Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout03/15/2013MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE TOWN COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM ON FRIDAY, MARCH 15, 2013 AT 11:00 A.M. IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. I CII III Call to Order. Mayor Orthwein called the Meeting to order at 11:00 A.M. Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Orthwein. Roll Call. Present and Joan K. Orthwein Participating Tom Stanley Muriel Anderson W. Garrett Dering Robert W. Ganger Also Present and William Thrasher Participating Rita Taylor John Randolph Garrett Ward Danny Brannon of Brannon & Gillespie Marty Minor of Urban Design Kilday Studios Martin O'Boyle Charles Siemon, Esq. Siemon & Larson P.A. Robert Currie, Arch. Currie, Sowards & Aquila Architects Bill Ring, Esq., of Commerce Group, Inc. Peter DeLeo of Commerce of Commerce Group Bernard and Stephanie Molyneux Mark Marsh of Digby, Bridges, Marsh & Assoc. Bill Boardman Mayor Vice -Mayor Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Town Manager Town Clerk Town Attorney Police Chief Town Undergrounding Consultant Town Land Use Consultant Applic /23 Hidden Harbour Dr. Rep. Martin O'Boyle Rep. Martin O'Boyle Agent /O'Boyle Proj. Mgr. /O'Boyle Applicant /915 Emerald Agent /Julien & Grumney G.S. Civic Assoc. :V. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 8, 2013. Commissioner Ganger moved and Vice -Mayor Stanley seconded to approve the Minutes of the Regular Commission Meeting of February 8, 2013. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. V. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. There were no changes. VI. Announcements. A. Regular Meetings and Public Hearings 1. March 15, 2013 @ Noon - Election Certification Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission - March 15, 2013 Page 2 2. April 12, 2013 @ 9:00 A.M. 3. May 10, 2013 @ 9:00 A.M. 4. June 14, 2013 @ 9:00 A.M. 5. July 12, 2013 @ 9:00 A.M. 6. August 9, 2013 @ 9:00 A.M. 7. September 13, 2013 @ 9:00 A.M. Mayor Orthwein noted the upcoming Commission Meetings. There were no O conflicts. B. Mayor's Proclamation -Water Conservation Month, April 2013 Clerk Taylor stated that this Proclamation is at the request of the South Florida Water Management District to proclaim the Month of April, 2013 Water Conservation Month. Clerk Taylor said no Commission Action is necessary. VII. PUBLIC HEARING. A. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Clerk Taylor asked for declarations of Ex -parte communication. Commissioner Ganger stated that he drove by the subject property. Clerk Taylor noted a last- minute communication with regard to this appeal which has been placed at the seat of each Commissioner. The Clerk administered the oath to the following: Charles Siemon, Esq.; William Ring, Esq.; Robert Currie, Architect; Peter DeLeo, Project Manager - O'Boyle; Martin O'Boyle, Appellant; Marty Minor, Town Consultant; William Thrasher, Town Manager; Bernard Molyneux, 915 Emerald Row; Stephanie Molyneux, 915 Emerald Row; Mark Marsh, Architect. Mr. Randolph explained that an Appeal of the Administrator's Decision is before the Board of Adjustment today with regard to the application of the Design Manual and the Code. He said an application for variances went before the ARPB where the argument was made that variances were not required. He said the argument was also made that the applicant met the criteria for the granting of the variances. Mr. Randolph said, at that meeting, he advised the ARPB that it was not within their jurisdiction to determine an Administrative Appeal, and he said in the event an appeal is filed it will go before the Board of Adjustment. He said the ARPB did not act on the argument that Mr. Thrasher incorrectly applied the Code and, subsequent to that, Mr. O'Boyle filed an Appeal of the Administrative Decision, which is the matter that will be argued before the Board of Adjustment today. Mr. Randolph said if the Board grants the appeal and finds that Mr. Thrasher was incorrect in his application of the Code, it will not be necessary to go further with regard to the O variances. However, he said if the Board finds that Mr. Thrasher was correct in his application of the Code, the Board will go forward with the application for variances. In that case, Mr. Randolph said the Appellant will go first and then Staff will give their opinion on the matter. 1. Appeal Final Action of Planning & Bldg. Administrator a. An application submitted by Martin O'Boyle, owner of property located at 23 N. Hidden Harbour Drive, legally described as Lot 5, Hidden Harbour Estates, Gulf Stream, Florida, appealing the Administrative Decision Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission - March 15, 2013 Page 3 that approval of four variances would be needed to modify the existing dwelling as requested. Charles Siemon, Esq., introduced himself. He said he is an Urban Planner and Urban Planning Attorney with offices in Boca Raton. Mr. Siemon said he has been doing this work for many years, first in Chicago, and he said he has worked for both the private and public sectors in about 35 states. He distributed a copy of his power point presentation to the Commissioners and Staff. Mr. Siemon's Power Point CPresentation will be filed in the Official Records of the Town of Gulf Stream. Mr. Siemon pointed out the general location of the home and boundaries of the property, which is about 39,000 SF, and he said because of the net effective lot area, what remains is 19,000 SF. He noted photos of the existing entryway on Pages 5, 6 and 7, he displayed photos of the existing subject area of the home, and he displayed renderings of the proposed entry feature, which he said is to be a part of a major renovation of re- fenestration of the structure and redoing the landscaping. Mr. Siemon said the home was built in 1983 before the Design Manual was adopted, and he said as a result of the Design Manual the home is non- conforming in many ways, including floor area ratio and setbacks from the road. He said the design of the proposed entryway was prepared within the guidelines of the Code. Commissioner Ganger pointed out an error in the rendering on Page 8 of the Power Point Presentation stating that the sidewalk is drawn into the street. A member of Mr. O'Boyle's team noted that it is an error and has been corrected. Mr. Siemon said this is a matter of interpretation of the Code and the purpose of the Code, particularly the Design Manual, is to insure the compatibility and harmony it governed by Section 70- 100(a)(4) and no other provision of the Code. He said there is a question of the additional height, and he explained that it is to create a focal point and to break up the horizontal character of the home. Mr. Siemon referred to Page 12 of his Presentation, which is a photo of the Gulf Stream Town Hall Entryway, pointing out that the vertical component gives a focal point to the horizontal character of the building. Mr. Siemon referred to Pages 13, 14, 15 and 16 of his Presentation, which identify the four (4) variances that the Planning and Building O Administrator determined are required for approval of the entry feature. He summarized each Variance using the renderings to point out each issue. Mr. Siemon said the Appellant will show that the final review authority acted in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of the Code. He said there are some words in the Code that are ambiguous, the determination ignores some architectural matters, and he said the difficulty is working with both the Zoning Code and the Design Manual which have separate and inconsistent definitions that cause uncertainty. Mr. Siemon said there are some principles that should be followed, and he said the purpose and intent of the Code is to promote improvement. He read aloud Code Sec. 70 -3(b) Purpose. Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission - March 15, 2013 Page 4 With regard to Variance #2, Mr. Siemon referred to Page 24 of his Presentation which indicates the location of what Staff identifies as a 1st story eave, which he said he believes is incorrect. He referred to Code Sec. 70 -100 Roof and eave heights (c) two -story homes (3) Prohibited - Eave Heights - All other districts, which states: "Less than eight feet or greater than 12 feet six inches for one -story portions" and he said one -story portions is the critical element. Mr. O Siemon said an eave is defined in the Code as the projecting overhang at the lower edge of a roof, but he said there is no floor at that level indicated on Page 24 of his Presentation and it is not a part of a roof. He referred to Page 28 of his presentation which indicates the home having two stories and points out the 1st story eave, the 21d story eave and the portion of the proposed entry feature that Staff refers to as a 15t story eave. Mr. Siemon said the entry feature is not enclosed, there is no habitable space and it does not have a floor at the point where Staff refers to as a lst story eave and, therefore, the eave height provisions should not be applied to this decorative feature. Commissioner Ganger asked Mr. Siemon to explain "no floor" and "no windows." Mr. Siemon said when you stand in the entryway it is empty space to the roof of the entryway. It is not a 1st story eave, but it is a decorative feature used to break up the entryway and make it fit into the existing stories. With regard to 2nd story, Mr. Siemon referred to Page 30 of his Presentation and read the definition of "Story" as follows: "Story shall mean that portion of a building included between the surface of any floor and the surface above it . . . " He said the first surface above the floor is the ceiling and, therefore, it cannot be a 1st story eave. Commissioner Dering asked if there is an eave for the roof structure and Mr. Siemon confirmed that. Mr. Siemon said the question is, what is the height and is the height for an entry feature properly considered a two -story eave height when there is only one story? He referred to Page 35 of his Presentation where it quotes Code Sec. 70 -100. Roof and eave heights. (a) Generally (4), and said, what controls the height of an entry feature is as follows: "The height of the entry feature is measured from the finished floor elevation to the upper portion of any balcony railings, Dutch gable or other elements." The top of the element is the peak of the roof and Mr. Siemon referred to Page 37 of his Presentation where it indicates the height of the peak of the roof to be 301. He said if you put the provisions in their proper place, he believes the proposed feature complies with Code Sec. 70- 100(a)(4) because, as shown on Page 25 of the presentation, Town Code Ohas overall height and eave height requirements in three categories: (1) One -story buildings; (2) Two -story buildings, and (3) Overall peak of the house. For eave heights, you must look in either the one -story portion or the two -story portion, which are the only two places that provide a standard applying to eave heights. Further, he said there is no eave height in (a) Generally, or in (c) Two story homes (3) Prohibited, but roof heights are found in (3) Prohibited, which limits the height to 301. Mr. Siemon said there are inconsistent provisions in the Design Manual and the Code. Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission - March 15, 2013 Page 5 Mr. Siemon referred to Page 36 of his Presentation where it addresses the use of entry features, he read the text aloud and said he believe that is what the proposed design is intended to provide. Mr. Siemon referred to Page 38 of his Presentation where it addresses the meaning of floor area, he read the text aloud and said the feature is not an enclosed area of a building. Mr. Siemon referred to Page 39 of his Presentation where it addresses the definition of a story, he read the text aloud and he said it is possible to say if it is not a two -story O provision, it is a one -story provision. He said the language is inconsistent with entry feature language, and he further said that a court of law does not favor nonsensical conclusions. Commissioner Ganger asked Mr. Siemon if the quotes of "nonsensical," "unreasonable," and "absurd" are included in the Code. Mr. Siemon said they are not, but they are his suggestions of what the law would consider in interpreting the Code. He said the proper interpretation of the Code is that the height of the entry feature is measured from the finished grade of the house to the top element of the entry feature. If you properly construe that sub - paragraph (a) controls it you do not have to decide whether or not it is a story because if it is an entry point it does not have an eave height requirement. Mr. Siemon said the Board is required to make a reasonable judgment where there are inconsistencies or questions. He said if you look at the entry feature, it specified a means of height measurement, it makes sense and should not be ignored. With regard to Variance #3, Mr. Siemon referred to Page 46 of his Presentation where a yellow arrow indicates the wall of the entry feature, he referred to Page 7 of his Presentation where it indicates a stone wall structure that is attached to the house and is closest to the setback line (circled in yellow), and he said that wall will be removed. He referred to Page 45 of his Presentation where a yellow arrow indicates a stone wall structure, he said it is closest to the setback line and it is 3'2 ". Mr. Siemon said if you measure the setback from the wall of the entry feature and not from the eave (as quoted from the Code on Page 44 of his Presentation), that front wall is 814 feet from the line from which the setback should be measured. He said the Code provides that the existing minimum setback in non - conforming structures is the setback required for renovations, improvements and additions. Further, he said the structure that is 3'2" from the setback line is not in violation of the setback requirement, but actually an improvement because the wall will be 8.5 feet from the line from which the setback will be measured. OWith regard to the issue of the steps, Mr. Siemon said allowing the steps to be more gradual makes sense, and he said they should not be considered as part of the building that extends into the setback area. He said the structure height is measured from the base elevation and anything below that is not considered. Mr. Siemon said the setback is 20 feet less than current Code requirements. With regard to Variance #4, Mr. Siemon said it is difficult to construe the entry area to be floor area, and he read the following from the Zoning Code definitions: "Floor shall mean an enclosed area in a building." He said the entry feature is not enclosed and it is not in a Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission - March 15, 2013 Page 6 building and, therefore, he said if it is not a floor it cannot be considered in the floor area calculation. Further, he said it is not habitable space and it is not a porch or a breezeway, it is a front door entryway with a walkway