HomeMy Public PortalAbout05/22/2012 * Special MeetingMay 18, 2012
MAYOR: William F. Koch, Jr.
VICE MAYOR: Joan K. Orthwein
COMMISSIONER: Fred B. Devitt III
Muriel J. Anderson
W. Garrett Dering
SPECIAL MEETING BEING HELD BY THE TOWN COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF GULF
STREAM, AT THE CALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS, ON TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2012 AT
9:00 A.M., IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD,
GULF STREAM, FLORIDA.
AGENDA
I. Call to Order.
II. Pledge of Allegiance.
III. Roll Call.
IV. Zoning /Development Code Amendment Recommendations from ARPB.
A. Code Amendment Executive Summary & Proposed Code Amendments
1. Subdivision Review Criteria
2. Clarify Definition of "Character of District"
3. Establish FAR Applicability for Basements
4. Clarify Heights for Entry Features
5. Roof Tiles
6. Waterfalls
7. Waterfall Height
8. Grottos
9. Docks
V. 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
��i
M I N U T E S O F T H E S P E C I A L M E E T I N G H E L D B Y T H E T O W N C O M M I S S I O N O F T H E T O W N
O F G U L F S T R E A M , A T T H E C A L L O F T H E C O M M I S S I O N E R S , O N T U E S D A Y , M A Y 2 2 ,
2 0 1 2 A T 9 : 0 0 A . M . , I N T H E C O M M I S S I O N C H A M B E R S O F T H E T O W N H A L L , 1 0 0 S E A
R O A D , G U L F S T R E A M , F L O R I D A .
I . C a l l t o O r d e r
A . M .
I I
I I I
M a y o r K o c h c a l l e d t h e m e e t i n g t o o r d e r a t 9 : 0 0
P l e d g e o f A l l e g i a n c e . T h e P l e d g e o f A l l e g i a n c e w a s l e d b y
M a y o r K o < - h .
R o l l C a l l .
P r e s e n t a n d W i l l i a m F . K o c h
P a r t i c i p a t i n g J o a n K . O r t h w e i n
M u r i e l J . A n d e r s o n
F r e d B . D e v i t t , I I I
V i a T e l e p h o n e W . G a r r e t t D a r i n g
A l s o P r e s e n t a n d W i l l i a m H . T h r a s h e r
P a r t i c i p a t i n g R i t a L . T a y l o r
J o h n R a n d o l p h
M a r t y M i n o r , U r b a n
D e s i g n K i l d a y S t u d i o s
M a y o r
V i c e - M a y o r
C o m m i s s i o n e r
C o m m i s s i o n e r
C o m m i s s i o n e r
T o w n M a n a g e r
T o w n C l e r k
T o w n A t t o r n e y
T o w n C o n s u l t a n t
I V . Z o n i n g / D e v e l o p m e n t C o d e A m e n d m e n t R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f r o m A R P B .
A . C o d e A m e n d m e n t E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y & P r o p o s e d C o d e A m e n d m e n t s
M a r t y M i n o r s a i d t h e A R P B h a s b e e n w o r k i n g o n a s e r i e s o f C o d e
a m e n d m e n t s f o r t h e p a s t f o u r m o n t h s . H e s a i d s o m e o f t h i s s t a r t e d w h e n
t h e A R P B b e g a n t h e i r r e v i e w a n d a p p r o v a l p r o c e s s f o r t h e H a r b o r V i e w
S u b d i v i s i o n .
