HomeMy Public PortalAbout01 27 2022 Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM,
FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 27, 2022, 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:
Absent w/Notice
Also Present &
Participating:
Thomas Smith
Malcolm Murphy
Curtiss Roach
Jorgette Smith
Amanda Jones
Bob Dockerty
Robert Canfield
Gregory Dunham
Edward Nazzaro
Rita Taylor
Chairman
Vice Chairman
Board Member
Board Member
Alternate Board Member
Board Member
Alternate Board Member
Town Manager
Assistant Town Attorney
Town Clerk
III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 12-16-21
Board Member Roach made a motion to approve the minutes of the
regular meeting held on December 16, 2021. Alternate Board Member Jones
seconded the motion with all voting AYE at roll call.
IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items
There were none.
V. Announcements.
A. Meeting Dates
1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
a. February 24, 2022, at 8:30 A.M.
b. March 24, 2022, at 8:30 A.M.
C. April 28, 2022, at 8:30 A.M.
d. May 26, 2022, at 8:30 A.M.
e. June 23, 2022, at 8:30 A.M.
f. July 28, 2022, at 8:30 A.M.
Chairman Smith called attention to the upcoming
meeting dates and asked if anyone would not be at the February meeting.
Board Member Smith noted she would not be available for the February
meeting.
VI. PUBLIC HEARING.
A. Declaration of Ex-Parte Communication
Board Member Roach stated he had a discussion with Mr. Bill
Boardman regarding the Davis property. Board Member Smith stated that
Minutes of ARPB Meeting & Public Hearing
Held 1-27-2022 @ 8:30 A.M.
she was also in on that discussion. Chairman Smith stated he had
discussion with Commissioner Paul Lyons regarding the Davis property.
B. Administer Oaths
Town Clerk Taylor swore in Mr. J.R. Davis, Mr. Benjamin
Schreier, Mr. Joe Peterson, and Mr. Bill Boardman.
C. Applications for Development Approval
1. An application submitted by Tara Eidelson,
as Agent for Stewart Eidelson, the owner of
property located at 920 Indigo Point, Gulf Stream,
Florida, which is legally described as Lot 67, Place Au
Soleil.
a. Demolition Permit to remove existing decorative fagade
items, round columns, and existing railings.
b. Level 2 Architectural/Site Plan Review to permit
construction of new decorative fagade items, square
balcony and trellis columns, and new balcony railings.
Mrs. Tara Eidelson explained that there was structural damage on the
interior and exterior of their home. She stated that they wanted to
change the style of the home and submitted new renderings to the Board
adding they were squaring things off and getting rid of the rounded
features. Chairman Smith stated the proposed English Coastal Bermuda
Style was not included in the Town's preferred list of architectural
styles. He asked if they were willing to redescribe what the target
look was going to be and to make changes or additions to make the house
conform to the Town Code. She apologized that her architect wasn't
present for the meeting and stated that he had come out at least 40
times and looked at the homes on the end of the street and emulated that
style. Chairman Smith asked her to describe the changes they were
proposing and asked about the courtyard. Mrs. Eidelson stated there was
already a landscaped courtyard that would not be changing, and they were
only adding fencing to match the balcony feature. She stated the entry
feature was going to be more streamlined without the massive, rounded
columns and coins to be more in line with the houses on the street.
Chairman Smith asked about the patio and if it was a new addition to
which Mrs. Eidelson answered it was not a patio, only grass, and the
only thing they were changing was adding the fencing in front. Chairman
Smith pointed out that the entry feature exceeded the maximum height for
entry features and asked if it could be lowered to which Mrs. Eidelson
answered that she would love for it to be lowered and had mentioned that
to her architect already and her architect had told her it would be to
Code. She wasn't aware that it was not to Code and was made aware that
it was over the allowed height for two-story homes. Mrs. Eidelson
stated she would discuss this with her architect. Vice Chairman Murphy
asked about the shutters stating that on one rendering there were
shutters and on the new rendering there were no shutters. Mrs. Eidelson
stated there were not going to be any shutters and again referenced the
homes on the end of the street. She stated they were adding upper and
lower trim on the windows. Board Member Roach asked about the shutters
2
Minutes of ARPB Meeting & Public Hearing
Held 1-27-2022 @ 8:30 A.M.
again, to which Board Member Smith stated that shutters were preferred
per the Code. Board Member Smith added that without the shutters and
coins she thought the house looked a little modern for Gulf Stream
Bermuda. Board Member Smith asked about the color of the shutters to
which Mrs. Eidelson showed them a color swatch of a very pale gray.