leading to the front door and it is reasonable and appropriate to not interpret it as being a floor area. Robert Currie, Project Architect, introduced himself. He stated that he O is an architect and that he designed a half dozen of the homes in the Community, two of which won AIA awards. Mr. Currie said Mr. Siemon was very clear about the architectural intent and that the purpose of this design is to make the home better. He said there are challenges, one being the height of the roof. Mr. Currie said the height of the roof is allowed and, technically, they could pull it down 21, but he said the problem is the roof in the back that is higher, there would be two different planes and it would not be compatible architecturally. He said the second challenge is the setback, and he said the wall comes out almost to the planter box because it creates other issues if it were flush to the building and, therefore, they pulled it out 2' to 2.51. With regard to the steps, Mr. Currie said that all building codes measure to the building. Commissioner Ganger asked what would occur if a ramp were required to enter the home. Mr. Currie said it would be a very long ramp, but he said, traditionally, stairs and ramps are never measured. Vice -Mayor Stanley asked about the roof in the back of the house and the intersection of the plane. Mr. Currie said the roof is flush to the second story in the back. Commissioner Ganger asked if the existing windows at the entry feature will be taken out to create a solid wall. Mr. Currie confirmed that. Commissioner Ganger asked if the applicant will be changing out all of the windows to hurricane resistant. Mr. Currie confirmed that, but he said it is a separate matter and it has already been approved. With regard to the purpose, Mr. Siemon said he previously read from Code Sec. 70 -3(b) where it states, "The design standards..., by specific intent, illustrative rather than prescriptive. They do not dissect every architectural influence nor do they attempt to prescribe specific, detailed ways to handle every type of alteration to existing structures. They do, however, provide the town with a methodology and common framework for reviewing submissions and attaching conditions, if any, to project approvals." He said the interpretation that requires the four O variances treats this as a rigid Code and that is only to be varied in limited circumstances, and he said that is not the intent of the Code. Mr. Siemon said the scale and proportion of the entry feature should consist with the rest of the structure, varying in height just enough to provide a focal point to the front of the home, and he said Mr. Currie explained why the design cannot be smaller and why it will not function any other way. In closing, Mr. Siemon said he hopes the Board will treat this as an entry feature and not by whether it is a one -story or a two story portion of the house because it is not, and he said it leads to a Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission - March 15, 2013 Page 7 resolution that allows these improvements to be made without a variance. Further, he said he hopes the Board will allow Mr. and Mrs. O'Boyle to improve their property and bring it as far as possible into compliance with the Design Code. Commissioner Ganger said to Mr. Siemon that he uses the word "improvement" and he asked if the neighbors have reacted to the proposed feature. Mr. Siemon said he was informed by Mr. O'Boyle that the developer of the property adjacent to him supports the project, O and Mr. Krebbs to his west is also supportive. Commissioner Ganger asked if neighbors on the other side of the hedge will see the entry feature. Mr. Currie said it is very well screened. Commissioner Ganger said that the issue of improvement is most important to the neighbors. He asked if it is still a private road and Mr. Siemon confirmed that saying if you are on the street the house is right there. Commissioner Ganger asked if residents across the water area will see the roof. Mr. Currie said they will see the top of the roof. Mayor Orthwein said it increases the mass of the house. Mr. Currie disagreed. The Board of Adjustment Public Bearing was recessed at 12:00 Noon and reconvened at 12:20 P.M. Mr. Siemon said he hopes the Board will find favor in that the design serves the purposes of the Code, and he reminded the Board that they have the authority and the responsibility to make that judgment of whether it serves the purposes of the Code. He said the language of the Code states it is not intended to prescribe, and he said if you look at the existing conditions, the circumstances, justifications and reasons, the plain language of the Code and the intent when there is some ambiguity, you will conclude an appropriate interpretation and it should be applied to achieve the purposes of the Code. Mr. Siemon asked the Board to address each Variance one by one rather than as a group because there are different ambiguities and constructions. Mayor Orthwein asked for the Staff report from Mr. Thrasher, Town Manager. Mr. Randolph, Town Attorney, stated that, for the record, he will lay some predicate. Randolph: Please state your name. Thrasher: My name is William Harrison Thrasher, Jr. Randolph: State your position with the Town? OThrasher: Town Manager. Randolph: For how long? Thrasher: Town Manager for about 12 years. Employment with the Town, April 29th begins my 17th year. Randolph: During that time as Town Manager have your duties included interpretation of the Zoning Code and the Design Manual? Thrasher: Yes. Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission - March 15, 2013 Page 8 Randolph: Have you had an opportunity to review other applications similar to this where you have applied the same principles that you are applying today to this particular application? Thrasher: Yes. o Randolph: In your opinion have you been consistent in the manner in which you have applied the Code? Thrasher: Yes. Randolph: Will you explain your interpretation as it relates to the application of the Code to the particular application of Mr. O'Boyle which is before you today. Explain why you have interpreted the Code in the way you have. Thrasher: In regard to the first variance listed, the square footage of exceeding 109 SF, I first defined the district in which this property is located and by Sec. 70 -27 it is located in the North South District. I then looked at Sec. 70 -67 in regard to the effective lot area and the various calculations of FAR. In this particular situation, I have an email from Mr. Ring whom I believe is present in which he copied the Site Data Table and in that email he referenced that it was prepared and provided to the Town from their architect, Mr. Currie. I looked for any provisions in the Code that would allow for a special exception in regard to the square footage and there were none. In regard to the sections of the Code that I have cited and the information provided to us from the applicant, it was determined that, indeed, they had exceeded the FAR by 109 SF. Randolph: Is there a particular document that you are referring to that the applicant has submitted that you rely upon to show that the applicant made a determination in regard to the 109 SF? Thrasher: Yes, that is in your packet, it is called the Site Data Table, and I believe the square footage is 8,110, the proposed, and the existing was like 8,001, but that Site Data Table is in your packet. I referred exclusively to that and I also forwarded that Site Data Table to Marty Minor, Town's Consultant, for his assistance. I had discussions with Mr. Ring, Mr. O'Boyle and his various other attorneys and representatives and, based on the fact that I thought there were four variances required, particularly this one, I asked them if they would like to have a third party render a decision. They did, we made available to him a third party outside consultant for a decision, and my decision is consistent with that which he has provided. Randolph: Hold up the table that you would like the Commission to refer to so they can see what you are talking about? Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission - March 15, 2013 Page 9 Randolph: For the record, I understand each Commissioner has a package that was submitted by Mr. Thrasher in regard to this application, is that correct? Commission: Yes. Mr. Thrasher displayed the Site Data Table. Thrasher: This is the Site Data Table that I am referring to. The email I received from Mr. Ring was dated January 16, 2013, it was addressed to Rita, it says: "Rita, attached is a Site Data Table that was completed by Bob Currie, Architects. This is your FAR calculation sheet..." It says some other things, but that is what we refer to in regard to the FAR. In regard to the second application for the second variance, the entry feature exceeds the maximum discouraged height of 12.5 feet by 2.5 feet. This is again information provided to us from the applicant and his representatives. If you look in your packet you will see that they are outlining or identifying the heights of the various elements, and they specifically identify what I call the second story eave height as an eave height, but they do cause reference to, and draw attention to, the item that I refer to as the first story eave height. In that regard, I will say that the nomenclature I used was incorrect, but I will read to you that which was intended, and it is what Mr. Siemon referred to several times: Sec. 70- 100(x)(4), specifically, "entry features are the front portion of the structure which provide door entrance to the dwelling. The height of the entry feature is measured from the finished floor elevation to the upper portion of any balcony railings, Dutch gable or other such elements." So instead of calling this an eave, it is an "other such element" and it should have been properly referred to, but in their application and in their drawings they identify and direct me to this particular element and provide its height. I also looked at Sec.70- 100(c), two -story single family homes, which provided a prohibited height that the one - story portion could not exceed 12.5 feet without being in the prohibited area and the second story, 23' without getting into the prohibited area. Randolph: Before you leave that, what is it about this application that does not meet those two criteria you just referenced? Thrasher: I would refer to the Bob Currie Drawings, A3.02, upper left portion, which identifies what I previously identified as the first story eave, or other element, at the height of 12110" and, as I said, the prohibited range begins at about 1216 ". They have identified and pointed me to an area identifying the height of this element and it is higher than the maximum allowed without getting into the prohibited area. Secondly, in that same drawing, they are referring specifically to an eave height, which is 25' 144," and, again, it exceeds the maximum allowed without getting into the prohibited area of 231. Randolph: I want you to go through each one of the variances and advise as to what portion of the Code you are relying upon to indicate that they need variances for those. Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission - March 15, 2013 Page 10 Thrasher: For the second variance I relied on 70- 100(a)(4) in regard to definitions. I also relied on 70- 100(c) which is the two -story single family dwelling, prohibited maximum eave heights of the first story section and also the second story section. Randolph: What do you think of their statement that this is a separate element, that it is not a story and there is no floor between the two? Thrasher: It is paradoxical and also true that there is no second story, but it is a fact that the cornice area as they described it can be considered an eave height based on the definition of our Code. The second story eave height is identified by the applicant himself. Whether you define this as a one -story entry feature or a two -story entry feature, either scenario creates two variances. One in which the overall height of the element exceeds the maximum allowed, and the other is the first story, which is actually the second story, whether defined as a one -story or a two - story, it creates two variances as defined in our Code. Randolph: Were you here when this particular Design Manual was adopted? Thrasher: The original? No. Randolph: You have been administering it for how many years? Thrasher: Approximately 12. Randolph: You know what the intent of the Code is as it relates to entry features? Thrasher: I believe the intent of the Code is to control the entry feature in a manner which limits the massive appearance of the entry feature. At first glance your eyes go to that entry feature and I believe the intent of the Design Manual was to limit the massive look of an entry feature. It does give a break to the horizontal plane of that home, but to be so high overpowers the intent of trying to break up that horizontal plane. Mr. Currie has not said that it is impossible to provide that break of the horizontal plane in some other measure. It may not be the best, but he said it is possible. The expense was O thought to be excessive, but I believe information has been given to us that it is possible to break up that plane in some other form or fashion. Randolph: That addresses two of the variances. When you first began did you begin talking about the additional 109 SF over and above the permitted floor area? Thrasher: That is Variance #1 as it is presented on the Staff's Report and I have addressed that in regard to the Site Data Table. Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission - March 15, 2013 Page 11 Randolph: What you did address is that they presented a Site Data Table which seemed to indicate in their application that, some sort of an agreement on their part, that that was over and above the square footage allowed by Code, is that correct? Thrasher: It is correct. ^ Randolph: I want you to explain in your own words why you feel that (�Jl that is indeed additional square footage that is not allowed by Code without a variance. Thrasher: I would refer to Sec. 70 -70, it is the section which begins to discuss floor area calculations and effective lot area, it follows effective lot area and Unity of title, Sec. 70 -70, the purpose of computing floor area ratio, floor area shall be defined as follows: "Floor area" shall mean the gross floor area of a structure as measured from the outside of the exterior walls and shall include or exclude the following: (1) All floor area under a solid roof, whether or not the area is enclosed with walls, (i.e., porches, balconies, breezeways, etc.) shall be included." By creating an area that is under roof it must be included in the FAR calculations and, based on their presentation of that effective lot area and their square footage, even though we are talking about an area that steps forward a bit, it is still under roof and, therefore, must be included in the FAR calculations. Randolph: At the very least, in regard to that aspect of it, would this addition be considered an expansion of a non - conforming structure in your mind? Thrasher: Yes, the addition would be an addition to a non - conforming structure in that per their Site Data Table they declare that the existing FAR already excludes the allowable and, therefore, any addition of square footage to that increases the non - conformity. In regard to the square footage, the FAR calculations, it has been declared that this home is non - conforming, and to increase the non - conformity is the question and, therefore, to increase the non - conformity would not be something that is allowed, it is prohibited. Randolph: Have you explained your reasoning for three of the variances? �J Thrasher: I have explained three, there is one left which is Variance #4. Variances #2 and #3 have been identified as eave heights, #4 has to do with permitting an additional 2 -foot encroachment beyond the existing 9' 6" in the front set back encroachment. Again, I referred first of all to Sec. 70 -27, which defines the districts within the Town. This again is located within the North South District. Then I referred to Sec. 70- 74, which discusses the setbacks. The front setback as provided for or required in our Code for the structure in the North South Front is 30'. This again is a non - conforming structure as it refers to at least the front setback, and it is from their presentation, discussion and Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission - March 15, 2013 Page 12 drawings that indicate they are extending to the north two additional feet with this entry feature, and it is again extending a non - conformity and thus prohibited by Code. With that said, I will make mention of the walls on the east and west of the existing elevation entry feature. They define these walls as part of the structure and attached. In my drive -by, and others, Rita and I went down to observe that these appear not to be structure walls, but indeed something that is commonly ^ referred to as a garden wall. They are not physically attached by �j concrete and mortar to the structure and, therefore, cannot be considered the existing wall structure to begin calculations or to determine the distance from the existing wall. Randolph: What part of the entry feature violates the setback, is it just the steps? Thrasher: No, I do not believe so. In discussions with Mr. Ring and in the presence of our Town Clerk they have explained to me that they have to exceed, extend that wall out at entry element further to the north approximately 2 feet. So in regard to the setback it is extending a non - conforming element, the entire structure as it exists in regard to setbacks is non - conforming, and they are proposing to extend that some distance to the north further into the setback. Randolph: You have heard the presentation made by Mr. Siemon and Mr. Currie today. Is there any comment which you have in regard to their testimony? Thrasher: Yes, I would like to refer to their comment in regard to the Town Hall wherein they referred to our second story element here, or whatever it is, and they cited it as an example of why they want to do what is already visible in Town. I would first state that the Town Hall is not located within a single family zoning district, it is in the public zoning district and, therefore, the criteria do not necessarily apply to a Town Hall. I am glad they like our feature, but I had nothing to do with it. Town Hall was dedicated in 1986 and our Code was established in the early 90s, so this building was constructed and finally dedicated in 1986 prior to the Code. The words that Mr. Siemen used in regard to eaves not being part of a roof, no floor, it is an architectural feature, he referred to that as a decorative feature, I believe those were your words, so this is consistent with my interpretation of Sec. 70- 100(x)(4), other such elements. I asked Mr. OO'Boyle at the ARPB Meeting whether or not he knew of any other such tower entry feature of this height and nature in Town. I do not know if Mr. O'Boyle has since identified something in our Town, but at the time of that meeting I do not believe he was able to reference another facility in Town, other than Town Hall. I have also taken the opportunity on more than one occasion to ask the Town's consultant whether or not he was aware of any similar entry structure feature in Town. He does not know of any such existing in Town. Randolph: What is the significance of that? Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission - March 15, 2013 Page 13 Thrasher: This is creating a unique situation. It appears to me that in instances of review, the height and these particular entry features as it relates to massiveness were confined smaller so that they don't just stand out as the first thing that you might observe when coming down the road. Another thing is in regard to what your eyes see as you go down the private road. It is indeed a private road, but on the south side, further south, it is a public road. It is private on the east side of his property, private on the north side of his property and O across the waterway further south it is a public road. I have never represented myself as a planner or an architect to Mr. O'Boyle, in fact I declared the opposite immediately in our discussions, but in my opinion, because the existing home is so close to the roadway, being so close to that feature as you travel down the road actually exaggerates the feeling or appearance one might observe while driving through the area. Randolph: You are relying on the language in Sec. 70- 100(a)(4) to make a determination that the entry feature is out of scale with the rest of the structure? Thrasher: Yes. I would also say that this Code, this Section of Code, Sec. 70 -100 was changed, modified, updated by Ordinance No. 12 -4 on July 13, 2012. Since that time we have had three applications brought to the Town dealing with the same issues as it relates to eave heights and overall height of the entry feature. One is the Gilman Residence on N. Ocean. In that case the owner asked for a third opinion and as our practice has been we asked Mr. Minor for assistance, we asked for an independent evaluation, he determined it was too high, too massive. We referred that back to the architect of record for that property, they modified the height of that entry feature to conform to Code and it was eventually approved. In regard to Place Au Soleil, there have been two applications since the date of this revision. One was prepared and presented to us by Architect Quinn Miklos and, in that same scenario, it was a single story, single family home. The Code was cited, he also asked for a third opinion and we obligated ourselves to do that. After giving that third opinion and after my initial discussion with him as prohibited, he again modified it. In both cases it has been everyone's opinion that the modifications improved the overall esthetics or appearance of the homes, and also conform to the specific sections of the Code I am referring to. The third review since adoption of this revision was Kolea in Place Au Soleil and, in initial discussions we G informed him of, and showed him, what the Code says. He accepted that and modified his design accordingly. Randolph: Have you covered what you wanted to say? Thrasher: I would like to repeat that I do not believe these garden walls as defined as structures are indeed attached to the existing structure of the home. They are nothing more than garden walls and should be considered as such, and they cannot, therefore, be establishing what the existing setback is, the distance from the setback lines. Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission - March 15, 2013 Page 14 Randolph: Did you rely upon the opinion of Marty Minor for any part of the decision you made with regard to this application for clarification? Thrasher: I always do for clarification, but in this case I believe Mr. Ring reached out to Mr. Minor to initiate the initial conversations. I gave okay to it. I do not know whether I gave Marty input, I won't pretend to do that. �) Mr. Randolph asked the Commissioners if they had any questions of Mr. Thrasher. There were none. He asked Mr. Minor to the podium. Randolph: I will lay a predicate here and let you talk. State your name and your profession. Minor: My Name is Marty Remy Arthur Minor, I am an Urban Planner with the firm of Urban Design Kilday Studios in West Palm Beach, Florida. I am a Certified Planner, certified by the American Institute of Certified Planners. I have my Masters in Urban Regional Planning from Florida Atlantic University. Mr. Randolph asked Mr. Minor to submit his Curriculum Vitae into the Record. Randolph: Does your Curriculum Vitae indicate that you have experience in interpreting design codes? Minor: Yes. As part of my resume, more of a resume than a CV, before joining Urban Design Kilday Studios I worked for the City of Palm Beach Gardens. I eventually governed a Staff of four members, interpreting the code on a daily basis, writing staff reports, making presentations. That was the first half of my planning career, the second half has been largely on the private side, but also doing consultation with the Town of Gulf Stream. I have done work with other towns, i.e.; Tamarac, Ocean Ridge and Royal Palm Beach, with regard to their codes. Randolph: How long have you been a consultant to the Town of Gulf Stream? Minor: I started working with the Evaluation and Appraisal Report in 2005. Randolph: Were you and /or your firm involved with the drafting of the Design Manual for the Town of Gulf Stream? Minor: Yes, my firm was. John Carleen was the Planner who worked with Scott Harrington, the Town Manager at the time, along with many people on this Board. It was an extensive process, using lot surveys, lots of workshops to create this Design Manual that won an a national merit award from the American Society of Landscape Architects. Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission - March 15, 2013 Page 15 Randolph: From time to time were you called upon to give interpretations of the Design Manual? Minor: Yes. Randolph: Were you called upon in this instance to give an interpretation of the Design Manual by either Mr. Thrasher or anyone 01 else? Minor: That is correct, yes, by Mr. Thrasher. I did talk to Mr. Ring and about some of the issues and possibly meeting on the site. We never set a firm date to meet on the site to review, but we did have that conversation. Randolph: What is your understanding of the intent of the Design Manual as it pertains to entry features of homes in the Town of Gulf Stream? Minor: I believe the wording is quite clear with regard to the intent of the Design Manual. The scale and proportion of entry features shall be consistent with the rest of the structure, varying just enough to provide a focal point in front of the house. Randolph: Is that from Sec. 70- 100(4)? Minor: That is correct, it is the last sentence. Randolph: You had an opportunity to look at the four variances that were applied for and are being contested as needing variances today. Give your opinion in regard to each of those variances as to whether or not you feel a variance is needed from the Code. Minor: As a quick background, when I was presented the plans for this I did what I always do when I look at building plans, I look at the Code. I do an analysis of what portions of the house, either existing or proposed, are consistent with our Code. In looking at 23 N. Hidden Harbour Dr., the property in question, I identified six areas that are not consistent with the Code. Those areas are the Floor Area Ratio, the first and second story eave heights for the entry feature, the effective lot area and then the rear and the front setbacks. Some of those with this application are not changing and that is permitted. As we all talked about, this is a non - conforming house because of these inconsistencies with the current Code, this makes it non - conforming. Sec. 66 -131 says buildings or structures or uses of the land which are non - conforming shall not be extended or enlarged. However, a special exception may be allowed for additions to structures with existing non- conforming setbacks pursuant to provisions of Chapter 70, Sec. 70 -75. Sec. 70 -75(c) states that existing setback is a minimum setback. You can add with a special exception. This Board, and there is some criteria in there, can grant people to make an addition as long as they do not exceed the existing non - conforming setback. This is not the case here. As evidence indicated, the entry structure extends 2 feet into Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission - March 15, 2013 Page 16 that setback, it is part of the building, it is part of the structure and that is how we determine setbacks. The entry feature, the garden wall that was mentioned, is almost similar to any other entry features. We do not measure the setbacks for that for the home, for the home we look to the building and the building itself and that's the wall of this entry feature. So that's one setback. ^ Randolph: Why wouldn't that entry feature be considered separate from �1 the structure itself, it seems to me there is some indication that be considered not a part of the structure? Maybe I misinterpreted what was being said. Minor: It does not meet the intent of an accessory structure. It is a structure that is fully roofed and is calculated as part of your floor area of the house. It is identified and because of the height, despite whether or not there is a second floor, our Code determines that that space is counted twice. Anything over 15' in height area, you count that floor area twice and then that between the solid roof and the identification of that area being included in the floor area, that shows the determination that it is part of the house, just as any other roof structure would be. With regard to the enlargement of the property, the non - conforming, Code Sec. 66 -132 says, "shall not be extended or enlarged." From the applicant's own plans and application they are expanding the building by 109 SF. Right now it exceeds the FAR. As per my memo, the FAR permitted for this lot is 5,500 SF, right now it is over 8,000 SF and it is expanding even more. Randolph: What is the date of your memo you reference? Minor: January 25, 2013. Randolph: Has the Commission received it? Minor: It was addressed to Mr. Thrasher. Mr. Thrasher confirmed that the Commission received the memo. Minor: With regard to the entry feature, the language where it says, "Entry features of the front portion of the structure which provides door entrance to the dwelling, the height of the entry feature is measured from the finished floor elevation to the upper portion of any balcony, railing, Dutch gable or other such elements." This is language we added last summer because during our Code amendment there was some confusion over the way Code was being read. For example, if you did not have an eave you had a Dutch gable, and how do you measure that? There is no eave on a Dutch gable. Do you want to create these massive entry features? This is not part