HomeMy Public PortalAbout02/28/2013MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM,
FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2013 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL,
100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA.
I. Call to Order. Chairman Morgan called the Meeting to order at
8:30 A.M.
II. Roll Call.
Present and
Participating
Absent w /Notice
Also Present and
Participating
III. Minutes
Mr. Lyons move
Regular Meeting
All voted AYE.
Scott Morgan
Tom Smith
Paul Lyons
Malcolm Murphy
George Delafield
Amanda Jones
Ann Aker
William Thrasher
Rita Taylor
John Randolph
Bernard and Stephanie
Molyneux
Hilel Presser of
2745 Ave Au Soleil
Martin O'Boyle
Charles Siemon, Esq.
Siemon & Larson P.A.
Robert Currie, Arch.
Currie, Sowards &
Aguila Architects
Bill Ring, Esq., of
Commerce Group, Inc.
Mark Marsh of Digby,
Bridges, Marsh & Assoc
Chairman
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Alternate Member
Vice - Chairman
Alternate Member
Town Manager
Town Clerk
Town Attorney
Applicant /915 Emerald
For Molyneux
Applic /23 Hidden
Harbour Dr.
Rep. Martin O'Boyle
Rep. Martin O'Boyle
Agent /O'Boyle
Agent /Julien &
Grumney
of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearin of 1- 24 -13.
d and Mr. Murphy seconded to approve the Minutes of the
and Public Hearing of 1/24/13. There was no discussion.
IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals arrangement of agenda items.
There were no changes.
V. Announcements.
A. Meeting Dates
1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
a. March 28, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M.
b. April 25, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M.
c. May 23, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M.
d. June 27, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M.
e. July 25, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M.
f. August 2013 -No Meeting
Architectural Review and Planning Board
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 28, 2013 Page 2
Chairman Morgan noted the Meeting Schedule and asked if there were any
conflicts. Mr. Lyons stated that he would not be available for the
March 28th Regular Meeting and Public Hearing. There were no other
conflicts.
VI. PUBLIC HEARING.
A. Applications for Development Approval
Chairman Morgan asked for declarations of Ex -parte communication for any
�. of the applications being heard. There were none. Clerk Taylor
administered the Oath to the following: Bernard Molyneux, Stephanie
Molyneux, Hilel Presser, Martin O'Boyle, William Ring, Esq., Charles
Siemon, Esq., Robert Currie, Arch., Mark Marsh, Arch.
1. An application submitted by Bernard and Stephanie
Molyneux, owners of the property located at 915 Emerald
Row, Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described as
Lot 64, Place Au Soleil Subdivision, Gulf Stream, Florida
a. VARIANCE to allow a roof replacement on an existing
Gulf Stream Bermuda style, single family, one story
dwelling, of a color and material that do not conform
to the provisions of Sections 70 -107 and 70 -238 of
the Gulf Stream Zoning Code.
b. LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL /SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the
installation of a brown, flat cement tile roof,
replacing the existing wood shake roof, on an
existing Gulf Stream Bermuda style, single family,
one story dwelling
Bernard Molyneux of 915 Emerald Row stated that he would like to change
his roof from shaker to flat cement tile and is asking for a variance to
allow a brown tile which is similar in color to the existing shaker. He
said the original home had a brown shaker roof, it was later replaced
with brown shaker, and now he would like a flat cement tile of a similar
brown color, which is characteristic to the style of the home. The
Board Members were shown a tile sample.
Chairman Morgan said the Town worked very hard on Code changes relating
to roof material and color. He said he personally likes the idea of the
shake look, but brown cement tile is directly prohibited. Chairman
Morgan said the ultimate decision is with the Commission, and he
suggested that maybe the approach should be that the shake -look of the
brown tile is an integral design element to the structure. Mr. Smith
asked if any precedent was set in the past allowing the original roof
color to remain if replaced with another material. Mr. Thrasher said to
his knowledge there is no
g precedent. Mr. Lyons asked if the applicant
could replace his roof with a shake roof. Mr. Thrasher confirmed that.
Mr. Molyneux said there is nothing wrong with his roof, but it is
difficult to get insurance on a wood shake roof. He said he had three
estimates and they have either refused coverage or quoted a very high
rate. Mr. Molyneux said he changed his windows and garage door to
hurricane resistant as suggested by insurance carriers, but he cannot
get insurance without improving the roof. He said he would like to
replace the roof with a similar - colored cement tile. Mr. Molyneux said
Architectural Review and Planning Board
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 28, 2013 Page 3
another reason for replacing the roof is that it is 15 years old, and he
said he has an engineer's report stating that cement tile will hold up
better in a storm. Hilel Presser of 2745 Avenue Au Soleil, a neighbor
of Mr. Molyneux, was present to lend his support and to encourage the
Board to approve the request. Mr. Molyneux said his neighbors have no
objections and may send letters of support to the Town. Chairman Morgan
said the Kubrickys, who are adjacent to Mr. Molyneux, sent a letter in
his support. Clerk Taylor said there have been no objections from
�. neighbors and no other letters have been received.
Mr. Lyons asked about other wood shake roofs in the neighborhood. Mr.
