream. Mr. Tajalli stated it could be done per the Code, but it would Minutes of ARPB Special Meeting & Public Hearing Held 3-5-2020 @ 8:30 A.M. negate the current status of the homes. Mr. Ramdeen stated the situation was a much wider lot typically seen in this zoning district requiring a much greater setback, which was another hardship in this situation adding another special condition. Chairman Smith stated that when you read the Code it read "which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district". He added that he thought there would be other lands, structures, or buildings in the zoning district that this would be applicable, so he didn't think this was a special, one -of -a -kind situation in Place au Soleil. Board Member Smith stated she thought there were other alternatives. Mr. Dan Stanton wanted to know if they were arguing whether this was a renovation vs. a new home because he wasn't clear to the position of the Board. Board Member Smith stated that putting a second story on top seemed to be a new build. Mr. Stanton wanted to know if that was consistent to prior renovations in Place au Soleil and he stated there was a recent issue with the board regarding too much glass. He added that was classified as a renovation and they were adding a second floor using the existing and that they added about 50% to the first floor. Mr. Stanton went on to say they were keeping the first floor on both homes, adding a second story and he didn't understand why this would be treated any different. Chairman Smith stated he didn't believe they granted a variance on the house Mr. Stanton was speaking of and that the glass did conform with the Code. Mr. Stanton stated the other home was considered a renovation, not a new home, and that his project was no different, so why would it be considered a new home and not a renovation. Chairman Smith stated the setback would apply whether it was a new home or a renovation. Asst. Town Attorney explained the language Mr. Stanton and his agents were referring to was something the Town had looked over very strictly to make sure the interpretation was consistent and correct, with that language being "new construction of a second -story" not new construction of a new house to which he explained Mr. Stanton did not think it should be applied at all because it was not new construction but a renovation. Town Manager Dunham gave an example of a recent second story house in the Core that came through the ARPB and was viewed as a new construction of a second story on an existing house, not a renovation. Mr. Stanton stated the house next door had almost two million dollars in liens on it and it was worth 25% less than the purchase price due to those liens. In addition to that, he added, the community had been burdened with homeless people and drug addicts in these houses that had been vacant for years. Mr. Stanton stated he thought the special circumstances were beyond cost and added the width was unique, the burden of the liens on the property were a special condition, as well as it being a renovation and not a new home. He went on to say he had built commercial properties across the country and had never heard that a portion of the home was a new construction, but the rest was a renovation. Mr. Stanton stated that cost was a 3 Minutes of ARPB Special Meeting & Public Hearing Held 3-5-2020 @ 8:30 A.M. component and while it wasn't a special exception, he thought it was reasonable when you had almost two million dollars in fines on a property you had to factor in the reasonableness for someone to acquire the property, renovate and turn it into a livable space that wasn't riddled with homeless people and drug users. Board Member Smith questioned why he kept talking about homeless people and drug users to which Town Manager Dunham stated he would like to comment on that issue. He added that Lt. Haseley was present and could address the issue as well. Town Manager Dunham stated the Town had been aware of a squatter who claimed that he had been renting but had been evicted by the Palm Beach Sheriff's Department. He added that they had received a call from a surveyor who had stated he thought he saw someone in the house which prompted the Gulf Stream Police to go and search the house where they found no proof of squatters or drug users, i.e. syringes, McDonald's bags, etc. Town Manager Dunham then asked Lt. Haseley if had received any calls to which Lt. Haseley stated he had received a couple of calls to which he had answered himself and found the property to be unsecured and accessible but no sign of anyone being inside. Mr. Stanton stated that the surveyor who called was very clear that he had seen someone in the kitchen but ultimately ran off through the property. He added that he frequently plays tennis in his backyard and sees people coming and going from the property daily. Mr. Stanton stated that when his wife called to report someone in the property the police instructed her to be on alert, be cautious and call 911. Town Manager Dunham stated that is exactly what she needed to do and the response that should have been given to her from the police department. Mr. Stanton reiterated there definitely was drug paraphernalia present in the home. Town Manager Dunham wanted to know how he could have this information and not the police department. Lt. Haseley stated they had gone to the 2900 house a few times when the squatters were present, but since they had been evicted there had been very few calls. Mr. Stanton stated if they wanted to stay busy and have them call every time they see someone then he could definitely accommodate. Town Manager Dunham and Lt. Haseley both stated that is exactly what Mr. Stanton should do. Mr. Stanton stated the solution was not to keep calling the police but to put people in the home that care about the community, want to add to the community and not destroy it. Asst. Town Attorney Nazzaro stated that everyone should focus the conversation to the specific variance at issue, so the special circumstances needed to relate to the variance, which was the offset of the second floor. Mr. Ramdeen reiterated that, in his opinion, new construction would be defined as a new home from the ground up and that is why standard one was addressed the way it was. Chairman Smith asked to move to number two: "The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant". Mr. Ramdeen stated that this relates to the existing home and the intent to utilize and renovate what was already present. He added they weren't looking to demolish and construct new but wanted to 4 Minutes of ARPB Special Meeting & Public Hearing Held 3-5-2020 @ 8:30 A.M. renovate and expand on their current home, so it wasn't a direct result of the applicant's actions. Vice Mayor Murphy stated that actions to him meant choice, therefore asking the question of other options available. He went on to ask if they could achieve what they were