of the fabric of Gulf Stream, it is not part of the intent and not consistent with the overall character of this Town. If you look at that element, or if they call it a cornice, that is that finished floor area to that area, and in preferred, eave heights, they talk about 8' to 10', discouraged, eave heights, 10' to 121. The proposed is approximately 151, and the overall eave height on the second floor extends above the second story Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission - March 15, 2013 Page 17 roof line. I am not aware of any homes in Gulf Stream that have an entry feature eave extending above the second story ridge line. This is approximately 251. I would like to point out to you on Sec. 70 -100 under two story homes, (c)(3) prohibited, Eave heights, for one story portions if the applicant wants to call this a one story entry feature, the height is no greater than 12' for eaves. If he wants to call it a two story feature, the eave limitation is 23', anything more is prohibited. They talk about roof heights, where they are at 301, the roof height prohibited is anything greater than 26', so they have exceeded that. Mr. Thrasher asked Mr. Minor to repeat. Minor: This is at Page 70 -48, the top portion, roof heights. If you are going to call this a one story portion, the overall height is limited to 261, they are providing 301. The top of this roof is approximately 8' higher than the existing roof ridge and I believe this challenges the perception or the assertion that this is compatible and a consistent scale of proportion. These are the four variances that have been identified, and when you look at the specific criteria for variances in your Code, Sec. 66 -154, you have to find that on each of these variances they meet the special conditions. Mr. Randolph stated that we are not here on the variances right now, we are here to make a determination on the Appeal as to whether or not the Design Manual was interpreted correctly in making a determination as to whether variances are needed. If and when we get to the second part you can testify in regard to the criteria for variances. Mr. Minor said he would be available for questions. He submitted his Resume /Background for the record. The Resume /Background will be filed in the Official Records of the Town of Gulf Stream. Commissioner Dering asked if it is the roof height or the eave height that is allowed a maximum of 261. Mr. Minor said it is the roof height for one story portions, on a two story structure it is prohibited. The eave height for one story portions is 1216 ". Greater than 23' for two story. With regard to the breakup on the tower and the delineation with cornice or other element, Vice -Mayor Stanley asked Mr. Minor if he would consider it a gable or a feature or other element. Mr. Minor said he considers it an "other element ", a dividing line where it could have been a faux balcony, a railing, any other kind of feature that breaks up the massing of the tower. Mr. Randolph asked Mark Marsh to answer a couple of questions for him. Randolph: Are you a registered Architect? Marsh: Yes, I am. Randolph: Do you practice architecture in the Town of Gulf Stream? Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission - March 15, 2013 Marsh: I've done so for over 30 years. Page 18 Randolph: In your opinion has Mr. Thrasher consistently applied the Code to each application that comes before him, at least in regard to your applications? Marsh: Yes. Randolph: Having heard the testimony today, do you have an opinion as to whether or not Mr. Thrasher is correct in his interpretation of the Code as it relates to this application. Marsh: I think it is consistent, in all the years that I've done battle here. I am a little confused because Mr. Thrasher is the point of reference here, but Marty Minor and Urban Design Studios are the consultants that interpret and assist the staff. Randolph: Do you agree with Marty Minor's testimony today. Marsh: Yes, I think it is consistent. Mayor Orthwein asked for Public comment. There were no comments by the Public. Mayor Orthwein asked if there was rebuttal. Mr. Siemon came forward. Mr. Siemon said his client submitted an application for a variance that included certain things on plans and drawings as instructed. He asked the Board to keep in mind the intent of the Code. If you judge that the design of this building is not an improvement and not compatible or consistent, that is a different matter. Mr. Siemon said although other applicants have been willing to modify, you have to judge everyone individually. He said he would like Mr. Ring to explain the basis of what is in the application, but he said what is a matter of law is what the Code says, what its intent is, and how does it apply to these cases. Mr. Siemon said it is important to understand how this application came to be before you, and why they did what they did. William Ring, Esq., introduced himself and said he met with the Town Clerk and Mr. Thrasher about a week before the submittal of their application, which was submitted on January 15, 2013. He said they went through a set of plans and a Town of Gulf Stream Site Data Table, which Othey prepared for that meeting, and they went through plans page by page. Mr. Ring said Mr. Thrasher pointed out on the plans where he wanted certain measurements, and he said the plans were submitted as instructed by Mr. Thrasher. He said the Site Data Table reviewed at the meeting showed not an addition of 109 SF, which is on the application, it showed a subtraction of 209.9', which is correct. Mr. Ring said he was told that his interpretation of the Code was incorrect and that they needed to count the area of the tower double instead of just once. He said that is how they were instructed to do the Site Data Table and that is how it was submitted. Mr. Ring said the problem with Staff's interpretation is it creates a fiction that something is being added when there is nothing being added. He said they are demolishing what is Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission - March 15, 2013 Page 19 there and something new and prettier will be built, but the dimensions are almost exact. Mr. Ring said the comment that the home is currently non - conforming because the square footage exceeds the FAR, but he said the calculation on the gross lot area shows they are able to add another 2,000 SF to the total, and he said his calculations indicated that if they were using O the gross lot area to determine the size of the building they would be entitled to about 10,448.6 SF. However, he said in order to submit the application in accordance with Mr. Thrasher's wishes they acquiesced and submitted an application as instructed. Mr. Ring said he had a conversation with Marty Minor because he wanted to arrange a meeting at Mr. O'Boyle's house, but he was instructed by Mr. Thrasher that he should not have direct communication with Mr. Minor without Mr. Thrasher present. He said due to scheduling, they never had a substantive conversation on the application or on Mr. Minor's report. Mr. Siemon said it was suggested that what is proposed is massive and out of scale and character. He displayed a drawing of what is permitted and compliant, which they feel would be an architectural mistake. He asked the Board for their support that a variance is not required. Commissioner Ganger asked for clarification of why the example of the preferred entry feature is compliant. Mr. Siemon explained saying there are no eaves, it is 30' from the measured area, there is no eave on the roof and there is no eave line, and he said if there is no eave line there is no eave height requirement. There is no eave height requirement in the entry feature section of the Code. Mr. Randolph said the Commission should go into Executive Session, ask questions and make a decision on the Appeal. He recommended dealing with the variances on a section by section basis so that the record is clear as to what you are doing. You are to determine whether Mr. Thrasher was correct in his interpretation of the Code, or incorrect, in which case would make a decision in favor of the applicant with regard to the Appeal. Mayor Orthwein asked for comments or questions concerning the interpretation of the Code with regard to Variance #1 which is to allow a net addition of 109 SF to the entry. Commissioner Ganger said all are sympathetic with the dilemma to improve a non - conforming home that is out of favor with the architectural style. He said there is some merit in the fact that it is an odd lot and the permitted floor area of the addition of 109 SF is less than 1% of the existing floor area. If it were the only issue, Commissioner Ganger said he may give some credence to this one argument. With regard to interpretation, as interpreted by Staff, this one may have been a tough call and an argument could be made on both sides. Commissioner Dering said the FAR is mathematical according to Code. He said he has heard challenges, but nobody has said why Staff is incorrect. Mr. Randolph said the motion should be to either sustain the decision of Staff, or to overturn the decision of Staff, granting the Applicant's Appeal in that regard. It was the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission - March 15, 2013 Page 20 consensus of the Commissioners to discuss all of the interpretations at once and then vote on them one at a time. Mayor Orthwein noted Variance #2 to permit the first -story eave height of the proposed entry feature to exceed the maximum discouraged height of 10.5 feet by 2.5 feet to the architectural element. Vice -Mayor Stanley said one of the applicable sections of the Code is Sec. 70- 100(a)(4), he said we discussed the middle of the entry feature, whether �1 it is called a "cornice" or "other such feature" and we have the measurements requested by Staff as presented in Mr. Currie's drawings on Page A3.02. He said given the testimony of Mr. Minor and Mr. Thrasher, along with the measurements provided by the Architect, which are correct, he believes the assertion of Staff on this and applying the variance was correct. Commissioner Dering said if you look at the definition of "story" in Sec. 66 -1, Definitions, "Story shall mean a portion of a building including between the surface of any floor and the surface of the next floor above it, or if there be no floor above it then the space between such floor and the ceiling next above it." He said 70- 100(a)(4) does not mention "story," 70- 100(a)(4) identifies it as "other element" and if this part half -way up the 15' is an element then we are not compliant. Vice -Mayor Stanley said we did not address the term "story" with Mr. Minor. Mr. Minor said if you consider that a one -story eave structure that is part of a two -story building, the prohibited eave height for a one -story portion is anything greater the 121, and this is at the bottom of 70 -47 and they would need a variance from that. If you consider one story or two stories, a variance is required with regard to eave height. Mr. Siemon said he has two points, it says the height of the entry feature is measured from the finished floor elevation to the upper portion of any balcony, railings or other elements. The upper portion of that is 301, there is no mention of eave height in the entry feature provision. He said an eave, as defined in Town Code, is part of a roof and there is no roof there, and he said it is not a two - story, it is an entry feature and Code provides that height is measured from the floor to the top of the feature. Commissioner Dering asked the height of the eave. Mr. Ring said it does not matter because there is no requirement for eave height, but it is 251. Mayor Orthwein noted Variance #3 to permit the second -story eave height of the proposed entry feature to exceed the maximum discouraged height G of 23' by 21. Commissioner Ganger said whether or not a variance is applicable, if you decide one way on one variance you should decide the same on all four variances because they go together. Mayor Orthwein noted Variance #4 to permit an additional 2 -foot encroachment beyond the existing 918" front setback encroachment. Vice - Mayor Stanley said the analysis on this one is easier because if you have a non - conforming house and the front of the plane is encroaching, the Code does not say, if you have a wall in front that is part of your house, it allows you to continue it so you can bring everything else up to a garden wall. Commissioner Ganger asked Vice -Mayor Stanley if he is Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission - March 15, 2013 Page 21 saying that there is a 2 -foot encroachment beyond the existing front setback and, therefore, the variance is required. Vice -Mayor Stanley confirmed that. Commissioner Dering moved and Commissioner Ganger seconded to sustain the decision of the Town Administrator regarding Variance #1. There was no discussion. Roll Call: Commissioner Ganger, AYE; Vice -Mayor Stanley, AYE; Commissioner Anderson, AYE; Commissioner Dering, NO; Mayor C` Orthwein, AYE. The motion passed by a vote of 4 - 1. Commissioner Anderson moved and Vice -Mayor Stanley seconded to sustain the decision of the Town Administrator regarding Variance #2. There was no discussion. Roll Call: Commissioner Ganger, AYE; Vice -Mayor Stanley, AYE; Commissioner Anderson, AYE; Commissioner Dering, NO; Mayor Orthwein, AYE. The motion passed by a vote of 4 - 1. Vice -Mayor Stanley moved and Commissioner Ganger seconded to sustain the decision of the Town Administrator regarding Variance #3. There was no discussion. Roll Call: Commissioner Ganger, AYE; Vice -Mayor Stanley, AYE; Commissioner Anderson, AYE; Commissioner Dering, NO; Mayor Orthwein, AYE. The motion passed by a vote of 4 - 1. Vice -Mayor Stanley moved and Commissioner Ganger seconded to sustain the decision of the Town Administrator regarding Variance #4. There was no discussion. Roll Call: Commissioner Ganger, AYE; Vice -Mayor Stanley, AYE; Commissioner Anderson, AYE; Commissioner Dering, AYE; Mayor Orthwein, AYE. The motion passed by a unanimous vote of 5 - 0. The Public Hearing was recessed at 1:50 P.M. and reconvened at 1:55 P.M. B. TOWN COMMISSION 1. Applications for Development Approval a. 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. (1) 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 2,569 square feet. (2) 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. (3) 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. Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission - March 15, 2013 Page 22 (4) VARIANCE #4 to permit an additional 2 foot encroachment beyond the existing 9 foot 8 inch front setback encroachment. (5) DEMOLITION PERMIT to remove 229 square feet of gross floor area. (6) LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL /SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit an addition for a cumulative increase of 0 109 square feet to an existing 8,001 square foot, non - conforming, Spanish Mediterranean Revival, two -story single family dwelling. Mr. Randolph stated that this does not require a lot of discussion, other than hearing how the application meets the criteria of the eight standards for the granting of the variance. Mr. Siemon requested that the Board consider the proceeding just held as a part of the record in this matter. Mr. Siemon said a key word in the purpose and intent of the Code that has been over looked is "or" which means that there are two different items. He quoted, "variances are deviations of the terms of this Code that would not be contrary to the public interest when owing to special circumstances "or" when the literal enforcement of the provisions will result in an undo and an unnecessary hardship." Mr. Siemon said the ARPB determined that each variance should be denied because the applicant failed to demonstrate compliance with all eight requirements. He said that is erroneous because all eight provisions do not apply to a variance based on special circumstances. With regard to Standard #1 in Sec. 66 -154, Mr. Siemon said because of the configuration of this property and the non - conformities imposed upon it by the change in regulations, there is very limited utility and, therefore the application complies with #1. With regard to Standard #2, he said Mr. O'Boyle had nothing to do with the Design Manual and the impact of applying it on his house and, therefore, this application complies with #2. With regard to Standard #3, Mr. Siemon said he could not find any existing structure in Gulf Stream built before 1995 that has as many limitations on its potential for either renovation or replacement as this parcel. He said that is why there is a variance provision, to judge whether or not it is contrary to the public interest and, therefore, this application complies with #3. With regard to Standard #4, Mr. Siemon said this applies to a hardship, not to an application for a variance because of special circumstances, but the order issued by the ARPB said it didn't comply with all eight. This one does not apply. (Vl With regard to Standard #5, Mr. Siemon said they could leave the height as is, but it would not be a worthwhile investment. He said the property owners have spent a lot of money designing something they feel is a worthwhile investment to the character of the building. Mr. Siemon said this is a minimum variance based on the testimony from Mr. Currie. With regard to Standard #6, Mr. Siemon said there is no question of use here and it cannot possibly apply to the variance before the Board. With regard to Standard #7, Mr. Siemon said this application is consistent with the Land Use Map and it does not violate anything found on that. With regard to Standard #8, Mr. Siemon said it does not give the specific prescriptions, it says the general intent and purpose of Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission - March 15, 2013 Page 23 this Code and that such variance will not be injurious with the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. He said this is the basis of your authority to control what people do with their private property and this is consistent with the general intent and with the specific intent, it is improving the property so that it will be more in harmony with neighbors and the overall community. Mr. Siemon said it will be beneficial to the community, and he said the developer who is building the new homes adjacent to this property is supporting it. He said Mr. O'Boyle's home sits right on the road due to the actions taken by the Town when they changed the regulations and, therefore, condemning this house to remain a 1983 house. Mr. Siemon said granting the variance makes good sense. Mr. Currie said this is a better design than what currently exists, the design is much more appropriate, it is in harmony and will enhance the value of the neighborhood. He said to drop the height down will hurt the design. Mr. Currie said Mr. O'Boyle has followed all of the rules and the rules were changed. Mr. O'Boyle introduced himself and thanked the Board for their time in hearing them out; however, he said he is outraged by the reprehensible conduct of the Board today. He said he has millions of dollars invested here, his taste on his property is his prerogative and the Board does not have the right to impose their taste on his property. Mr. O'Boyle said if the Board does not like this house, he has two houses in Hidden Harbour, he will remodel both of them in full compliance with the Laws of the United States of America, as he said Mr. Randolph is quite familiar with, and they will not be nearly as attractive as what they are offering here. He said his neighbor, Mr. Laudani, who is building six homes on the hill, wrote a letter of approval because he believes the improvements will increase the value of the new homes. Further, he said his neighbor, Mr. Krebbs, wishes him the best on this application. Mr. O'Boyle said there is an old saying, "watch what you ask for, you might get it." Mr. O'Boyle said, "watch what you ask for, you might get it." Mr. O'Boyle said he is sincere in saying that he appreciates Mr. Thrasher and he is a good man, but he is not a land planner. He said he made a public records request for Mr. Thrasher's personal file, his experience, his education, and he said his knowledge of this Code is not what it should be, and he said it is not what you think it is. Mr. O'Boyle said there are a slew of real estate signs along AlA, many of C them from Mayor Orthwein's firm. He said in Sec. 66 -446, they are prohibited and Mr. Thrasher has driven by them and has missed them for 17 years. Mr. O'Boyle said he pointed out Sec. 66- 446(a) to Mr. Thrasher, which deals with signs on private property. He said many of the signs are on AlA, which is not private property, and he said Mr. Thrasher responded by saying that signs do not have to be on private property. Mr. O'Boyle said the only other property would be public property and, therefore, he assumes that signs can be placed on public property. He said Mr. Siemon used the word "absurd," and he said if we interpret Sec. 66- 446(a)(4) as Mr. Thrasher does, the result is absurd, Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission - March 15, 2013 because then you would allow my application for Corporation to place a sign on the right -of -way Mr. O'Boyle said that is the interpretation we Mr. O'Boyle said there is no rational basis for roof. He said the Town Fathers are entitled to he said deference should be given to he and his Gulf Stream over 30 years, and to his neighbors Page 24 a West Virginia in front of Town Hall. nave in this Code. a cornice to be called a vote as they wish, but wife, who have lived in who have shown appreciation. Further, he said the Code is not the Holy Grail, you enforce it or you throw it in the trash. No real estate signs from Mayor Realtors, no signs from West Virginia people on right -of -ways. Mr. O'Boyle thanked everyone for hearing him out. Mr. Siemon said he read criteria that apply, it is a special circumstance given the punitive nature of the change in regulations that rendered this building non - conforming so much that the setback from the water and from the road would almost intersect in the center of the property. Some of you feel the design is massive and out of scale and character, but Mr. Siemon said he believes the criteria are met and the job is to do what is fair and in the best interest of the community. He said it is appropriate and it should be approved. Vice -Mayor Stanley said when the Board hears variances, one thing they look at is the eight standards. He said they are sympathetic of the fact that the house needs improvement. Vice -Mayor Stanley asked Mr. Currie if there are any alternatives, other than the design displayed as an example of what is permitted. He said it cannot be the only other option. Mr. Currie said there are hundreds of other options, but this character of design is in the owner's taste, and he said in order to do a prominent entranceway it would be a poor solution for many reasons to drop the height two feet. He said this is the minimum they can do, and he explained that they need the cornice dimension to be above the intersecting roof in the back, and the minimum standard coming out is to capture the overhang of the roof in front. Vice -Mayor Stanley said the term "massing of the entry feature" has not been used, and he said when reviewing variances and applying the Code, one function is to reduce the massing of whatever you are doing. He said when interpreting and applying the Code we must determine if a feature is too massive or too prominent, and he asked for confirmation from Staff that part of applying the Code is to reduce the size and scale of a feature to comply with Code. Mayor Orthwein and Staff O confirmed that is correct. Mr. Randolph said it relates to Mr. Thrasher's interpretation of the Code as it applies and now you will consider the various criteria as to whether literal interpretation of the provisions of the Code will deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others. Commissioner Ganger said fact that this is an odd not as vibrant as it was built around it that are District. He said the A] to the overall desire of he feels some deference should be given to the lot and non - conforming, he said the house is when first built and other houses have been more in character with the Community and the pplicant knows what he is proposing is contrary the Town to reduce mass when they see it, and Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission - March 15, 2013 Page 25 he said the majority of the people in this community want to see something more elegant and subdued. Commissioner Ganger said he believes that Mr. O'Boyle is trying to improve the look of his home and he believes that Mr. Currie is an outstanding architect. He said it is not an easy decision, he said he would be inclined to approve some of the variances, but he realizes it is a whole package and he would like to hear what the other Commissioners have to say. OCommissioner Dering said what they are proposing is a substantial improvement to what exists, there are a lot of special circumstances with the water and the setbacks, he does not find it contrary to public interest and he said the Board should find a way to let him do this. Mayor Orthwein said it is an improvement and it is a difficult lot to do anything with, but she said there is a problem with the mass of the entryway, mass being one of the reasons the Town redid the Code. She said she is not sure the Applicant has met all of the criteria, but this will set a precedence moving forward. Further, she agreed with Mr. O'Boyle's comment that if the Town does not stick to the Code it should be thrown away. Mr. Randolph said the question is whether or not the Applicant has met the standards of criteria set forth in the Code. He suggested the Board start with Variance #1 and make a motion as to whether or not they have met the criteria for that Variance. Further, he said consider the variance, consider the standards, do not give consideration to whether you think it is too massive or that you may not like it, but give consideration to the criteria and vote on that basis. Commissioner Ganger moved and Commissioner Dering seconded to grant Variance #1 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 ratio by 2,589 SF based on the finding that the Applicant has met the criteria as set forth in the Code. There was no discussion. Roll Call: Commissioner Ganger, AYE; Vice -Mayor Stanley, AYE; Commissioner Anderson, NO; Commissioner Dering, AYE; Mayor Orthwein, NO. The motion to grant passed by a vote of 3 - 2. Vice -Mayor Stanley moved and Commissioner Ganger seconded to grant Variance #2 to permit the first story eave height of the proposed entry O feature to exceed the maximum discouraged height of 12.5 feet by 2.5 feet to the architectural element based on the finding that the Applicant has met the criteria as set forth in the Code. Roll Call: Commissioner Ganger, AYE; Vice -Mayor Stanley, NO; Commissioner Anderson, NO; Commissioner Dering, NO; Mayor Orthwein, NO. The motion to grant failed by a vote of 4 - 1. Mr. Randolph said an affirmative motion to grant was made by Vice -Mayor Stanley and he voted "NO." Vice -Mayor Stanley confirmed that. Mr. Randolph said someone should follow up with a subsequent motion since that motion failed. He said there must be an action on the record in Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission - March 15, 2013 Page 26 regard to denial, because the fact that an affirmative motion did not pass is not enough. Mr. Randolph instructed that a follow -up motion to deny must be made and, in the motion to deny, do not state that you do not believe that all of the criteria have been met, but rather specify what criteria have not been met. He asked Vice -Mayor Stanley if it is his intent to make a motion to deny and Vice -Mayor Stanley confirmed that. Mr. Randolph said he must support that motion to deny with a O reason being that it does not meet one or more of the criteria set forth in the Code. Vice -Mayor Stanley moved and Commissioner Anderson seconded to deny 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 based on the finding that it does not comply with special conditions and circumstances that do not result in the actions of the Applicant. DISCUSSION: Mr. Randolph asked about Standard #3. Vice -Mayor Stanley it does not meet Standard #2 and Standard #3. Commissioner Daring asked if these are regardless of special circumstances. Mr. Randolph said you can believe there are special circumstances that are peculiar to the land, but not agree that the variance will not confer a special privilege on the Applicant. You do not need to go through each Standard, you can simply indicate you deny because it does not meet one or more of the criteria set forth in the Code. You have already identified two of the criteria that you believe have not been met, he asked about Standard #5. Mr. Randolph said you do not need to have a consensus for each one of these, but you should at least identify one or two of the criteria that have not been met so that the record supports that you have based this on the criteria and are not making a general motion. He said you have identified Standard #2 in the motion that has not been met. Mr. Randolph asked for Staff's opinion. Mr. Thrasher said, based on what he heard from Mr. Siemon, he does not believe that Standards #3, #4, #5 and #8 have been met. Mr. Randolph instructed the Board to keep in mind that the Standards Section says, "When recommending or taking final action on applications for variances, the review authority must find that. . .," and then it lists all eight Standards. He said unless you find that the application has met all eight Standards, you would deny the variance. Further, he said Mr. Thrasher has given Staff's C opinion of which criteria have not been met and if you agree you can make a motion on that basis. Vice -Mayor Stanley moved and Commissioner Anderson seconded to deny 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 based on the finding that not all of the eight (8) standards