1 . S u b d i v i s i o n R e v i e w C r i t e r i a
M r . M i n o r s a i d t h e y r e v i e w e d s u b d i v i s i o n c r i t e r i a f r o m s e v e r a l
c o m m u n i t i e s i n c l u d i n g D e l r a y , B o c a R a t o n , P a l m B e a c h G a r d e n s a n d
J u p i t e r , a n d m o d i f i e d c e r t a i n c r i t e r i a t o s p e c i f i c a l l y a d d r e s s t h e
c o n c e r n s o f t h e T o w n t o b e u s e d a s a m e a n s t o s e t g u i d e l i n e s f o r
s u b d i v i s i o n p r o j e c t s . H e s a i d S e c t i o n 7 0 - 2 7 r e q u i r e d c l a r i f i c a t i o n a n d
d e f i n i t i o n w h e r e i t t a l k s a b o u t h o w t h i s s e c t i o n o f t h e C o d e i s t o b e
u s e d a n d h o w a d e v e l o p m e n t m u s t c o n f o r m t o t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e
d i s t r i c t . M r . M i n o r s a i d A R P B V i c e - C h a i r m a n S c o t t M o r g a n s u g g e s t e d s o m e
l a n g u a g e a n d t h e y h a v e d e f i n e d t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e T o w n b y p a r c e l s i z e ,
p a r c e l s h a p e , a c c e s s , t o p o g r a p h y , b e r m s a n d b u f f e r s a s a w a y t o
d e t e r m i n e h o w a p r o p e r t y w o u l d f i t i n t h e s u r r o u n d i n g n e i g h b o r h o o d . H e
s a i d s o m e o f t h e p r o p o s e d c r i t e r i a c o u l d c h a n g e t h e l o o k o f a
s u b d i v i s i o n , s u c h a s n o d e a d e n d s a n d n o T o r Y t u r n a r o u n d s . M r . M i n o r
s a i d t h e y w e r e a s k e d t o l o o k a t h o w m a n y p r o p e r t i e s i n G u l f S t r e a m h a d
t h e p o t e n t i a l o f b e i n g s u b d i v i d e d . T h e y d i d a s t u d y o f t h e a c r e a g e o f
s i n g l e f a m i l y h o m e s a n d h a v e i d e n t i f i e d 1 2 p r o p e r t i e s t h a t c o u l d b e
s u b d i v i d e d , w h i c h c o u l d r e s u l t i n 3 7 a d d i t i o n a l u n i t s . H e s a i d s e v e r a l
a r e i n t h e C o r e a n d B e a c h F r o n t , a n d o n e o f t h e p r o p e r t i e s i s t h e
S c h o o l , w h i c h i s i n a s i n g l e f a m i l y z o n i n g d i s t r i c t .
C o m m i s s i o n e r D e v i t t a s k e d i f t h e o u t c o m e o f t h e r e c e n t s u b d i v i s i o n
p r o j e c t w o u l d h a v e b e e n d i f f e r e n t i f t h e s e c r i t e r i a w e r e a p p l i e d . M r .
M i n o r s a i d t h e d e a d e n d s t r e e t w o u l d h a v e b e e n e l i m i n a t e d w h i c h w o u l d
Special Meeting of the Town Commission
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Page 2
make the layout different, but he said 6 lots may still have been
approved if it met the criteria of the zoning district and the character
of the surrounding neighborhood, specifically with the character of
properties within 500 feet. Mr. Randolph said the criteria that says,
"shall conform to lots within 500 feet" is the most substantial. Mr.
Thrasher said they discussed eliminating the 500 feet because that model
O picked up smaller lots near the Bath and Tennis. Both Mr. Ganger and
Mr. Lyons confirmed that the 500 feet was eliminated. Mr. Randolph
clarified saying Criteria A should read, ". . . shall be consistent with
the adjacent and surrounding neighborhood." He said the other criteria
are technical, but this is the specific criteria that would have been
most applicable to the subdivision of the Spence Property. Mr. Randolph
said the burden would be on the developer to show that the proposed
subdivision is consistent with the adjacent surrounding neighborhood,
which was accomplished in the subdivision approval process.
Commissioner Dering asked if future subdivisions would require a lot
size, such as an acre, and he said if you do not define surrounding
neighborhood it can become subjective. Mr. Randolph said any lot must
be developed pursuant to the lot size provided in the Code, and he said,
yes, there is some subjectivity in determining whether or not the
proposed subdivision is in conformity with adjacent lots. If adjacent
lots are larger than required by Code for that district, the subdivision
must conform to those larger lots as opposed to the minimum lot size set
forth in the district. Mr. Minor said there are other properties,
specifically in the Ocean West district, that could subdivide into
smaller lots than surrounding properties.
Mr. Randolph suggested Criteria A to read, "Lots to be created by the
proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the immediate parcels and
adjacent lots." Mr. Thrasher said it seemed like we suggested language
with regard to the district, and he said, for example, the smaller lots
mentioned near the B & T are in a different district. Mr. Minor noted
that Criteria B addresses the neighborhood district in which they are
located. Mr. Randolph suggested the opening paragraph of Section 62 -10,
Criteria for Subdivision Review read, "Any person seeking to subdivide
property within the limits of the Town shall comply with the following
criteria. The Architectural Review and Planning Board and the Town
Commission shall assure compliance with these criteria in determining
whether the proposed subdivision is permissible." All were in
agreement. With regard to Criteria A, he further suggested it read,
"Lots to be created by the proposed subdivision shall be consistent with
the immediate and adjacent surroundinc parcels and lots located within
the same zoning district."
