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