for granting a variance have been and at least one of the applicable standards have not been met. Roll Call: Commissioner Ganger, NO; Vice -Mayor Stanley, AYE; Commissioner Anderson, Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission - March 15, 2013 Page 27 AYE; Commissioner Dering, NO; Mayor Orthwein, AYE. The motion to deny passed by a vote of 3 - 2. Vice -Mayor Stanley moved and Commissioner Anderson seconded to deny 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 of the architectural element based on the finding that not all of the required eight (8) standards for granting a variance have been met and C at least one of the applicable standards have not been met. DISCUSSION: Mr. Randolph asked if the Commissions position on this Variance is the same as the previous. Vice -Mayor Stanley confirmed that, being Standards #3, #9, #5 and #8. There was no further discussion. Roll Call: Commissioner Ganger, NO; Vice -Mayor Stanley, AYE; Commissioner Anderson, AYE; Commissioner Dering, NO; Mayor Orthwein, AYE. The motion to deny passed by a vote of 3 - 2. Vice -Mayor Stanley moved and Commissioner Anderson seconded to deny Variance #4 to permit an additional 2 -foot encroachment beyond the existing 918" front setback encroachment based on the finding that not all of the required eight (8) standards for granting a variance have been met. Roll Call: Commissioner Ganger, AYE; Vice -Mayor Stanley, AYE; Commissioner Anderson, AYE; Commissioner Dering, NO; Mayor Orthwein, AYE. The motion to deny passed by a vote of 4 - 1. Commissioner Anderson moved and Vice -Mayor Stanley seconded a motion for 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: Commissioner Ganger, NO; Vice -Mayor Stanley, AYE; Commissioner Anderson, AYE; Commissioner Dering, AYE; Mayor Orthwein, AYE. The motion to deny passed by a vote of 4 - 1. Vice -Mayor Stanley moved and Commissioner Anderson second a motion to deny a Level III Architectural /Site Plan to permit a cumulative increase of 109 SF to the existing 8,001 SF, non - conforming, Spanish Mediterranean Revival, two -story single family dwelling does not meet the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards. There was no discussion. Roll Call: Commissioner Ganger, AYE; Vice- Mayor Stanley, AYE; Commissioner Anderson, AYE; Commissioner Dering, AYE; Mayor Orthwein, AYE. The motion to deny passed by a unanimous vote of 5 - 0. Clerk Taylor asked for declarations of Ex -parte communication concerning the remainder of the items to be heard. Both Commissioners Dering and Ganger stated that they drove by the subject property at 915 Emerald Row. b. An application submitted by Bernard and Stephanie Molyneux, owners of the property located at 915 Emerald Row, Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission - March 15, 2013 Page 28 described as Lot 64, Place Au Soleil Subdivision, Gulf Stream, Florida (1) 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 C Stream Zoning Code. (2) 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 Property Owner Bernard Molyneux introduced himself and stated that he is requesting a variance to permit the use of a brown cement roof tile on his home. He displayed the desired roof tile and explained that he currently has a wood shake roof that needs to be replaced and he would like a cement tile that is close to the existing brown color because he does not want to take away from the look of the home. Mr. Molyneux said the roof has been brown since 1984 and it was reroofed in 1995. He explained that he cannot get insurance on the house due to the roof. Commissioner Ganger asked if the tile is meant to resemble a shake roof. Mr. Molyneux said they chose the particular tile because it was close to the brown shake color. Vice -Mayor Stanley commented that no one wants a shake roof anymore and the brown cement tile is an alternative. He said he is aware that the ARPB was sympathetic to the situation, but the Code has a provision to allow you to replace what was removed, or it allows replacement on a Bermuda Style with a white cement tile through and through or gray slate tile. Vice -Mayor Stanley noted that the Town is having an on -going battle with cement tile color, but he said the choice is limited to white through and through or gray slate -like cement tile. Clerk Taylor said it can be a darker gray. Mr. Thrasher displayed a sample of the gray slate -like tile that has been reviewed and approved by the ARPB and the Commission. He said there is another sample of a gray tile not reviewed or approved by the ARPB or the Commission. Vice - Mayor Stanley pointed out that the brown cement tile is much bigger that the cedar shake and it changes the dimensions. Mr. Thrasher said he thought Mrs. Molyneux indicated that they can get insurance, but it would be very expensive. Mr. Molyneux it would be $20,000 and from an insurance company no one has heard of. Commissioner Ganger said insurance companies are putting property owners in an awkward position and the Board is sympathetic with the situation. He said Mr. Molyneux could take a chance on letting the Board vote on the Variance now. Vice -Mayor Stanley said we should vote now and get direction from Staff afterward. He said an alternate course would be to work with Staff on this and then come back to the ARPB, and he added that he would have the choice of either white cement through and through or gray slate -look cement tile and maybe a darker gray. Mayor Orthwein Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission - March 15, 2013 Page 29 said that the Board can approve a gray roof right now. Mr. Molyneux said he preferred the dark gray tile. Vice -Mayor Stanley moved and Commissioner Anderson seconded to deny 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 -134. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. Vice -Mayor Stanley moved and Commissioner Ganger seconded a motion for approval of Level III Architectural /Site Plan to replace the existing wood shake roof with a cement gray slate - colored through and through tile, rather than the brown /tan concrete roof material originally requested. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. Commissioner Anderson left due to time constraints. A quorum remained. C. 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. (1) 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. (2) 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. (3) DEMOLITION PERMIT to allow small portion of existing garage to be removed in order to realign the 2 car garage. (4) 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 O floor of an existing partial two story Neo- French Eclectic single family dwelling. Mark Marsh, agent for Grumney, stated that they are applying for two special exceptions that will allow for the proposed additions to the south west corner of the existing Neo- French Eclectic style home, which has already had a number of renovations in the past. He said they are also proposing a new and more elegant entry, and they would like to demolish a portion of the existing garage in order to realign the 2 -car garage and. Mr. Marsh said the extent of that demolition was uncertain when this application was heard by the ARPB, and he said he brought that to their attention at that time. He said he wrote to Staff since the ARPB Meeting to that they would like to demolish the entire north wing, Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission - March 15, 2013 Page 30 and he said there is a color -coded drawing showing the plan. Mr. Marsh said they are realigning the existing garage because it is at an awkward angle, and he said the purpose for total demolition of that wing is because they are not able to use any of the existing piling or grade beams. Vice -Mayor Stanley moved and Commissioner Ganger seconded to approve a Special Exception to permit the extension of the non - conforming south C 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. Vice -Mayor Stanley moved and Commissioner Ganger seconded to approve 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. Vice -Mayor Stanley moved and Commissioner Ganger seconded to approve a demolition permit to allow the entire existing kitchen /garage wing to be demolished in order to realign the 2 -car garage. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. Vice -Mayor Stanley moved and Commissioner Ganger seconded to approve a Level III Architectural /Site Plan 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 meet the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. VIII. Reports. A. Utility Undergrounding -Danny Brannon (Engineer) Danny Brannon gave a brief Undergrounding update. He said due to current clear zone requirements, there will be about 20 easements along AlA and they are currently gathering the legal information on ownership of the parcels, which is moving along. Mr. Brannon said the Commission asked Mr. Thrasher to take the lead on street lighting and Mr. Thrasher brought Marty Minor in to help coordinate some the street lighting. He said they have some samples to display and he asked Mr. Minor to take Oover this discussion. Commissioner Ganger asked if the issue of easements will slow down the process. Mr. Brannon said it may slow it down a little, but in similar situations they have found that residents are very cooperative. Mr. Minor said the Town currently has the standard FP &L Cobra lights. He said this is an opportunity to address lighting for the Town with regard to safety and security, but also for esthetics, streetscapes and creating a distinct identity for the Town. Mr. Minor said the Town should keep the sea turtles in mind. He said the Town currently has the high FP &L lights and the new lights will be a bit lower. With regard to Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission - March 15, 2013 Page 31 crime prevention, white light is preferred, either LED or Middle Haylight, because they show true color. Mr. Minor said there are approximately 88 lights in Gulf Stream and they looked at various types of fixtures to replace them. He said his recommendation is a more traditional lantern style, which is consistent with the Gulf Stream Golf Club and several homes in the area. Mr. Minor said that Keith Hall, Vice - President of Beacon Lighting, and Ryan Hough of Lighting Dynamics ^ were present. He said they are the experts on lighting and can talk 0 about the two fixture samples they brought with them. Mr. Minor said they did a ball park cost estimate for the replacement of 88 lights that includes a 10 -year warranty and installation, which is roughly $380,000. He said there is a decorative light for the Core and County Rd. area off of AlA. On AlA, because of the Australian Pines and the setbacks, the Cobra with a Viper light is being considered. Mr. Minor displayed a sample of the Viper light, which he said Mr. Brannon suggested painting green so that they would blend in. Mayor Orthwein asked if they have to be painted and, if painted, how long will it last. Keith Hall of Beacon Lighting took over saying that Beacon Products is located in Sarasota, Florida, they were founded in 1979 and acquired by Hubble Corporation in 2008. He said being located in Florida, Beacon has always prided themselves on the finish of their product. Mr. Hall said the use a finish process that is approved by Sherwin Williams, they can offer either a 5 -year or 10 -year finish, and he said this area is one of two areas they will consider for a 10 -year warranty. He said the sample products shown today are designed with LED, which he said will operate at lower wattage, there is a savings on both electrical and maintenance of fixtures. In addition, he said you get more of a white light source with LED and the color temperatures can be adjusted, depending on what the Town wants with regard to perception. Mr. Hall distributed his presentation and referred to Page 5, which shows a collage of different application shots, and he said they are all LED. Mr. Hall said each LED fixture is designed to give the same distribution and which gives better uniformity. In addition, he said the material specifications are included in the presentation packet. Mr. Hall referred to the two sample lantern fixtures saying they are both available in different sizes, paint applications and wattage. He described one of the lanterns as the Presidential, which is an eight - sided fixture with a crown on the top, and the other is a six -sided lantern called the LaHoya. Mr. Hall said the Viper light is designed to O replace the Cobra Head. He said Beacon also has products that are approved by the FWC for sea turtle nesting areas. Commissioner Ganger asked if the government gives energy credit to municipalities who convert to a more efficient lighting source. Mr. Brannon said the FDOT pays the Town a flat amount per light along AlA each year. Mr. Thrasher said the Civic Association has given the Town some examples of what they like, and he said Staff has looked at a number of options and is recommending either of the two samples displayed today. He said these samples have been reviewed by Marty Minor in regard to the esthetics and character of the Town, the Civic Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission - March 15, 2013 Page 32 Association has given their input and Staff has also provided the cost of the lights, poles and installation. Mr. Thrasher said the sample without the crown is a unique alternative and it is a little different from the other municipalities. Mayor Orthwein said it is very traditional and a little less expensive than the one with the crown. Mr. Hough said that is the LaHoya, and he said the sample is the smaller version, which is generally used on buildings 0 or at an entrance and on a shorter pole. He added that there may be some wattage restrictions with the smaller version. Mr. Hall said the LaHoya also comes in a larger size, which is generally used on the taller 14 -foot pole. In addition, he said they generally use indirect LED lighting in residential area which works better on lower- mounting poles. Vice -Mayor Stanley asked if there was a way to beta test this lantern first, and he also asked if the wattage can be adjusted up and down. Mr. Hall said fixture has different settings with dimming drivers and the wattage can be adjusted. Mayor Orthwein asked if that is an added expense and Mr. Hall said it is not. Commissioner Ganger asked what the biggest complaint is in street lighting. Mr. Brannon said glare is the biggest concern and he said these will not glare. Commissioner Ganger asked about the guaranty on a 10 -year light. Mr. Hall said the guaranty on the LED and drivers is 5 years and 10 years on the finish. He said another concern is power surge and these are protected against things like lightning strikes with surge protectors. Vice -Mayor Stanley asked how many Cobra Head lights are on AlA. It was determined that there are about 35 lights along AlA. Vice -Mayor Stanley asked if Beacon could hook up a sample of the decorative lights to get an idea of what it will look like and leave it for a couple of days or a week. Beacon said they could to that. Mr. Thrasher asked if the Commission is giving direction to hook up a sample and has Beacon agreed to do that. Mayor Orthwein confirmed that. Commissioner Ganger referred to Mr. Thrasher's memorandum regarding financing options for street lighting and signage and commented that Staff's recommendation is very creative. Mr. Thrasher said Staff's recommendation is to borrow money from the Assessment Fund by legal document at an interest rate of .75 %, and he said the General Fund would pay the Assessment Fund back over a period of 2.5 years. He said the project construction will most likely start around July or August, it O has an 18 -month timeline, and he said by project completion we will be able to increase the millage rate and pay the Assessment Fund back. Mr. Thrasher said the Assessment Fund is basically "parked" right now and this will increase the income for that money. He explained saying the lower interest rate of .75 %, as compared to the bank rate of 1.85 %, saves the General Fund money, and he said by saving money for the General Fund it generates more available funds for the Undergrounding Special Revenue Fund. Mr. Thrasher said he checked with the Town's accountants and they have no problem with it, he checked with Danny Brannon and he said Jupiter Island did the same, and he said he checked with the Bond Attorney who said nothing prohibits the Town from doing this as long as it is up front and each party is benefiting. Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission - March 15, 2013 Page 33 Mayor Orthwein asked if there was a consensus to leave the FP &L Cobra Heads on AIA for now with new poles. The Commissioners confirmed that. It was the consensus of the Commissioners to go with LED and the larger version of the simpler LaHoya lantern with 12' or 14' poles. Clerk Taylor wanted confirmation that the street light posts and sign posts will be the same color, which is black. Mayor Orthwein confirmed that. Mr. Thrasher asked the Commissioners if they were comfortable with the recommended financing. Mayor Orthwein confirmed that. B. Town Manager 1. FDOT -Clear Zone Update Mr. Thrasher had no update at this time. 2. Financing Options- Street Lighting & Signage This item was discussed during the Undergrounding Update 3. Analysis /Recommendation Re: Sign Vendor Mr. Thrasher said referred to him memorandum of March 15, 2013 wherein he recommends going with Baron Signs as a sole source vendor for manufacturing the Town's custom street signs. Justification is in the memo as to why they can be considered a sole source provider. Commissioner Ganger asked if Baron Signs has been qualified in a bidding process in Palm Beach County that would determine Baron Signs to be a sole source vendor. Mr. Thrasher said they did a very large custom package in North Palm Beach. Mr. Boardman said the Civic Association sat with Chief Ward to identify signs that are not required by law in order to make a conscious decision as to whether or not they should be replaced. Chief Ward said, in terms of safety there are signs, other than stop signs, that are required by law. He explained saying "golf carts sharing streets" signs are required because Gulf Stream has an ordinance that allows them on public streets. School Zone signs are required and he said we currently have less than required. There are "No Outlet" signs on streets such as Polo that are not required, but have been requested. There are "No Parking" signs in areas to protect our utilities. Commissioner Dering suggested that Mr. Boardman and Chief Ward meet to discuss this and determine which signs are not necessary. Mr. Boardman said Chief Ward has a map of where all signs are located and it would be easier if they could circle the signs that are not necessary. Mr. Thrasher said he is asking for a recommendation from the Commission. Commissioner Dering moved and Vice -Mayor Stanley seconded to approved the purchase of street Signage, posts and installation services from Baron Sign Manufacturing for an amount not to exceed $80K, and that the funds be provided from "unappropriated" and that the public bid option be waived. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. C. Architectural Review & Planning Board 1. Meeting Dates 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 Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission - March 15, 2013 Page 34 The upcoming meetings of the Architectural Review and Planning Board were noted by Mayor Orthwein. There was no discussion. D. Finance Director 1. Financial Report for February 2013 The Financial Report for February, 2013 was included in the Commission Packets for their review and information. E. Police Chief 1. Activity for February 2013 C; Chief Ward requested that the Activity Report for February, 2013 be accepted as submitted. There was no discussion. The Report was accepted. IX. Correspondence A. Resolutions. 1. Supporting a ban on texting while driving. a. #11, 2013; City of Palm Beach Gardens b. #13 -08; Town of Lake Clarke Shores Clerk Taylor said that the City of Palm Beach Gardens and the Town of Lake Clarke Shores have adopted Resolutions in support of a ban on texting while driving. She said if the Town of Gulf Stream would be interested in adopting a Resolution in support of banning texting while driving, she would prepare a Resolution to present for adoption at the April 12, 2013 Commission Meeting. Commissioner Ganger said he was in favor of a ban on texting while driving and it was the consensus of the Commission to have a Resolution prepared for adoption. B. Resignation from the ARPB -Ann Kasten Aker Mayor Orthwein noted that Ann Kasten Aker has submitted her resignation as Alternate Member of the Architectural Review and Planning Board (ARBP). She asked if there were any recommendations from the Commissioners. Commissioner Dering stated that he spoke to John Kirwan about the possibility of serving on the ARPB and he was interested. Clerk Taylor said that anyone interested in serving on the ARPB is required to submit their Letter of Interest to the Town. She said she would add this as an item for discussion on the April Commission Agenda. X. Items for Commission Action. A. Proposed Donation of a Tree in Memoriam of Mayor Koch From The Pugliese Family Commissioner Dering asked where the tree would be located. Clerk Taylor said it would be in the west corner of the Town Hall lot. Commissioner Ganger said this type of gift is not uncommon and it is a very nice gesture. He asked Clerk Taylor if there is an existing Town policy for O accepting gifts. Clerk Taylor said there is no history of the Town receiving gifts. Commissioner Dering felt that the Town would be better off not accepting the gift prior to adopting a policy. Commissioner Ganger suggested that the Town express their appreciation to Mr. Pugliese for his thoughtfulness and let Mr. Pugliese know that the Town will first need to adopt a gift policy. Mayor Orthwein suggested this matter as an Item for Discussion on the April Commission Agenda. B. Proposed Gulf Stream Commission Policy regarding ethics training Re: Palm Beach County Code of Ethics 2- 446(a) Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission - March 15, 2013 Page 35 Vice -Mayor Stanley moved and Commissioner Ganger seconded to adopt the Town's policy and procedures for providing guidelines to all Town officials and personnel regarding required ethics training as presented. There was no discussion. All voted AYE C. Overlapping Employment to Fill Vacant Police Position Chief Ward explained that at the end of June, 2013, the Police Department's part -time Officer, David Ginsberg, will retire. He said G Officer Lawrence Ladd is retiring at the same time and has requested to fill the part -time vacancy. Officer Ladd's transition to part -time creates a vacancy of a full time position and, due to the current limited manpower limitations, Chief Ward said he would like to fill that position as soon as possible to allow for proper training. Chief Ward said, although the early filling of the full time position may result in deficit spending under the current budget for labor allowance, he would like to request consideration for early employment. Chief Ward said the Police Department will have a full time position coming up as of June 31st, which is in the height of summer vacation. He said he would like to hire that person prior to the position becomes vacant for training purposes. Mr. Thrasher said positions will overlap from today through June 31ST and there is a minimum of $20,000 that is not budgeted for this purpose. He said he recommends that the Commission approve the sanction and the appropriation. Commissioner Dering asked how long it would take to train a new officer. Chief Ward said there is a lot of technology for a new officer to become familiar with, and he said an officer with 5 years of experience would be observed for a period of 6 - 8 weeks. In addition, Chief Ward said while Officer Ladd is transitioning from full time to part -time, the two positions would overlap for a period of 6 - 8 weeks, from mid May to the end of June. Mr. Thrasher said that period of time would only amount to $10,000, and he said it would not require Commission approval. D. Items by Mayor & Commissioners There were no items by the Mayor or Commissioners. XI. Public. There was no Public comment. XII. Adjournment. Vice -Mayor seconded to adjourn. There was adjourned at 4:50 P.M. 4Abbale ail C. Administrative Assistant Stanley moved and Commissioner Ganger no discussion. The Meeting was March 8, 2013 MAYOR: Joan K. Orthwein VICE MAYOR: Thomas M Stanley COMMISSIONER: Muriel J. Anderson W. Garrett Dering Robert W. Ganger CERTIFICATION OF ELECTION RETURNS AND SEATING OF COMMISSIONERS BEING HELD BY THE TOWN COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM ON FRIDAY, MARCH 15, 2013 AT NOON, IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. nnFmmn I. Call to Order. II. Roll Call. III. Certification of Election Results. IV. Seating of 2 Commissioners. V. Swearing in of the Commissioners. VI. Adjournment. SHOULD ANY INTERESTED PARTY SEEK TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE TOWN COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, SAID PARTY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE, MAY NEED TO INSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. F.S.S. 286.0105 C, N MINUTES OF THE CERTIFICATION OF ELECTION RETURNS AND SEATING OF COMMISSIONERS HELD BY THE TOWN COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM ON FRIDAY, MARCH 15, 2013 AT NOON, IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. I. Call to Order 12:00 Noon. II. Roll Call. Present and Participating Also Present and Participating Mayor Orthwein called the Meeting to order at Joan K. Orthwein Tom Stanley Muriel Anderson W. Garrett Dering Robert W. Ganger William Thrasher Rita Taylor John Randolph Garrett Ward Mayor Vice -Mayor Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Town Manager Town Clerk Town Attorney Police Chief III. Certification of Election Results. Clerk Taylor stated that it was not necessary for the Town of Gulf Stream to hold an election. She said the two appointees of the past year were the only two who qualified for candidacy and are automatically elected to serve one more year. Clerk Taylor said that their terms will expire at the same time as the other Commissioners. She said a motion will be necessary to certify that Commissioner Ganger and Commissioner Stanley are new elected members. Commissioner Dering moved and Commissioner Anderson seconded to certify Commissioner Ganger and Commissioner Stanley as elected members of the Town Commission. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. IV. Seating of 2 Commissioners. Clerk Taylor asked for a motion to seat the Commissioners. Commissioner Anderson moved and Commissioner Dering seconded to seat Commissioner Ganger and Commissioner Stanley. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. V. Swearing in of the Commissioners. Clerk Taylor asked Commissioner Ganger and Commissioner Stanley to stand, raise their right hand and read the Oath in unison. The Commissioners read and signed the Oath. VI. �urnment. M3,yor Orthwein adjourned the Meeting at 12:07 P.M. Administrative Assi APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Architectural Review and Planning Board of the Town of Gulf Stream will hold a Public Hearing on THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2013 AT 8:30 A.M., and the Town Commission of the Town of Gulf Stream, Florida will hold a Public Hearing on FRIDAY, MARCH 15, 2013 AT 11:00 A.M., both in the Commission Chambers of the Town Hall, 100 Sea Road, Gulf Stream, Florida, at which the following will be considered: O 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 for the following: 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. 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 The Architectural Review and Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the Town Commission and the Town Commission shall make a final decision regarding the subject application at the meetings noticed above. The meetings may be adjourned from time to time and place to place as may be necessary to hear all parties and evidence. The complete application materials are on file in the Office of the Town Clerk located at 100 Sea Road, Gulf Stream, Florida 33483, and may be reviewed during regular business hours, which generally include non - holiday weekdays from 9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. ALL PARTIES INTERESTED IN THESE MATTERS may appear before the Architectural Review and Planning Board and the Town Commission of the Town of Gulf Stream at the times and place aforesaid and be heard. SHOULD ANY INTERESTED PARTY SEEK TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OR TOWN COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, SAID PARTY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE, MAY NEED TO INSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND C EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 286.0105, F.S.S. Dated: February 1, 2013 Publish: Palm Beach Post February 13, 2013 February 27, 2013 March 9, 2013 TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA Rita L. Taylor, TowiY Clerk THE PALM BEACH POST Published Daily and Sunday West Palm Beach Palm Beach County STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH PROOF OF PUBLICATION Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Rosemary Hindmarch, who on oath says that she is a Legal Advertising Clerk of The Palm Beach Post, a daily and Sunday newspaper, published at West Palm Beach in Palm Beach County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertising for a LEGAL ADVERTISING NOTICE was published in said newspaper in the issues of Feb 13, March 9, 2013 Affiant further says that the said The Post is a newspaper published at West Palm Beach, in said Palm Beach County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Palm Beach County, Florida, daily and Sunday and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in West Palm Beach, in said Palm Beach County, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication ol'the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that she /he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Also published in Martin and St. Lucie Counties. Signed °^ -6t IF Sworn or affirmed to, an ubscribed before me, this 11TH day of MARCH 2013 In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed m official seal, the day and year aforesaid. +°' " °`�� KAREN SIGN It E833 n MYCOMMISSIONaEE833558 EXPIRES: Nov ember 15,2016 "POFFIO"� Eolk =d Thru BgdpEl Ncla7 �'^ces Order No. APPLICATION I Do DEVELOPMENT Ad Cost $959.76 APPROVAL $0.00 Balance NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN tfut d,. Due $959.76 Rwl•w G.fSN*.. Blvd pf ibe Town of Guil Steam B..Id.1 U.. wallholdF RR Hea,NOm THURSDAY. f LA AT litN Th. . r A, town Commh TA.M.andfG Florida al the Town of G ullseam, will hold a Publk MID no f.M. hNPCN AT A.M. 1 AT 11; . C3813 Loth . ch amnea .A. .then Wall. Hall, 1011 A.A. el16.TOVnI ed Gulllowing will denul following w10L•somb an application submitted by Bernardi d SNphml. own.n o0 Th. t.l.d AT 9 at 915 dl Raw Gulf Stream, F width la: Gulf Sir..., Florida, width 1. SM.IIS. -N A:GUfSPA.