Mr. Randolph said he believes landscaping should be directly addressed
in light of the recent issue with the subdivision project. He suggested
adding Criteria K to read, "Clear cutting of parcels shall not be
permitted. A landscaping plan shall be provided so as to assure the
preservation of landscaping and screening to the fullest extent possible
and to provide a mitigation plan for any landscaping removed." Mr.
Special Meeting of the Town Commission
Tuesday, May 22, 2012 Page 3
Randolph said the message to the developer is: Do not clear cut a lot,
provide a landscape plan showing what you intend to preserve and, in the
event you are removing landscaping, provide a mitigation plan showing
how you will replace landscaping that has been removed. He said it may
not have to say "clear cutting shall not be permitted." It could just
read "A landscaping plan shall be provided so as to assure the
preservation of landscaping and screening to the fullest extent possible
and to provide a mitigation plan for any landscaping removed." Mr.
Randolph said there will be existing screening before construction
begins and the developer would have to show how they will continue to
screen the property from view of adjacent parcels. He said it may be
subjective to the person reviewing the subdivision proposal, but he said
requesting a landscaping plan will indicate to the developer that
landscaping is very important to the subdivision, and it will show the
deciding body what will replace that which has been removed.
Commissioner Devitt said the T turnaround in the subdivision was
included in the neighborhood agreement due to the lack of public access
because the road around the perimeter of the lot is private. Mr.
Thrasher said the private road was on the west side of the property. He
said the south side road that goes west in front of the bird sanctuary
was deeded over, we thought it was a private road, but he said it is on
the Town's public road survey that they provide to the DOT.
Commissioner Devitt said the T is the result of the agreement between
the Developer and the neighbors. Mr. Thrasher said this language will
prohibit neighborhood agreements that ask for a T or a Y turnaround.
Mr. Randolph said if the Commission is comfortable with the language it
is fine without a waiver. He suggested another change to Criteria A to
read, "Lots to be created by the proposed subdivision shall be
consistent with the character of lots and parcels immediate and adjacent
to the proposed subdivision."
Mr. Randolph suggested adding a provision to the Code to address cutting
of landscaping. He said, separate and apart from subdivision code, it
is important that the Commission look at providing a landscape provision
for lots which will go to the ARPB for review. Mr. Thrasher said a
landscape plan is required as part of a development application and it
would be appropriate to have specific language in the Code which
addresses landscaping. He said if a landscape plan is modified in a
material way, the applicant is required to go back to the appropriate
Jboard for review. Mr. Randolph said there is a Code provision for the
removal of trees which says "a Level II Architectural Review is required
where there is removal of more than two trees of over 8" in caliber or
removal of any trees where replacement trees are not proposed.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, removal or alteration of more than 50
percent of vegetation on a site requires a Level III approval."
Vice -Mayor Orthwein said her concern is with a developer tearing down an
entire lot and removing the buffer before construction begins and she
suggested incorporating language addressing screening. Mr. Thrasher
said part of the review is to protect infrastructure and rights -of -way,
Special Meeting of the Town Commission
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Page 4
and he said there are cases where nothing is being removed, but rather
they are adding landscaping that could affect an entire neighborhood,
which the current Code does not address. Mr. Randolph said Jupiter
Island formed an Impact Review Committee and anyone building a new home
must show that construction will be screened with either landscaping or
fencing to protect neighbors, and he said this is something that can be
referred to the ARPB. Mr. Ganger agreed that the ARPB should look at
v buffering during construction. Mr. Randolph asked if there were any
objections to adding the word "landscaping" after the word "buffers" in
Criteria B. There were no objections.
Commissioner Dering wanted to clarify that the T and Y prohibition will
remain and that no waiver provisions are included. Mr. Randolph
confirmed that. He said the law is that if the lots intended to be
placed within a subdivision meet the zoning regulations set forth in the
Town, the Town must approve it. Because of the recent subdivision
approval, the ARPB wanted language that would allow more flexibility,
and he said there is some discretion involved, but it is no longer a yes
or no ordinance. Mr. Randolph asked if everyone was satisfied with the
recommended subdivision criteria. There was discussion concerning
Criteria E and I, it was the consensus of the Commissioners to leave
them in. Mr. Randolph suggested adding Criteria K to read, "Clear
cutting of parcels shall not be permitted. A landscaping plan shall be
provided so as to assure the preservation of landscaping and screening
to the fullest extent possible and to provide a mitigation plan for any
landscaping removed." There were no objections to the addition of
Criteria K.
2. Clarify Definition of "Character of District"
This item was discussed during Item IV.A.1. Subdivision Criteria Review,
and Criteria A and B were modified as stated above.