Mrs. Eidelson again referred to the other homes on the street and stated
they did not have coins or shutters. Assistant Town Attorney Nazzaro
stated the architectural style of those houses were not being discussed
at this meeting and Town Manager Dunham agreed. Vice Chairman Murphy
stated he thought the proposal was an improvement on the home, but
architecturally he preferred the shutters. Assistant Town Attorney
clarified no shutters on a Gulf Stream Bermuda were prohibited so they
did indeed have to have shutters for that architectural style and to
conform to the Code. Town Manager Dunham stated that this was one of
the reasons for the recommendation because the English Coastal Bermuda
Style was non-descript, therefore prohibited by the Town Code. Mrs.
Eidelson stated that the English Coastal Bermuda Style was a name she
made up. Town Manager Dunham pointed out the architectural styles that
were in the Town Code for her to follow. Chairman Smith stated for the
Board to approve the application it would need to conform to the Gulf
Stream Bermuda by having shutters and coins, or just shutters. Mrs.
Eidelson stated that the other houses on the street were more British
West Indies and not Bermuda and those houses did not have shutters.
Chairman Smith stated she could come back and apply with another style
and suggested she and her architect read the Town Code for the different
styles. He added they could not approve the application that was being
submitted. Mrs. Eidelson asked if they added the shutters would the
Board approve the application. The Board was unanimous on the shutters
being added but were more subjective about the coins that had already
been removed from the house. Mrs. Eidelson repeatedly asked if the
Board would approve the application if she verbally told them she would
make the changes they were asking for. After much discussion, it was
decided that she needed to resubmit the application with a style that
was preferred by the Town Code, adding the shutters to at least three
sides of the house and lowering the entry feature. Town Manager Dunham
asked if they were replacing the roof to which Mrs. Eidelson stated they
were not. At that point, Mr. Dunham told her that the roof needed to be
cleaned, to which Mrs. Eidelson agreed.
Vice Chairman Murphy made a motion to bring back the proposal as
a Gulf Stream Bermuda Style home and show on the renderings where the
shutters will be located on all four sides as well as the revised entry
feature lowering the height to meet the Code of 14'. Board Member Roach
seconded the motion with all voting AYE at roll call.
D. Items from the Town Commission
1. Review of previous recommendations.
a. An application submitted by Benjamin Schreier of
Affiniti Architects, as Agent for James and Nadia
Davis, owners of property located at 588 Banyan Road,
3
Minutes of ARPB Meeting & Public Hearing
Held 1-27-2022 @ B:30 A.M.
Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described as
Plat of Polo Cove, Lt. 1, S 50 ft. of Lt 2 & S 75 ft.
of Lot 3 & N 55 ft. of Lt 2A.
DEMOLITION PERMIT to remove existing structures
on the property, with the exception of the
existing entry wall pier feature at the entrance.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION to reduce the rear setback from
50'to 35' as per Section 70-75 (j), Rear Setbacks
for waterfront lots in the Core District.
LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit
the construction of a single family, two story,
8,699 sq. ft. Anglo Caribbean dwelling with
attached 2&1/2 car garage and a swimming pool.
Mr. J.R. Davis stated that the prior plans were
unexpectedly rejected by the Town Commission in December following
approval by the ARPB in November, even though the Town staff had met
with their team and the proposal complied with all building codes and
allowances. Mr. Davis stated he had personally called each
Commissioner, as well as Mr. Boardman to hear their thoughts and
concerns and thought each conversation was highly productive, although
he wasn't able to connect with Mr. Boardman. Mr. Davis stated he sent
out letters to all fourteen Cove neighbors, as well as Mr. Boardman,
asking for feedback, concerns, and questions. He added that they had
received feedback from three neighbors, directly north, south, and east,
that were extremely positive and complimentary. Mr. Davis stated they
had done a comparison of their proposed home with other point homes and
lots as well as made changes to the window frame colors and garage door
colors at the suggestion of the ARPB as well as the Commission. He
added they had added an eastern gable to break up the hip roofline and
fortified the landscaping, particularly on the eastern perimeter. Mr.