Molyneux said there are three or four others. Mr. Thrasher said he
likes the roof tile, but believes a variance is required, and he said at
least one of the eight standards have not been met. He said in Standard
#2 it states "The special conditions and circumstances do not result
from the action of the applicant," but he said based on what we have
heard, they do result from the applicant. In addition, he said Standard
#3 states "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." Chairman
Morgan said he also reviewed the Standards and was trying to find a
basis on which to recommend approval. Mr. Lyons asked if a refusal of
insurance would be considered a hardship. Mr. Thrasher said the Code is
more strict with white cement thru and thru groove, non - textured, non -
coated being added, but he said white thru and thru was always preferred
and required. He said the applicant can purchase a concrete roof
material of a color that meets Code and he would be able to get
insurance and, therefore, as it relates to insurance it is not
considered a hardship.
Mr. Molyneux said there are two roofs across the canal from him that are
brown and were done recently. Mr. Thrasher said if the architectural
style of a home is determined to be something other than Bermuda, there
is more flexibility relating to color in our Code. Mediterranean and
Other Various styles would have more flexibility with color. Chairman
Morgan said the Board is sympathetic with their position, but their
hands are tied. He said he would encourage them present their position
to the Commission.
Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Lyons seconded to recommend denial of a variance
based on a finding that the proposed brown /tan concrete roof material is
( prohibited by Gulf Stream Zoning Code Sections 70 -107 and 70 -238.
Additionally, none of the required eight (8) Standards for granting a
variance have been met as defined in Section 66 -154. There was no
discussion. All voted AYE. Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Lyons seconded to
recommend denial of Level III Architectural /Site Plan based on the
finding that the proposed brown /tan roof material is prohibited by Gulf
Stream Zoning Code Sections 70 -107 and 70 -238, and none of the required
eight (8) standards for granting a variance have been met as defined in
Section 66 -154. There was no discussion. All voted AYE.
Architectural Review and Planning Board
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 28, 2013 Page 4
Mr. Randolph asked if there was any sympathy on the part of the Board tc
recommending that the Town Commission look at an amendment to the Code
to create an exception where a roof color that has been in existence
would be allowed to remain if replaced with a tile roof. Chairman
Morgan, Mr. Smith, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Lyons and Mr. Delafield were in
agreement and sympathetic to what the Molyneuxs are going through,
particularly with the hardship they face on the insurance issue.
Chairman Morgan said the color of the tile is attractive and appropriate
�..' to their home, and he said because it is a design element of the
existing structure, Code Section 70 -107 may allow the Commission to
approve an exception under these limited circumstances. Mr. Randolph
asked if the Board would like to move the recommendation to the
Commission. Mr. Lyons moved and Mr. Murphy seconded to recommend that
the Commission look at an amendment to the Code, or approve an
exception, where a certain roof color, which has been in existence, can
remain if replaced with a tile roof of the same color. There was no
discussion. All voted AYE.
2. An application submitted by William Ring, Commerce Group,
Inc. as agent for Martin O'Boyle, owner of property
located at 23 Hidden Harbour Dr., Gulf Stream, Florida,
legally described as Lot 5, Hidden Harbour Estates, Gulf
Stream, Florida.
a. VARIANCE #1 to allow a net addition 109 square feet
to the front entry feature of the existing non-
conforming two -story single family dwelling that
currently exceeds the maximum permitted floor area
ratio by 2,589 square feet.
b. VARIANCE #2 to permit the first -story eave height of
the proposed entry feature to exceed the maximum
discouraged height of 12.5 feet by 2.5 feet to the
architectural element.
C. VARIANCE #3 to permit the second -story eave height of
the proposed entry feature to exceed the maximum
discouraged height of 23 feet by 2 feet.
d. VARIANCE #4 to permit an additional 2 foot
encroachment beyond the existing 9 foot 8 inch front
setback encroachment.
e. DEMOLITION PERMIT to remove 229 square feet of gross
floor area.
f. LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL /SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit an
addition for a cumulative increase of 109 square feet
to an existing 8,001 square foot, non - conforming,
Spanish Mediterranean Revival, two -story single
family dwelling.
Charles Siemon of Siemon & Larsen, P.A. in Boca Raton, introduced
himself and stated that he is a Land Use Planner and Land Use Attorney.
He said some expert testimony is appropriate for this matter and he
offered his resume into the record. Mr. Siemon's resume will be filed
in the Official Records of the Town of Gulf Stream.
Mr. Siemon said he will present the applicant's position, but he said it
is a difficult and complex set of facts, and he said whether his
Architectural Review and Planning Board
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 28, 2013 Page 5
applicant qualifies for a variance, or if a variance is even necessary,
requires the interpretation of the Town Code. He said the issues are
judged by legal principles and architectural design. Mr. Siemon said
the Board has been given a recommendation that draws conclusions or
interpretations of the Code that are not consistent with legal
principals or architectural design. He added that Staff analysis is
also devoid of the principles that guide the interpretation of the Code.
Mr. Siemon said the purpose and intent of the Town's variance provision
includes two separate concepts that are separated by the word "or,"
which is alternative. He said he believes the proper reading of the
Code is: "Variance are deviations from the terms of this Code that would
not be contrary to the public interest when owing to special
circumstances or conditions, or when the literal enforcement of the
provisions would result in an undue hardship." Mr. Siemon said he
believes the law requires that it be read disjunctively, that there are
two circumstances under which variances are authorized by this Code.