3. Establish FAR Applicability for Basements
Mr. Minor said this needed to be addressed due to the existing dune and
varied grade elevations within the Town, and he said the current Code
does not include the square footage of basements in FAR calculations.
He said the recommendation is that basements with living space shall be
included in FAR calculations, basements with access from the outside
will be counted 100% in the FAR and basements having no access from the
outside will be counted 75% in the FAR. He said a basement is not
considered a story with regard to the height measurement of a building
unless the ceiling of the basement is greater than three (3) feet above
grade.
There was a question concerning a certain property on County Rd. as to
whether this definition would have decreased the size of that structure.
Mr. Thrasher said it would have been reduced by about one - third.
Commissioner Dering said it may not belong in this section, but he asked
if the ARPB recommended any restrictions concerning the slope of
driveways. Mr. Randolph said this section does not address it and there
are no provisions in the Code regulating the slope of driveways. Mr.
Lyons said after discussing the matter the ARPB felt that there should
be something in the Code that addresses the slope of driveways. Mr.
Special Meeting of the Town Commission
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Page 5
Randolph said if the ARPB has already given that direction it will not
be necessary to go back to them, Staff would come back to the Commission
with language for their review.
Mr. Ganger said there was an issue where rules could be different with
respect to access to a public road or a private road. Mr. Thrasher said
Q where the Code allows three different options, that finished floor
elevation would determine where the basement begins, but he said the
degree of the slope would have to be specific language. Mr. Minor said
he would like to talk to an engineer who deals with these issues on a
regular basis. Commissioner Devitt asked if there was something in the
Code that addresses grades of abutting properties. Mr. Thrasher said it
is average abutting grade and that existing finished floor considered
that section of the Code and met that Code. He said it was changed
allowing everything below that finished floor to not be counted in the
FAR and we did not limit the size or the use. Mr. Ganger said there
have been changes in the building codes with respect to drainage and he
suggested consulting an engineer like Joe Pike. He said careful
attention is required when writing this language for this part of the
Code.
4. Clarify Heights for Entry Features
Mr. Minor said this section is poorly worded and can cause confusion and
misinterpretation wherein you could end up with an entry feature that is
higher than the main roof structure. He referred to Page 1, the Exhibit
of an entry feature with window lights at the top that create a larger
structure than allowed, and then to page 2, the Exhibit of an entry
feature that is more consistent with the roof line of the structure,
which would be allowed. Mr. Thrasher referred to page 3, the Exhibit of
an entry feature that is higher than the peak of the house, which is
disallowed, saying specific language is required to control that type of
element.
Mr. Thrasher said he has been administering the Code based on current
language which reads, "All other districts, the eave height from 8' to
1016" for the one story portion" and then in parenthesis, "(from 8' to
14' for the entry feature)." He said the maximum overall height of the
entry feature, whether it has a balcony or gable, has been the very top
of it, and he said the argument was that it could be up to 141. With
regard to the Exhibit on page 4, he said pop outs, step backs and
livable quarters above the entry door justified that creation. Mr.
Minor said the height is the concern because it tends to overpower the
house and the recommended revision creates a definition for entry
features and eliminates specific height references, bringing it down to
just below the roof line. The Commissioners agreed with the
recommendation.
5. Roof Tiles
Mr. Minor said the types, quality, cost and availability of tiles was
discussed and the consensus was that the quality of a flat white thru
and thru, smooth, uncoated tile was available and consistent with what
is desired by the community. Mr. Ganger said the ARPB took into account
the maintenance of the product, cost and its availability in the future.
Mr. Lyons said he is in favor of the recommended revision, but he said
Special Meeting of the Town Commission
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Page 6
we should be aware that this type of tile will go out of style and its
availability and cost will be a future issue. Mr. Thrasher explained
that slurry coated tile, which is not allowed, is larger, it gives a
tongue in groove diagonal look and it is not easier to maintain.
Commissioner Devitt said he thought after the ARPB did their research
O the revisions would allow greater freedom of roof product, but he said
it is more restrictive, going from "slate- style" to "slate." Mayor Koch
said the ARPB will look at issues going forward. Mr. Randolph clarified
saying that the ARPB, under this recommended language, would not have
the discretion to approve something that is not allowed. He said a
variance would be required wherein an applicant would have to show
hardship. Commissioner Devitt said changes can be made to the Code
during the next review process.