�m, Flodda, coon. I' g. VARIANCF in allow A MOD '.Placam.nt on a Aiming Gu1N Stream Bermuda "I. LnON lamdy, mn nallihe,do To, tanker. is rhe. provisions Of Se Olont 70.107 and TO- 338 of the Gulf Stream lanlng Cad.. LEVEL 3 ARCHRECTURAUSITC PLANI pmlttha lmlell.o.. el a, REVILW tO w brown,flat nni tb ubtln. wood ah.k• root, on m, wood tharoof,of, on Yalatln0 G.II Sln.m Bermuda ttyla,. tingle family, .n. Italy dwelling And a .aiit a eftk. a.. rT. u P to th. Tawn Commhalon end th. Town, Commlsslon shell mote n final d•pdon, r.gmdlnpe the i.bl.c, ep,llttill.n. et the ro .ungs ..Head above. The, meetings may be adjourned from, Um. m tlm. and Place to PI•C• asmaY' be n. A., 1. hoer .II partial endl . m.nt., The complete application matarlah, on [Ile In the Off c of the Town, Clerk located et 100 Su Rwd, Gulll Stream, FIo,Ide 334al, and may be, during dung regular butinesu hwreviewed ours, which generally Include non - hollday weekdays from 9.00 A.M. to, lU0 P,M. ALL PARTIES INTERESTED IN THESE: MATTERS may appear before the, Ar Idlacturel PAO. and Panning, Board and the To. Commlulon off the Town of Gulf Stream at the Nmau end plato vfor.sald and be hoard. SHOULD ANY INTERESTED PARTY SEEK TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADC BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OR TOWNI COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO ANY' MATTER CONSIDERED AT THE PUBLIC HEAPGS, SAID PARTY NEED A, M WILL RECORD OF THE PROCEFOINGS. AND, FOR SUCH PURPOSE, Id AY NEFO TO, INSURE THAT A V ERBAYM RECORD OF: THE PROCEEDINGS IS MAD F, WNICHI RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE, APPEAL 15 TO BE BASED. 306 0105„ ES.S. Dated: February 1, 3013 TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA Rita L Taylor, Town Clark PUB: The PA. Bach Pmt February 13, 37, March 9, 3013 PROOF OF PUBLICATION Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Rosemary Hindmarch, who on oath says that she is a Legal Advertising Clerk of The Palm Beach Post, a daily and Sunday newspaper, published at West Palm Beach in Palm Beach County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertising for a LEGAL ADVERTISING NOTICE was published in said newspaper in the issues of Feb 13, March 9, 2013 Affiant further says that the said The Post is a newspaper published at West Palm Beach, in said Palm Beach County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Palm Beach County, Florida, daily and Sunday and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in West Palm Beach, in said Palm Beach County, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication ol'the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that she /he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Also published in Martin and St. Lucie Counties. Signed °^ -6t IF Sworn or affirmed to, an ubscribed before me, this 11TH day of MARCH 2013 In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed m official seal, the day and year aforesaid. +°' " °`�� KAREN SIGN It E833 n MYCOMMISSIONaEE833558 EXPIRES: Nov ember 15,2016 "POFFIO"� Eolk =d Thru BgdpEl Ncla7 �'^ces Order No. 53563 Ad Cost $959.76 Paid $0.00 Balance Due $959.76 NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Architectural Review and Planning Board of the Town of Gulf Stream will hold a Public Hearing on Thursday, February 28, 2013 at 8:30 A.M., and the Town Commission will hold a Public Hearing on Friday, March 15, 2013 at 11:00 A.M., both in the Commission Chambers of the Town Hall, 100 Sea Road, Gulf Stream, Florida, at which the following will be considered: 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, for the following: 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. 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. VARIANCE #3 to permit the second -story eave height of the proposed entry feature to exceed the prohibited height of 23 feet by 2 feet. VARIANCE #4 to permit an additional 2 foot encroachment beyond the existing 9 foot 8 inch front setback encroachment. DEMOLITION PERMIT to remove 229 square feet of gross floor area. LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL /SITE addition for a cumulative to an existing 8,001 sqi, Spanish Mediterranean r Qdwelling. The Architectural Revir recommendation to the Towr shall make a final decis' the meetings noticed a} time to time and plate APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Architectural Review and Planning Board of the Town of Gulf Stream will hold a Public Hearing on Thursday, February 28, 2013 at 8:30 A.M., and the Town Commission of the Town of Gulf Stream, Florida will hold a Public Hearing on Friday, March 15, 2013 at 11:00 A.M., both in the Commission Chambers of the Town Hall, 100 Sea Road, Gulf Stream, Florida, at which the following will be considered: C, 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, to consider the following: 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. 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. DEMOLITION PERMIT to allow small portion of existing garage to be removed in order to realign the 2 car garage. 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. The Architectural Review and Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the Town Commission and the Town Commission shall make a final decision regarding the subject application at the meetings noticed above. The meetings may be adjourned from time to time and place to place as may be necessary to hear all parties and evidence. The complete application materials are on file in the Office of the Town Clerk located at 100 Sea Road, Gulf Stream, Florida 33483, and may be reviewed during regular business hours, which generally include non - holiday weekdays from 9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. ALL PARTIES INTERESTED IN THESE MATTERS may appear before the Architectural Review and Planning Board and the Town Commission of the Town of Gulf Stream at the times and place aforesaid and be heard. ?SHOULD ANY INTERESTED PARTY SEEK TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OR TOWN COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, SAID PARTY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE, MAY NEED TO INSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 286.0105, F.S.S. Dated: February 1, 2013 TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA i Rita L. Taylor, rown Clerk MAYOR: Joan K. Orthwein VICE MAYOR: Thomas M. Stanley COMMISSIONER: Muriel J. Anderson W. Garrett Dering Robert W. Ganger REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING BEING HELD BY THE TOWN THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM ON FRIDAY, MARCH 15, 2013 AT 11:00 IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, FLORIDA. AGENDA I. Call to Order. II. Pledge of Allegiance. III. Roll Call. March 8, 2013 COMMISSION OF A.M. GULF STREAM, IV. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 8, 2013. V. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. VI. Announcements. A. Regular Meetings and Public Hearings 1. March 15, 2013 @ Noon - Election Certification 2. April 12, 2013 @ 9:00 A.M. 3. May 10, 2013 @ 9:00 A.M. 4. June 14, 2013 @ 9:00 A.M. 5. July 12, 2013 @ 9:00 A.M. 6. August 9, 2013 @ 9:00 A.M. 7. September 13, 2013 @ 9:00 A.M. B. Mayor's Proclamation -Water Conservation Month, April 2013 VII. PUBLIC HEARING. A. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 1. Appeal Final Action of Planning & Bldg. Administrator a. An application submitted by Martin O'Boyle, owner of property located at 23 N. Hidden Harbour Drive, legally Q described as Lot 5, Hidden Harbour Estates, Gulf Stream, Florida, appealing the Administrative Decision that approval of four variances would be needed to modify the existing dwelling as requested. B. TOWN COMMISSION 1. Applications for Development Approval a. 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. (1) 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. (2) 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. (3) 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. (4) VARIANCE #4 to permit an additional 2 foot encroachment beyond the existing 9 foot 8 inch front setback encroachment. (5) DEMOLITION PERMIT to remove 229 square feet of gross floor area. AGENDA CONTINUED (6) 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. b. 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 (1) 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. (2) 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 C. 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. (1) 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. (2) 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. (3) DEMOLITION PERNIT to allow small portion of existing garage to be removed in order to realign the 2 car garage. (4) 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. VIII. Reports. A. Utility Undergrounding -Danny Brannon (Engineer) B. Town Manager 1. FDOT -Clear Zone Update 2. Financing Options- Street Lighting & Signage 3. Analysis /Recommendation Re: Sign Vendor C. Architectural Review & Planning Board 1. Meeting Dates 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 D. Finance Director 1. Financial Report for February 2013 E. Police Chief 1. Activity for February 2013 AGENDA CONTINUED IX. Correspondence A. Resolutions. 1. Supporting a ban on texting while driving. a. #11, 2013; City of Palm Beach Gardens b. #13 -08; Town of Lake Clarke Shores B. Resignation from the ARPB -Ann Kasten Aker X. Items for Commission Action. A. Proposed Donation of a Tree in Memoriam of Mayor Koch From The Pugliese Family B. Proposed Gulf Stream Commission Policy regarding ethics training Re: Palm Beach County Code of Ethics 2- 446(a) C. Overlapping Employment to Fill Vacant Police Position D. Items by Mayor & Commissioners XI. Public. XII. Adjournment. SHOULD ANY INTERESTED PARTY SEEK TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE TOWN COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, SAID PARTY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE, MAY NEED TO INSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. F.S.S. 286.0105 N NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL ONOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Architectural Review and Planning Board of the Town of Gulf Stream will hold a Public Hearing on Thursday, February 28, 2013 at 8:30 A.M., and the Town Commission will hold a Public Hearing on Friday, March 15, 2013 at 11:00 A.M., both in the Commission Chambers of the Town Hall, 100 o Sea Road, Gulf Stream, Florida, at which the following will be considered: 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, for the following: 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. 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 J architectural element. VARIANCE #3 to permit the second -story eave height of the proposed entry feature to exceed the prohibited height of 23 feet by 2 feet. VARIANCE #4 to permit an additional 2 foot encroachment beyond the existing 9 foot 8 inch front setback encroachment. DEMOLITION PERMIT to remove 229 square feet of gross floor area. 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. The Architectural Review and Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the Town Commission, and the Town Commission shall make a final decision regarding the subject application at the meetings noticed above. These meetings may be adjourned from time to time and place to place as may be necessary to hear all parties and evidence. The complete application materials are on file in the Office of the Town Clerk located at 100 Sea Road, Gulf Stream, Florida 33483, and may be reviewed during regular business hours, which generally include non - holiday weekdays from 9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. ALL PARTIES INTERESTED IN THESE MATTERS may appear before the Architectural Review and Planning Board and the Town Commission of the Town of Gulf Stream at the times and place aforesaid and be heard. SHOULD ANY INTERESTED PARTY SEEK TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OR THE TOWN COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THESE PUBLIC HEARINGS, ^ SAID PARTY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH ( > PURPOSE, MAY NEED TO INSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 286.0105, F.S.S. Dated: February 1, 2013 Publish: Palm Beach Post February 13, 2013 February 28, 2013 March 9, 2013 Town of Gulf Stream 12,E Rita L. Taylor, Town Jerk THE PALM BEACH POST Published Daily and Sunday West Palm Beach Palm Beach County STATE OF FLORIDA Signed Sworn or affirmed to, and ubscribed before me, this 11TH day of MARCH 2013 PROOF OF PUBLICATION Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Rosemary Hindmarch, who on oath says that she is a Legal Advertising Clerk of The Palm Beach Post, a daily and Sunday newspaper, published at West Palm Beach in Palm Beach County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertising for a LEGAL ADVERTISING NOTICE was published in said newspaper in the issues of Feb 13, 28, March 9, 2013 Affiant further says that the said The Post is a newspaper published at West Palm Beach, in said Palm Beach County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Palm Beach County, Florida, daily and Sunday and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in West Palm Beach, in said Palm Beach County, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that she /he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Also published in Martin and St. Lucie Counties. In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal, the day and year aforesaid. KAREN M.MWW N g' MY COMMISSION I EE 833555 Paid * EXPIPES: Nnvemh2t 15, 2016 Due '�F iR V Order No. 53606 Ad Cost S1,176.48 Paid $0.00 Balance Due $1,176.48 n N