Davis stated he had lived in Gulf Stream for over 15 years, had multiple
kids that attended Gulf Stream School, successfully and tastefully
renovated multiple houses in Gulf Stream that added value and were not
looking to build a mansion or spec home.
Chairman Smith noted that the Commission had sent this
application back to the Board to look at four specific items and
addressing those before sending it back to the Commission.
Mr. Benjamin Schreier then gave a detailed PowerPoint
presentation and identified that the four items the Commission asked
them to address, which were overall height, reviewing the special
exception, the color of window frames and garage doors and seeing the
house more clearly with the landscaping specific to the elevations. He
started by showing eight similar lots in Gulf Stream with five having
greater lot coverage than they are proposing and three with less. He
stated five of those homes were at 30' in height, which is the same as
they are proposing. Mr. Schreier showed views from every direction of
the Cove to show that the massing wasn't out of proportion. Board
Member Roach thought the views on the rendering made the Cove look
T.
Minutes of ARPB Meeting & Public Hearing
Held 1-27-2022 @ 8:30 A.M.
gargantuan and Mr. Schreier apologized and stated it wasn't meant to do
that just to show the views with the landscaping in its totality. Mr.
Schreier addressed the special exception by stating that the home
opposite the proposed residence had a lot of 16' setback and the
proposed home is set back at 30' meeting the minimum requirements
therefore it didn't alter the character of the waterfront in the
immediate vicinity, including other properties facing onto the same cove
or stretch of waterway. He added that the existing home is five feet
closer to the waterway than the home being proposed. He then addressed
the other issues of the special exception. Mr. Shchreier showed
straight -on renderings of elevations as asked for by the Commission. He
noted the change in the window frame colors to a lighter blue and the
garage doors being changed to white.
Board Member Roach stated that the Board had tried to not issue
special exceptions on new constructions and brought up the end -cut that
had been bought by Mr. Davis. He added that when it was purchased Mr.
Davis had said there would be no construction and now they were
proposing to build an 8,720 sq. ft. over the approximate 4,900 sq. ft.
house that is presently on the lot, which he stated was a substantial
increase in mass.
Mr. Davis handed out a picture of the house and property when they
purchased it and added that it was two lots put together and the end -cut
would square the lots off. He added that when they bought the end -cut,
he had stated they had no intention of building a new home and at the
time they bought the end -cut, that was the truth. He went on to say
they paid the Town $347,000 for that end -cut to get the incremental
square footage and felt entitled to the benefit of building a house that
complies with all the rules and regulations.
Chairman Smith asked if all four of the criteria needed to be met
for the special exception to which Assistant Town Attorney answered in
the affirmative. The Board didn't feel that the applicant met all four
of the criteria for the special exception. Board Member Roach brought
up the size doubling what was there again, and Board Member Smith didn't
think that an 8,000 sq. ft. house was too big for that size lot, but
thought the Commission was worried about the look and mass and suggested
that might change instead of the square footage. Chairman Smith asked
if the motor court could be moved over ten feet to which Mr. Schreier
explained they wouldn't be able to get in and out of the garage. Vice
Chairman Murphy read from the minutes of the Commission meeting on
December 10, 2021, and stated that Vice Mayor Stanley had made the
motion to review and/or remove the special exception proposed to which
Mr. Schreier answered they had reviewed it and felt they were meeting
the four criteria in the special exception.
Mr. Joe Peterson, Landscape Architect, stated they had enhanced the
landscaping substantially, especially on the eastern elevation, as
requested by the Commission.
