HomeMy Public PortalAbout10 23 14 MeetingMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM,
FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2014 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE COMMISSION
CHAMBERS OF THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA.
I. Call to Order.
Chairman Lyons called the meeting to order at 8:30 A.M.
II. Roll Call.
OPresent and
Participating
Absent with
Notice:
Also Present and
Participating:
Paul A. Lyons, Jr.
Malcom Murphy
Amanda Jones
S. Curtiss Roach
Thomas A. Smith
Robert J. Dockerty
Hewlett Kent
John Randolph -via phone
William Thrasher
Rita Taylor
Marty Minor
Chairman
Board Member
Board Member
Alternate Member
Vice Chairman
Board Member
Alternate Member
Town Attorney
Town Manager
Town Clerk
Consultant -Urban
Design Kilday Studio
III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing 9- 18 -14.
Mr. Murphy moved to approve the minutes of September 18, 2014 and Mr.
Roach seconded the motion with all voting AYE at roll call.
IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items.
There were none.
V. Announcements.
A. Meeting Dates
1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
a. November 20, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M.
b. December 18, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M.
c. January 22, 2015 @ 8:30 A.M.
d. February 26, 2015 @ 8:30 A.M.
e. March 26, 2015 @ 8:30 A.M.
f. April 23, 2015 @ 8:30 A.M.
All of the members present advised they would be able to attend both the
November and December meetings.
VI. Items by Staff.
A. Discussion deferred from 9 -18 -14
Cl 1. Should paver brick be counted as hardscape Sec. 70 -80,
Sec. 70- 148(1)
Town Manager Thrasher explained that the Code presently states that
driveways and pool decks shall not count toward the required 40% open
space. He explained that it has never been clear as to whether paver
bricks should be considered as hardscape since they are set in sand and
do have pervious spaces in between. He pointed out that over the years
since this code was developed, the use of paver bricks has become
increasingly popular and more of the front yards are being covered with
brick.
O
ARPB Regular Meeting
And Public Hearing
October 23, 2014
Chairman Lyons observed that there seems to be two issues, one being
esthetics and the other drainage.
Mr. Thrasher advised that Marty Minor was present and available to
provide input in these discussions.
Chairman Lyons asked Mr. Minor for his remarks, suggesting that
discussion follow.
Mr. Minor advised that most communities do not include driveways as open
space but he had seen some that count pool areas and sidewalks as open
space. In other areas they have stated that no more than 50% of the open
space can be hardscape.
Considerable
discussion
was held and the following questions resulted:
1)
Should
driveways
be counted as open space?
2)
Should
driveways
be counted as a percentage of open space?
3)
Should
paver brick
driveways be considered as hardscape?
4)
Should
there be a
maximum percentage of hardscape allowed for
the front
yard?
Attorney Randolph suggested a decision not be made at this meeting and
that a study be made as to what other communities similar to Gulf Stream
have done.
This suggestion was unanimously accepted and Mr. Roach moved to table
this matter until Mr. Minor can provide a summary of input from other
communities like Gulf Stream. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion and all
voted AYE at roll call.
2. Should undivided windows over 3' wide or more than 16 sq.
ft. visible from waterway be prohibited Sec. 70- 101(d)(5)
Mrs. Jones believed that the window design should be consistent over the
entire structure and be in keeping with the architectural design of the
building and there was no opposing comment.
Mr. Roach moved to recommend that undivided windows over 3' wide or more
than 16 sq. ft. are prohibited and Mrs. Jones seconded the motion with
all voting AYE at roll call.
3. Should 3 -stall or larger garages be prohibited from facing
the street Sec.70- 105(3)
Mr. Thrasher explained that the current code section only allows two car
garages to face the road unless additional are screened from view. He
added that it is common to use landscape material to achieve this. He
said that staff believes that 3 stall garages or larger should be side
loaded since, in most cases, the garage of this size becomes the
dominant feature of the front of the home. Mr. Thrasher added that
there must be adequate space to allow safe entry from the side which may
be a challenge. He stated that he can name several that have used this
2
ARPB Regular Meeting
And Public Hearing
October 23, 2014
screening mandate and it has never adequately accomplished what was
originally intended.