Mr. Siemon said the following: There are numerous cases in the State of
Florida where the State has interpreted the word "or" to mean that they
are disjunctive. That leads to analyzing each of the set standards and
the eight standards do not apply to every variance application. Two of
them are about uses and have nothing to do with this matter. This is a
non - conforming structure made non - conforming by the adoption of the Gulf
Stream Design Manual in 1995 through no fault of the owner. Mr. O'Boyle
built the house in 1983 and complied with all requirements and it is a
lawfully non - conforming structure that he can maintain as is, but it has
lived out its usefulness as a design in the community and their attempts
to upgrade are being frustrated by an inaccurate interpretation of the
Code.
Chairman Morgan asked for the citation of the variance section. Mr.
Siemon said the purpose and intent is in 66 -150. A series of standards
are in 66 -154, and he said the special circumstances would apply here.
He said the home is significantly non - conforming and, with the changes
in setbacks, if this property did not have a home on it you could not
build on it. Mr. Siemon said he understands that the Town made a
decision to set up guidelines to control future development in the
community, but he said when there is a major change you look for ways to
deal with existing structures that are not consistent with new
regulations and recommend a provision allowing improvement by complying
with the maximum extent practical with the requirements of the new
design regulations.
Mr. Siemon said the area of improvement is the fagade of the home facing
the private lane. It has a very ordinary character unique to the
community and they would like to upgrade from the long horizontal look
and create architectural interest by building a tower at the entrance
and replace all windows and redo the building. He said he believes a
variance is not required for the entry feature and that staff has
applied the wrong provision of the Code. If it does apply, a variance
is supposed to allow deviations from the Code that is in the spirit and
intent of the regulations which are non - conforming as long as they are
Architectural Review and Planning Board
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 28, 2013 Page 6
harmonious. Mr. Siemon said this is not a hardship created by the
applicant, it comes from the Code and everything is non- conforming.
This is a special circumstance where they are applying for a minimum
amount of change. He said the real issue is the tower, which is
intended to mitigate the horizontal character of the design, and leaving
the existing condition rather than improving it in a modest way is not
consistent with the Design Manual. Granting the variance will be in
harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Code and not
detrimental to the public welfare. The property owner, his neighbors
and the Town will benefit.
Mr. Siemon referred to a drawing of the proposed entry feature and he
said Staff believes the feature violates the eave height provisions of
the design manual, but he said the overall height of the structure,
which is 30 feet, meets Code. He said the structure is covered, but
there is no floor, it is clear from the top of the step to the top of
the structure inside, and there are no windows, just arches. It is an
entryway that provides vertical character to the horizontal look of the
home.
Mr. Siemon referred to a drawing of a tower with a flat roof, no second -
story eave, saying that particular design is permitted by Code, which he
indicated was on Page A2.01 of their presentation documents. He said
this is where an architect's expertise should be included in evaluating
what is an eave and what violates Code. Mr. Siemon said an eave is part
of a roof, and the area of the structure staff calls a first story roof
is not a roof, it is a cornice line, or a decorative treatment. Without
the cornice line it is not consistent with the intent of the overall
design of the design manual. He said the proposed entry feature does
not have a second story and it complies with the height limit.
Mr. Siemon said if you look at the definition of "story" and the
definition of "floor" in the Code, what the applicant is proposing is
not a second story, it is an entry feature and both the height of the
entry feature, which is 301, and the eave height, satisfies the Code.
He said it is not a second story because you cannot get to the top,
there are no stairs, only air, and he said there is a provision in the
Code addressing that. Mr. Siemon said the design manual uses FAR as a
surrogate for regulating the volume of the building. The Code says if
you have a covered space that exceeds 151, you have to double in
calculating the floor area. He said the entry feature is outside of the
building and it is not a porch area and, therefore, you do not have to
calculate floor area.
Mr. Siemon said there is an entry feature provision in Subsection 70-
100. Roof and eave heights. (a) Generally (4), which is difficult to
understand and apply. He said, "I think it is understood that it is a
different kind of feature from a one -story portion of the residence and
a two -story portion of the residence, which are these lines right here
and right here." Mr. Thrasher asked Mr. Siemon to clarify and said,
"could you tell me again, you made the statement that variance is
required because of square footage, and only because of this thing.
Architectural Review and Planning Board
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 28, 2013 Page 7
What is this thing ?" Mr. Sieman said it is the entry feature which
replaces the existing entrance.
Mr. Siemon said there is a provision in the Code addressing
modifications of existing structures and provides that the height from
the base building can vary to the extent necessary to identify the
entranceway to make it more monumental. Mr. Siemon displayed a photo of
the Gulf Stream Town Hall, which he said reflects the architectural
principle they are trying to achieve with the proposed tower, or entry
feature. He said it will be an improvement over the existing condition,
the applicant built the home himself, he built it to Code, it is his
principal residence, and it is a lawful non- conforming structure. Mr.
Siemon said he did not care whether or not a variance is required, or
granted to make this clear, but he does care about the recognition that
the intent of the design manual is met here.
Mr. Siemon displayed a survey of the property and said there is a
provision in the design code that excludes certain portions of a
property in calculating the floor area, and that includes any property
separated by a public or private road. He pointed out the private road
indicated in green at the top of survey, which is dated November 21,
1994. Mr. Siemon offered the survey into the record. The survey will
be filed in the Official Records of the Town of Gulf Stream.