Mr. Davis stated he understood that it was not favorable to grant
special exceptions for new construction, but he thought waterfront
5
Minutes of ARPB Meeting & Public Hearing
Held 1-27-2022 @ 8:30 A.M.
property was different than non -waterfront property, and in their case,
the four -prong test was being done on waterfront property. Assistant
Town Attorney Nazzaro explained to the Board that Mr. Davis was
referring to special exceptions for rear setback waterfront lots in the
Core District and was able to apply for a special exception by meeting
the four criteria.
Mr. Bill Boardman, Town resident, explained he was representing not
only himself as an individual resident, but also as a representative of
the Gulf Stream Civic Association and gave a brief history of the
association. He explained that a special meeting was held on January
17, 2022, by the association board to review the overall situation of
the Davis application and the issues surrounding applying the zoning
code. He stated that the clear sense of the meeting was one of concern
over the mansionization of the Core area of the Town and the need for
the Town to actively protect the existing character of the Town, as set
for in the Zoning Code, particularly in the preamble and those sections
that deal with site plan review. Mr. Boardman went on to say the
Association Board would like to see the list of items prepared by the
Commission implemented and resultant changes made in the design of the
house. He stated particular care should be given to the item concerning
reduction of mass, reduced second level portions should be considered to
make the relationships more consistent with neighbors, giving up the 500
square feet of permitted building, gained from the land purchased from
the Town. Mr. Boardman stated they had reviewed the updated filing made
by the applicant and it appeared that no changed had been made to the
structures and no effort made to address the items listed by the
Commission. He added there were new elevations that were confusing and
seemed to leave out high parts of structures behind plantings. Mr.
Boardman thought that the applicants were just covering up non-
conforming structures with foliage. He then gave a bit of history of
Gulf Stream written at the time of the adoption of the Design Manual in
1996 regarding mansionization.
Vice Chairman Murphy asked Mr. Davis to share the feedback he
received from the Commissioners that he spoke with. Mr. Davis started
by stating he didn't understand why Mr. Boardman thought the house being
proposed was non -conforming. Mr. Davis stated that one of the
Commissioners he spoke with agreed with him when he stated that their
job was to not let personal opinions get in the way of the rules, which
they were meeting except for the special exception, which he thought
they were meeting for waterfront property. Mr. Davis stated another
Commissioner had said with a big family, you aren't going to build a
6,000 sq. ft. house on that lot. Mr. Davis stated the house was being
built within the rules and regulations of the Code and the word
"massing" was totally subjective to each person's opinion. He added
that he had suggested removing some of the gables thinking that was what
was making it look massive and he said that the Commissioner stated they
liked that about the house and to not change that because it was unique
and different. He said they had suggested providing a letter to the
0
Minutes of ARPB Meeting & Public Hearing
Held 1-27-2022 @ 8:30 A.M.
neighbors with the updated elevations, which they had taken their advice
and done just that as well as providing the landscaping.
Mr. Boardman stated the Code talked about massing and consistency
with the neighborhood and added that you couldn't just look at the
mathematics within the Code and quoted Section 66-144.
Discussion was had among the Board members and Chairman Smith stated
that the objective issues were being met but it was the subjective
issues that they were having problems coming to terms with. He added
that objectively they had already approved the application and were
asking to look at it again by the Commission. Vice Chairman Murphy was
concerned that the Commission asked them to look at certain points and
even if they made a recommendation to the Commission, he didn't want
everyone to just keep spinning their wheels. The Board agreed that if
they sent the application back to the Commission as it was presented to
them, it wouldn't be approved because nothing had really been changed
except for colors and landscaping. Mr. Schreier asked if they could
address massing instead of square footage and the special exception and
the Board members agreed that would be acceptable.
Vice Chairman Murphy made a motion to defer the application to a
Special ARPB Meeting to be held on Thursday, February 3, 2022, at 8:30
A.M. with a concept addressing the massing. Alternate Board Member
seconded the motion with all voting AYE at roll call.
VII. Items by Staff
There were none.
VIII. Items by Board Members
There were none.
IX. Public
There was none.
X. Adjournment
Chairman Smith adjourned the meeting at 10:23 A.M.
Rene Basel
Deputy
7