looking to build on the existing lot they own and if they had considered that as an option. Mr. Stanton stated that there was no choice and the way to make the property work is what they had designed within all the Code criteria and he felt they had met the criteria and the Board needed to make a decision whether they agreed with that or not. He added it was the only option because they did not want to demo and build a new home. Board Member Dockerty stated it may not be an option for Mr. Stanton, but it was an option. Mr. Stanton disagreed with Board Member Dockerty and stated they were seeking to renovate a home that they own and include the home adjacent to them into that renovation. He added the only other option was that they don't purchase the home adjacent to their property, then sell their home. Board Member Dockerty reiterated there were other options. Mr. Stanton again disagreed and stated the property was either built as designed or it's not built at all and those were the two options. Mr. Ramdeen moved to point number three: "Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Code to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district". He stated that in this zoning district there were several lots on the larger side, and it wasn't a special privilege because it could be granted to anyone who wanted to do the same thing on their lot. Chairman Smith disagreed and stated they probably would not grant the variance to anyone else in that same district requesting the same thing, so it would be a special granting of a variance to Mr. Stanton. Board Member Roach stated this was their opinion and the Board had a different opinion due to the Code that the Board is instructed to enforce. Mr. Ramdeen stated that there would always be differences in opinions, but he felt variances fell in a gray area, which then fell to the consensus of the Board to make the final decision. Chairman Smith asked that they move on to number four: "Literal interpretation of the provisions of this Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of this Code and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant". Mr. Ramdeen stated that if Mr. Stanton was granted the variance that other property owners would be deprived of the same. He added that another property owner could seek the same variance and would have to prove their case and their hardships. Mr. Ramdeen stated the undue hardship on this property is the need for the first -floor wall to support the second - floor component. He added the wider lot forced the greater setback from the first -floor wall. They went through criteria numbers five through eight without any disagreements. Mr. Ramdeen then wanted to remind the Board of the significant landscaping along the eastern 5 Minutes of ARPB Special Meeting & Public Hearing Held 3-5-2020 @ 8:30 A.M. border providing buffers and screening. He then added there had been no opposition or negative feedback from the neighbors. Chairman Smith asked Town Clerk Taylor if that was true and she answered that one neighbor had come in to look at the drawings but hadn't left any indication of yay or nay. Vice Chairman Murphy wanted to make it clear to the applicant that whatever the Board recommended it would go to the Town Commission at the March 13, 2020 meeting. Chairman Smith stated he felt items four through eight were fine, but he was having a problem with items one through three and felt they were asking for too large of a variance and didn't see them passing all eight of the criteria. Vice Chairman Murphy stated he was having an issue with number two and Mr. Stanton stating it was a do or don't option, which Vice Chairman Murphy thought was a choice. Board Member Roach agreed that the first three were a problem. Board Member Smith had problems with one and two as she didn't see it as a true hardship and felt there were alternatives. Board Member Dockerty had an issue with number two as well. Vice Chairman Murphy made a motion to deny the application for a variance as presented on March 5, 2020, concerning the eight criteria that must be met, the Board find that criteria five to eight are met. The criteria one to four are deemed not met by the Board. Board Member Dockerty seconded the motion. Mr. Ramdeen asked to speak before the Board voted. He addressed criteria number two, which he thought everyone was having a problem with. Mr. Ramdeen reiterated there was an existing condition that was not the result of the actions of the applicant. Chairman Smith stated he did think the action of the applicant was creating the condition in choosing to erect a second floor on a renovation and they don't exist if the applicant didn't choose to build a second story. All voted AYE at roll call. Chairman Smith asked Asst. Town Attorney Nazzaro to explain what would happen going forward to which Mr. Stanton stated it wasn't necessary as they would not be purchasing the property and he left the meeting. Asst. Town Attorney Nazzaro asked if the applicant was withdrawing the application to which Mr. Tajalli did not have an answer. Vice Chairman Murphy made a motion to deny a demolition permit of an existing residential structure except for two walls. Board Member Dockerty seconded the motion. Mr. Ramdeen asked if that was still open for discussion with the applicant or the agent because if there was an opportunity or an option to redesign and push the structure back to comply then the variance goes away. Board Member Dockerty had to step out of the meeting at 9:31 A.M. Chairman Smith stated they wouldn't block a denial if a redesign happened. Asst. Town Attorney Nazzaro reminded everyone this was a recommendation to the Commission for final approval and if the applicant had modifications or a redesign to meet the Code, they would bring that before the Commission. All voted AYE at roll call. Minutes of ARPB Special Meeting & Public Hearing Held 3-5-2020 @ 8:30 A.M. LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the construction, across the two lots, of one Gulf Stream Bermuda, single family, two- story home with attached four -car garage. Vice Chairman Murphy made a motion to deny a Level III Architectural/Site Plan based on a finding that proposed construction of a Gulf Stream Bermuda style, two-story, single family dwelling with attached four -car garage consisting of 11,988 SF meet the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards with the following conditions: 1. Any minor modifications to th submitted to the Town Manager major modifications shall be review and approval, prior to 2. Prior to obtaining a building unity of title. e existing landscaping shall for review and approval and brought back to the ARPB for commencement of landscaping. permit, the owner shall file be any a Board Member Roach seconded the motion with all voting AYE at roll call. V. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Smith adjourned the meeting at 9:41 A.M. 7