Vice -Mayor Orthwein asked if the gray tile which was recently approved
was a gray slate tile. Mr. Thrasher said it was a gray cement tile thru
and thru, not slate, and he said it was approved because it was not
being applied to a Gulf Stream Bermuda Style and, therefore, the Code
would not apply for white thru and thru or slate. Clerk Taylor said
white tile or slate was intended for the Bermuda Style, which is listed
under predominant style, and she said it also includes, "with Georgian
or British Colonial influences." Clerk Taylor said you would be
restricted to a slate or white tile roof. Vice -Mayor Orthwein said this
gray thru and thru tile is very attractive and it is acceptable and it
should be allowed if you have a Georgian or British Colonial house.
Clerk Taylor said this gray tile has a very rough finish. Mr. Lyons
said he wanted caution with regard to slate -like because it would be
difficult to find acceptable language to define it. Mr. Thrasher said
it is the most puzzling issued, but he said if you drive by the Binnie
property at 1314 N. Ocean, the approved roof tile appears to be the most
slate -like.
Commissioner Dering said he drove by the Binnie property, he thought the
roof tile looked great and he said this section of the Code is too
restrictive. Mr. Randolph asked if there were any objections to flat
white or gray thru and thru, smooth, uncoated tile. Mr. Ganger reminded
the Commission that making a change like this will change criteria.
Clerk Taylor asked the Commissioners if they were leaving slate as an
alternative. Vice -Mayor Orthwein said they were leaving slate as an
alternative.
Mr. Randolph asked whether or not the Commissioners are savina the
would like to see gray tile. He said if so, the section would read,
"Flat white or gray thru and thru, smooth, uncoated tile, or gray slate
tile, may be permitted on homes that are predominantly Georgian.
Further, Mr. Randolph said if you do that, you must also change the
prohibited section (Section 70 -238 (d) that now reads, "Prohibited:
Tiles other than white flat un- textured tiles or arav slate tiles." Mr.
Thrasher pointed out that there is only one shade of white thru and
thru; however, he said there is a multitude of gray shades, which could
Special Meeting of the Town Commission
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Page 7
make it difficult for him to administer the Code. There was further
discussion concerning the acceptability of different shades of gray.
Mr. Randolph asked Mr. Thrasher if he could administratively approve an
entire re -roof. Mr. Thrasher confirmed that. Mr. Randolph said from
time to time something comes before you that looks good, but might not
meet the strict language of the Code. He suggested adding a provision
saying, "Alternatively, gray tiles or slate tiles, which meet with the
approval of the ARPB, may be allowed. Mr. Randolph said that he and Mr.
Minor will come back to the Commission with proposed language for their
review.
6. Waterfalls
Mr. Minor said it is a popular feature that is not addressed in the
Code. He said Waterfalls would be included along with swimming pools
and spas. The Commissioners agreed with the recommendation.
7. Waterfall Height
Mr. Minor said this amends the swimming pool section saying waterfalls
shall not exceed 4 feet in height. The Commissioners agreed with the
recommendation.
B. Grottos
Mr. Minor said the ARPB recommends that no grottos will be permitted.
The Commissioners agreed with the recommendation.
9. Docks
Mr. Minor said clarification was necessary for the materials used for
docks. He said the added language reads, "All docks and pilings shall
be made of wood. No concrete docks are permitted." Commissioner Devitt
asked if recycled wood was considered. Mr. Lyons said it does not
replicate natural wood. Mayor Koch said those with concrete docks can
repair them rather than replacing them with wood. There was discussion
about concrete piling and that they were more durable. It was suggested
that concrete pilings should be allowed. The consensus of the
Commission was that more work was needed on this item.
Vice -Mayor Orthwein mentioned a neighbor's seawall that was recently
painted bright white and asked if there were any restrictions pertaining
to seawalls. Mr. Lyons said he did not believe we had jurisdiction over
seawalls and Mr. Randolph said we do. Mr. Thrasher said there was no
permit submitted to paint a seawall.
Commissioner Anderson asked if the portion of the Code which includes
the special provision pertaining to metal roofs should be clarified for
the purpose of preventing further confusion in the future. Mr. Randolph
said the exception language in that section should be amended adding
that an engineer's certification will be tested by the Town's engineer.
Clerk Taylor asked Mr. Randolph and Marty Minor if the additional and
amended language they are assigned to provide will come back in the form
of an ordinance for 1st reading at the June Commission Meeting. Mr.
Randolph confirmed that. Commissioner Devitt thanked the ARPB for their
time and effort. Vice -Mayor Orthwein requested that the ARPB look into
regulations concerning seawalls as soon as possible.
Special Meeting of the Town Commission
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Page 8
Adjournment. Commissioner Anderson moved and Commissioner Devitt
seconded to adjourn the Meeting. There was no discussion. All voted
AYE._---T,he Meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:00 A.M.
nail �-. Hnnale
Administrative Assistant