Mr. Siemon said, I am now talking about this small deviation of adding
space, if you interpret this as floor area, and I believe there is a
reason not to, the double counting of what is not floor area because it
is more than 16' under this area, that goes away, and then the fact that
more than 50% of this property is not counted in the effective floor
area -land area, this lot is 39,000 plus feet, the water is excluded, the
road is excluded, the 10' buffer is excluded and this is what is left.
This lot and its unique configuration was not considered in the Code
interpretation. Chairman Morgan asked Mr. Siemon if his analysis is
leading up to addressing the setback change. Mr. Siemon said he is only
addressing the application of the Code and that Mr. Currie and Mr. Ring
will address the setback issue.
Mr. Siemon said in Section 70 -100, the sub - categories of height are one
story homes and two story homes, and he said all of the eave height
regulations apply only to the two story portions and the only one that
doesn't is the 30' height limit which is found in the negative in the
prohibited section and what it says is that for two story portions
greater than the following, the north south district, 301, you can't go
beyond that, that's what the prohibited says, and by definition that
means 30' is this and I believe Staff has acknowledged that this part of
it is conforming and it is only this eave and while that eave is a part
of a roof I would submit to you that it is not a two story portion of
the building. He said he believes it is consistent with the intent and
purpose and language of the Code.
Robert Currie of Currie, Sowards, Aquila Architects, Project Architect,
introduced himself and said in his 44 years as an architect he designed
a number of homes in Gulf Stream that have won architectural awards.
Architectural Review and Planning Board
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 28, 2013 Page 8
Mr. Currie said, as Mr. Siemon explained, they are trying to apply a
vertical element in the horizontal scheme of this home to make it more
characteristic of Gulf Stream and to make the entry feature more
appropriate than the existing entry. He explained that they will cut
the lanai area back into the setback and add only a couple of feet in
the front to capture the two roofs that come out on the side, which is
almost equal to what they will cut away. Mr. Currie said the Code
provides that when you take something off you can only count half and
C when you add you have to count the full amount. He said they are not
adding more physical space and they are reducing the physical setback.
Mr. Thrasher asked Mr. Currie to display the lanai area. Mr. Currie
said it is on Page A3.01 of their presentation documents.
With regard to the tower, Mr. Currie said the height is in compliance
with Code, but he said if they brought the eave down to the 22' where it
would comply, it would have a smashed appearance. He said an eave is
the underside of a roof overhang, but he said this is a cornice, it is a
much better design and it improves the look of the home. Chairman Morgan
asked Mr. Currie to confirm that the drawing he is referring to is on
Page A2.01. Mr. Currie confirmed that. Mr. Smith referred to the new
8' open air area and asked if it just went up like a shaft and if there
were any windows on the inside of the home located behind that area.
Mr. Currie said there are windows now, but they will be closed off and
there will be no access from the physical structure to the tower. Mr.
Lyons said it does look like a tower and he likes the other version
better because it is more subtle. He asked if there was another design
that did not stick out as much. Mr. Currie said the graphic is
deceiving because of the coloring. Chairman Morgan said it could be the
mass of the feature, and he asked if they could design a smaller and
more diminutive feature that would not raise the potential for variance
issues. Mr. Currie said the problem with bringing down the height is
how it intersects with the existing roof and it would look like a
mistake. He brought the drawing to the dais in front of Chairman Morgan
to explain.
Chairman Morgan asked Mr. Currie about the setback. Mr. Currie said the
setback is a consequence of the changes in the Code, and then a road was
put in after the fact, and then the Code imposes a 10' buffer. He said
the current setback only allows for a couple of feet of building. Mr.
Currie said the other setback issue is the lanai that sticks out, they
are getting rid of it and pulling the new feature out two feet. Mr.
Lyons asked if there has been any feedback from the neighbors. Clerk
Taylor said there has been no feedback.
William Ring, Agent for the applicant and a Florida Attorney, introduced
himself, and to assist him in answering questions about the setback
issue, he distributed some photos and referred to Sheet A1.01 in the
packet, which shows the site plan, the lanai area and the dimension of
6'6 ". He said you can see that the existing location of the lanai area
extends further into the setback area than the proposed entry feature.
Further, he pointed out that the actual Variance #4 states that they are
asking for an additional 2' encroachment beyond the existing 918"
setback. Mr. Ring said the 918" that is referenced is measured from the
Architectural Review and Planning Board
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 28, 2013 Page 9
planter, maybe because that is where the roof overhangs, but he said the
new entry feature comes out to about the edge of the planter and the
encroachment is not 2'. He said there may be some amount that is
further than the roof edge to give it a bit of reveal, but he said the
9'8" is measured from the edge of the planter to the 10' buffer from the
edge of the paved area. Mr. Ring referred to Sheet A1.01 where it says
line of effective lot area, and he said if you follow the line where
there is a 10' measurement (buffer area), the next line is 1118"
existing building setback. He said whomever drew this plan measured the
setback from the actual building.
Mr. Smith asked if the face of this feature will be flush with the roof
on the west side. Mr. Ring said it will be consistent with the roof,
but not with the wall. Chairman Morgan asked if any portion of the
feature is livable space. Mr. Ring said there is no livable space with
this feature. Mr. Currie said it is all open space.
Mr. Ring said Variance #1 is the request for a 109 SF net addition, and
he said Mr. Siemon explained that this is not an addition. He said
there is no additional floor area being added, there is one entry
feature to be demolished and one being constructed that is covered, but
with no additional floor area. Mr. Ring said he does not believe a
variance is required for that, but if it is required it should be
approved because it is a fictional measurement.
Mr. Ring said Mr. Siemon and Mr. Currie spoke to Variance #2 which was
the requirement that the first floor eave height was exceeded because
what the Town calls the first floor eave is 151. Mr. Ring pointed out
Marty Minor's report of 1/25/13, Table 2, where Mr. Minor called this an
architectural element, not an eave. He said it is a tiled ridge or a
cornice, an architectural element, and he said they do not need a
variance to exceed the first floor eave height because it is not an
eave, but if it is required the Board should approve because it is not
an eave.
Mr. Ring said Mr. Siemon spoke to the effects of the Code on the gross
and net lot area of the property and showed an old survey. He said one
of the requests was for a Level III /Architectural Site Plan Review for
the addition to a non - conforming use where the square footage of the
home exceeds what is allowable. If you ran the Code's percentages to
the real lot area this home would not exceed any allowable floor area
( ratios, it is only when you apply the Code ratios to the fictional net
lot area that you come to this non - conforming calculation. For those
reasons, that variance should be granted.
Mr. Siemon referred to the last two sentences in Section 70 -100 (a)
Generally. (4), which read: "Entry features, if used, should provide a
sense of arrival, yet should not overpower them or the remainder of the
structure. The scale and proportion of entry features should be
consistent with the rest of the structure, varying just enough to
provide a focal point to the front of the house." He said it is ironic
that we are in a building using that same architectural design to create
an identity of where the entrance of Town Hall is. The Code requirement
Architectural Review and Planning Board
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 28, 2013 Page 10
is will it be in harmony, will it make it more consistent with the
intent of the design manual.
The applicant, Martin O'Boyle of 23 Hidden Harbour Drive, introduced
himself, he stated that he is a Real Estate Developer with 43 years or
experience in development, building and design. Mr. O'Boyle thanked Mr.
Currie, Mr. Siemon and Mr. Ring for making a presentation on his behalf
and he said they did a wonderful job and they were very diplomatic. He
said he is somewhat outraged and explained that he bought the lot in the
70s, he built the home between 1981 and 1983 in keeping with the style
of the time, but he said it is not the style of today. Mr. O'Boyle said
he has worked with Mr. Currie and Mr. Ring for probably a thousand hours
on a multitude of designs to come up with one that functions, bring the
home into the new millennium and will improve the neighborhood. He said
there are six homes in Hidden Harbour, he built his home and the home
next to him, and he said he is in the process of rebuilding 16 South
Hidden Harbour. Mr. O'Boyle said he believes everyone on the Board and
those who drafted the Code has good intentions. He said this will be a
big improvement to his home and he disagrees with Mr. Thrasher's
analysis of the project. Mr. O'Boyle said he has millions of dollars
invested in this home which he has lived in for 30 years and believes a
bit of deference should be given to him and that nobody should impose
their taste upon his assets. With regard to the setback issue, he said
he considered taking down the home and rebuilding, but the property has
been zoned to oblivion and he said he could not build a dog house on it.
Mr. O'Boyle said he believes his property is worth between $2.6 million
and $3.6 million to build a dog house on it, and he said if you want an
ugly building, he will oblige. In closing he said he hopes the Board
will accommodate their request, he has millions of dollars invested, he
has neighbors and there are no objections, and he said he hopes the
Board will allow he and his wife to do what they want with their asset.
Mr. Lyons asked Mr. O'Boyle if he knows of any other home in Gulf Stream
with this type of entryway. Mr. O'Boyle said he has not viewed any
other of the homes in Gulf Stream in that way, but he has in Palm Beach
and he said he is impressed with the Town Hall building. Mr. Lyons
asked to have the picture of Town Hall put up against the picture of
what they are proposing. Mr. Currie said that one is a one story
structure and the other is a two story structure. Mr. O'Boyle asked if
anyone on the Board found the design distasteful. Mr. Lyons said he did
not feel it was particularly appealing and asked if it could be wider
and more proportionate. Mr. Currie agrees that it should have been
shown in one color so that it didn't appear as prominent. Mr. O'Boyle
said taste should not be considered here.
Chairman Morgan said a lot has been heard about the primary issues of
setback and the interpretation of eave height and whether or not this is
a variance from Code or a design application. Mr. Randolph said the
issue before the Board today is limited to substantiating the variance
that is requested. There is an opportunity in the Code to challenge the
decision of the Administrative Official, and if they challenge the
decision of the Administrative Official it should be applied for and
advertised. When Mr. Siemon made his comments, he indicated that he did
Architectural Review and Planning Board
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 28, 2013 Page 11
not care if the Board agreed with him as to whether or not a variance ie
required, and that he was only laying the background for the fact that
if you were to grant a variance today it would not do an injustice to
the Code the way he interprets it. Mr. Randolph said, because this was
not advertised as a challenge of the decision of the Administrative
Official, he is not prepared to advise the Board Members on whether or
not the Administrative Official is correct in his interpretation, and he
said that is not the decision the Board has to make today. He said if
the challenge was going to be made to his opinion it should have been
applied for and advertised so that you would know what you were dealing
with. Chairman Morgan said it is a good point, but he assumed that the
opposition to Staff's determination would be to challenge any aspect of
that decision and whether it is in support of a variance or whether it
undermines the determination of a variance, and he said he assumed that
it would be a part of the application. He said if it is not, it will
change the direction this Board will take.
Mr. Thrasher said that, on more than one occasion with Rita Taylor in
his presence, he offered Mr. O'Boyle information which provided his
options; one option was a variance application, and the other was the
opportunity to challenge his administrative decision. He said the
options were on the table from the beginning, and conversations with Mr.
Ring indicated to him that they would not challenge the administrative
decision, but would apply for variances as it relates to that specific
issue. Chairman Morgan said by challenging the determination of
variance they are recognizing that the Code sections to which they
argued did not apply, which seemed to be the entire crux of the
argument. He said they were not disputing Staff's decision that the
applicant did not meet the eight requirements for variance, they were
saying a variance did not apply at all. Mr. Randolph said they were
saying that, but as background for why the Board should grant the
variance and why criteria for variance have been met. He said the Board
is not here today to determine whether or not they need a variance, but
to determine whether or not the variances applied for meet the criteria,
and he said the Board can consider the background and the arguments
made.
Chairman Morgan said it becomes very easy. Mr. Murphy asked Mr.
Randolph for clarification on one of the arguments of what is an eave
and what is not an eave. Mr. Randolph said he is not prepared to
discuss whether or not the ordinance as drafted would consider this an
eave or not, but the issue before the Board is based upon the
application as made for a variance regarding eave height. Mr. Siemon
asked Mr. Randolph if he is talking about an appeal under Division 5.
Appeals. Mr. Randolph confirmed that. Mr. Siemon asked if the appeal
would be of the administrative decision that a variance is required, and
he asked if there is a development order or something that makes that an
appealable issue. Mr. Randolph said the Code does provide for an appeal
of the decision of the Administrative Official in regard to his
interpretation of the Code, and he said it was discussed with the
applicant as an option. Mr. Siemon asked if the appeal goes to the
Board of Adjustment. Mr. Randolph confirmed that. Chairman Morgan
asked Mr. Siemon if he would like an opportunity to consult with his
Architectural Review and Planning Board
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 28, 2013 Page 12
client. Mr. Siemon said he would like to consult with his client. Mr.
Randolph suggested they leave the room for privacy and the discussion
would resume following the next items. Mr. Currie read the definition
of "Eave" from Code as follows: "Eave shall mean projected overhang of
the lower edge of a roof."
Item VI.A.2 was recessed at this point to allow Mr. Siemon to consult
with the applicant. Mr. Randolph asked Chairman Morgan to move on to
Item VI.A.3 and 4 at this time.
3. An application submitted by Mark Marsh, Bridges, Marsh &
Associates, Inc. as agent for Mr.& Mrs. Robert Julien,
owners of property located at 1601 North Ocean Blvd., Gulf
Stream, Florida, legally described in metes and bounds in
Government Lot 1, Section 10, Township 46 South, Range 43
East.
a. LEVEL 2 ARCHITECTURAL /SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit an
addition of 392 square feet to the south east corner
of the existing Spanish Mediterranean Revival style
single family dwelling, to enclose an existing
breezeway on the north side of the dwelling and to
install a roof over the existing trellis connection
to the existing guest house.
Mark Marsh, of Digby Bridges, Marsh & Assoc, Agent for Julien,
introduced himself, he said there are three areas covered in this
application; the first is a one -story addition on the south east corner
of the existing structure, the second is the enclosure of the existing
breezeway and the third is to roof what is now an open trellised walkway
linking the guest house to the main house. He said displayed renderings
of elevations showing the proposed improvements, and he said it is all
compatible with the existing structure, the materials are the same and
there are no issues with FAR coverage. Chairman Morgan asked if there
have been any objections from neighbors. Clerk Taylor said there have
been no objections.
Mr. Lyons moved and Mr. Smith seconded to approve Level II
Architectural /Site Plan, based on a finding that the proposed addition
of 392 SF to the south east corner of the existing Spanish Mediterranean
style single family dwelling, enclosure of an existing breezeway on the
north side of the dwelling and installation of a roof over the existing
trellis connection to the existing guest house meet the minimum intent
of the Design Manual and applicable review standards. There was no
discussion. All voted AYE.
4. An application submitted by Mark Marsh, Bridges, Marsh &
Associates, Inc., as agent for Mr. & Mrs. Nelson Grumney,
Jr., owners of the property located at 2960 Polo Drive,
Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described as Lot 21
and part of Lot 20 in Gulf Steam Cove Subdivision.
a. SPECIAL EXCEPTION #1 to permit the extension of the
non - conforming south wall of the existing structure,
that encroaches a maximum of 1 foot into the south
side setback, to add a master bedroom of
approximately 302 square feet to be located on the
first floor.
Architectural Review and Planning Board
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 28, 2013 Page 13
b. SPECIAL EXCEPTION #2 to permit the addition of the
proposed 302 square foot master bedroom to extend 20
feet into the 50 foot rear setback.
C. DEMOLITION PERMIT to allow small portion of existing
garage to be removed in order to realign the 2 car
garage.
d. LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL /SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the
addition of a master bedroom, a small addition to the
kitchen, a realignment of the 2 car garage and a new
front entry, a net increase of 540 square feet on the
first floor of an existing partial two story Neo-
French Eclectic single family dwelling.
Mr. Marsh introduced himself as Agent for Mr. and Mrs. Grumney. He said
the home is a Neo- Classical French Eclectic style home, previously owned
by Mr. and Mrs. David Jones, and he said there have been a couple of
renovations over the years. Mr. Marsh said when the Grumneys purchased
the home they identified some areas that are not compatible with their
lifestyle, and he said they are applying for two special exceptions to
allow them to extend the non - conforming south wall for the addition of a
Master Bedroom. He said under the special exception criteria in Section
70 -75, they meet the justification for the side yard setback and they
are allowed to encroach 20' into the required 50' setback. Mr. Marsh
said they will create a new entry feature, expand the kitchen to the
west and realign the garage to be parallel with the road and more
compatible with the neighborhood.
Mr. Marsh displayed renderings showing the expansion of the kitchen
area, which he said created some difficulty in complying with setbacks
because of the strange angle. He referred to the following on the
renderings: (1) The new entry portico, which is in keeping with the
scale of the structure; (2) the new garage wing, which will mimic the
existing brick and the existing slate roof; (3) the expansion of the
master wing; and, (4) the reconfiguration of the kitchen area. Mr.
Marsh said they will match the fenestration across the west face, groom
the overgrown landscaping, replace hedging and create some foundation
planting. He said one area that was not addressed was as part of the
improvements is the driveway. Mr. Marsh said they would like to replace
the gravel with a paved driveway to make it a hard surface.
Chairman Morgan stated that the south side setback is a continuation of
the non - conforming use and the west side falls under Sec. 70 -75 allowing
the encroachment. Mr. Lyons asked if the neighbor to the south who will
be most impacted by the improvements has commented. Mr. Marsh said they
may not notice the improvements because there is a huge buffer between
the properties. Mr. Lyons said he lives across the street from the
subject property and he said the existing driveway to the garage is
brick. He asked Mr. Marsh if they will make the material consistent.
Mr. Marsh said it will be similar, but they want a hard driveway. Mr.
Lyons asked about lighting across the front of the property. Mr. Marsh
said there may be two wall sconces within the portico, and he said the
center of the house is recessed with a couple of magnolia trees that
Architectural Review and Planning Board
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 28, 2013 Page 14
flank the front door. He added that the entry will have a stucco
element as a contrast to the brick.
Mr. Lyons moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of a
Special Exception to permit the extension of the non- conforming south
wall of the existing structure that encroaches a maximum of 1 foot into
the south side setback, to add a master bedroom of approximately 302 SF
to be located on the first floor. There was no discussion. All voted
AYE.
Mr. Lyons moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of a
Special Exception to permit the addition of the proposed 302 SF master
bedroom to extend 20 feet into the 50 -foot rear setback. There was no
discussion. All voted AYE.
Mr. Lyons moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of a
demolition permit to allow a small portion of the existing garage to be
removed in order to realign the 2 -car garage. Mr. Marsh said the garage
is on a pile structure and during their research they discovered that it
may be necessary to demolish more than indicated in order to properly
realign the garage. He said he did not know how much more at this time,
but the end result would be the same. Mr. Lyons amended the motion and
Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of a demolition permit to allow
a portion of the existing garage to be removed in order to realign the
2 -car garage. Clerk Taylor asked how much of the existing roof will be
removed. Mr. Marsh said it may affect the whole wing, but it will not
change the heights or the form. Mr. Randolph suggested that the Board
ask the applicant to come back to the Town Manager for approval of any
additional demolition of the garage. Mr. Lyons amended the motion and
Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of a demolition permit to allow
a portion of the existing garage to be removed in order to realign the
2 -car garage, and final approval of any additional demolition of the
garage is subject to Staff review and approval. There was no further
discussion. All voted AYE.
Mr. Lyons moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of a Level
III Architectural /Site Plan Review to permit the addition of a master
bedroom, a small addition to the kitchen, a realignment of the 2 -car
garage and a new front entry, a net increase of 540 SF on the first
floor of an existing partial two -story Neo- French Eclectic single family
dwelling based on a finding that the proposed construction meets the
minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards.
There was no discussion. All voted AYE.
The Public Hearing for Item VI.A.2., Continued. Mr. Siemon said he has
consulted with the Town Attorney, and he said this renovation involves
an insurance problem and there are time constraints. He said Mr.
O'Boyle cannot obtain hurricane insurance at this point and hoped for an
approval in time to redo the windows prior to the peak of hurricane
season. Mr. Siemon said Mr. O'Boyle would like to move forward and they
are going to apply for an appeal from the determination as to whether a
variance is required. He asked that the Board go forward with the
merits, he asked that the appeal go before the Board of Adjustment at
the next Meeting, and he said hopefully they will look at the appeal
first, before the Commission hears the request for variance. In
Architectural Review and Planning Board
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 28, 2013 Page 15
addition, he said they will remedy the esthetic focus on the entry
feature prior to that meeting. Mr. Siemon said one thing the Code says
is that granting a variance will not do any violence to the Code and its
purposes, and the fact that a variance may not be required goes directly
to that point. He asked the Board to consider his remarks with regard
to that in that context.
Mr. Randolph stated that the ARPB recommendation will go to the
Commission on March 15th. He said their appeal would have to be
submitted to the Town of Gulf Stream this date in order to be heard by
the Board of Adjustment at the March 15th Meeting. Mr. Siemon said they
will file the appeal today. Mr. Randolph noted that the applicant hopes
that the Board of Adjustment will hear the appeal first.
Mr. Lyons asked about the window replacement. Mr. Siemen said the
applicant is not willing to commit to replacing the windows if this
design is not approved, but he said it is not relevant to the decision,
it is only to explain why time is of the essence. Chairman Morgan asked
what level of review applies to a front entryway. Mr. Thrasher said if
determined that it meets Code it is a Level I, but he said if it
requires a variance it is a Level III. He said, for the record, Mr.
O'Boyle has submitted a permit application for window replacement, it
was approved and was forwarded to Delray for approval. Mr. Thrasher
said the front entry feature elements will be different, but he said
other portions of the home are unchanged and he could proceed with the
window replacement for that part of it. Mr. O'Boyle said Mr. Thrasher
is correct, they did apply for a window replacement permit and it was
approved, but he said the windows were designed in conjunction with this
fagade and if this fagade is not approved those windows will not be
appropriate.
Mr. Morgan noted that in proceeding with this application we are being
asked to interpret the application in conjunction with the issues that
resulted in its denial, including eave heights and setbacks, which are
the issues to which they are seeking variance, rather than disputing the
application of variance as a decision by Staff. He said he is
sympathetic to the applicant's position, but he said he cannot advise on
how to proceed.
Mr. Thrasher asked if he could comment. Mr. Randolph asked Mr. Thrasher
that he not comment in regard to the issue as to whether or not they
need a variance. Mr. Thrasher said we are hearing these variance
applications and he said he is asking for time to address comments made
by the agent of record or the expert witnesses. He said he would like
to question things that have been stated as fact. Mr. Randolph asked
Mr. Thrasher if there is something he heard that would change his
recommendation, or does he simply want to support his recommendation.
Mr. Thrasher said he would like to support his recommendation. Mr.
Randolph asked Chairman Morgan if the Board needed to hear anything
more. Chairman Morgan said the Code has been spelled out, we have been
provided with Mr. Minor's report and we have the applicant's admission
as to where their heights and setbacks fall. He said the applicant is
Architectural Review and Planning Board
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 28, 2013 Page 16
challenging the Administrative Official's decision in a separate
application and, therefore, we must proceed with what we have.
Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Delafield seconded to recommend denial of a
variance to allow a net addition of 109 SF to the front entry feature of
the existing non - conforming two -story single family dwelling that
currently exceeds the maximum permitted floor area ration by 2,589 SF
based on the finding that not all of the required eight (8) standards
for granting a variance have been met. There was no discussion. All
voted AYE.
Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Delafield seconded to recommend denial of a
variance to permit the first -story eave height of the proposed entry
feature to exceed the maximum discouraged height of 12.5 feet by 2.5
feet to the architectural element based on the finding that not all of
the eight (8) standards for granting a variance have been met. There
was no discussion. All voted AYE.
Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Delafield seconded to recommend denial of a
variance to permit the second -story eave height of the proposed entry
feature to exceed the maximum discouraged height of 23 feet by 2 feet of
the architectural element based on the finding that not all of the
required eight (8) standards for granting a variance have been met.
There was no discussion. All voted AYE.
Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Delafield seconded to recommend denial of a
variance to permit an additional 2 -foot encroachment beyond the existing
9 -foot 8 -inch front setback encroachment based on the finding that not
all of the required eight (8) standards for granting a variance have
been met. There was no discussion. All voted AYE.
Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Delafield seconded to recommend denial to
remove 229 SF of gross floor area as the proposed alterations do not
meet the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review
standards. There was no discussion. Roll Call: Mr. Lyons, AYE; Mr.
Smith, AYE; Mr. Delafield, AYE; Mr. Murphy, AYE; and, Chairman Morgan,
NO. The motion passed by a vote of 9 - 1.
Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend denial of Level III
Architectural /Site Plan to permit a cumulative increase of 109 SF to the
existing 8,001 SF non - conforming, Spanish Mediterranean Revival style
two -story single family dwelling based on a finding that it does not
meet the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review
standards. There was no discussion. All voted AYE.
VII. Items by Staff. There were no items by Staff.
C' VIII. Items by Board Members.
Mr. Lyons asked if the ARPB would be involved in making the decision
concerning the new street lighting. Mr. Randolph said the Town
Commission will make that decision, but he said the Commission may ask
the ARPB for their input.
Chairman Morgan announced that Amanda Jones, Vice - Chairman of the ARPB,
has requested a six -month leave from her Board duties due to a personal
matter and that she may need to resign as a Member and come back as an
Alternate Member. He suggested that Mr. Smith be nominated as Vice-
Architectural Review and Planning Board
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 28, 2013 Page 17
Chairman. Mr. Randolph asked if there is a rule for Members who miss a
certain number of meetings. Clerk Taylor said there is a rule for
missing meetings without being excused, but she said the Commission
could grant a six -month leave. Mr. Randolph asked the Board if there is
a nomination for Vice - Chairman. Mr. Lyons nominated Mr. Smith as Vice -
Chairman, all voted AYE.
C '
IX.
Public. No
Public Comment.
X.
,Adjournment.
Chairman Morgan
adjourned the Meeting at 10:45 A.M.
/� i
Gail C. Abbale
Administrative Assistant