All were in agreement that more than a two stall garage facing the
street is overpowering on a front elevation and that depending on
landscaping can be compromised by disease or a hard freeze. Mr. Minor
noted that on some lots there could be two doors on the front and a
�} third on the side.
Mr. Thrasher said that this is not a problem in the Beachfront District
and in most of the Ocean West District because along AlA there exists
the North Ocean Blvd. Corridor which requires greater front setbacks and
landscaping material, resulting in less visibility from the roadway.
Mrs. Jones moved to recommend that three car garages facing the street
be prohibited in all Districts except the Beachfront and Ocean West
Districts. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion and all voted AYE at roll
call.
B. Proposed amended language related to "roof color ", Section
70- 238(a) -Marty Minor, Urban Design Kilday
Mr. Minor stated he had provided amended language to this section but in
discussions with Mr. Thrasher, it had been thought that the language was
too broad. In its place he suggested in the second sentence that "or" be
removed and after slate -like tile, "or tiles of similar slate -like
color" be added.
After further discussion on this matter, Mr. Murphy moved to recommend
that the beginning of the second sentence in Section 70 -238 be changed
to read "Flat, gray thru and thru, un- coated tile, or tiles of similar
slate -like color may be permitted at the discretion ". The motion was
seconded by Mr. Roach and all voted AYE at roll call.
C. Recommended Code Changes
1. Add "metal" under Prohibited - Sections 70- 218(d) and
70- 238(d)
Town Manager Thrasher explained this addition is being requested in the
interest of clarification and consistency throughout the code since the
word "metal" does appear under prohibited sections of other parts of the
code.
Mr. Roach moved to recommend that the word "metal" be added in the
OProhibited Sections of 70- 218(d) and 70- 238(d) and Mr. Murphy seconded
the motion with all voting AYE at roll call.
Attorney Randolph advised he would be leaving the meeting at this point.
2. Change Code to reflect FEMA elevation designations from
NGVD to NAVD
Mr. Minor advised this is a clean -up item. He stated the system for
determining the elevations of the ground level has changed from the
National Geodetic Vertical Datum to the North American Vertical Datum.
3
ARPB Regular Meeting
And Public Hearing
October 23, 2014
He said that all other agencies such as South Florida Water Management
etc. are all changing to this designation. He explained the difference
between the two standards is approximately 1.51. In answer to a
question from Chairman Lyons, Mr. Minor advised the finished floor
elevation will remain the same, only the measurement changes.
Mr. Roach moved to recommend changing Sec. 66- 258(a)(1), 66- 258(b)(1),
OSec.70- 77(a)(1) and Sec. 70- 77(b)(1) from 8.5 feet NGVD to 7.0 feet
NAVD; Sec. 66- 258(c)(4) & Sec. 70- 77(c)(2) from 17 feet NGVD to 15.5
feet NAVD; Sec. 70 -78 from 5' NGVD to 3.5' NAVD and to amend Sec. 42 -94
by deleting "to be contained from the one inch rainfall and the
equivalent of a 24 hour /three year return storm event" and replacing it
with "consistent with South Florida Water Management District
standards ". Mrs. Jones seconded this motion and all voted AYE at roll
call.
3. Code clarification
a. Entry Feature Height
(1). Section 70 -100
Mr. Minor reminded that there have been changes in the past to try to
limit the size of the entry so it is not overpowering and that trying to
accomplish this has been difficult. He stated that he has added back in
some of the heights that were removed and cleaned up some of the
language in 70- 100(a)(4) about the entry features. He once again stated
the entire purpose is to not have an entry feature that overwhelms the
architecture of the house and be in keeping with the architecture of the
neighborhood and the District. He pointed out that the change allows the
heights of the entry feature to be a little higher than the eaves of the
structure but not overwhelmingly.
Mr. Thrasher stated that entry features have been becoming a very
dominant feature as seen from the street view. He said the current
language does not seem to work for the architects or the staff in that
the architects do not believe the balcony railings should be counted as
a part of the entry feature.
Chairman Lyons reported that he had spent some time driving around and
looking at various homes and found he had a hard time deciding if the
balconies were a part of the entry feature or a part of the second
floor. He believed these entry feature regulations to be important
enough to have the matter continued to a Special Meeting at which some
Ographic material could be presented to assist in this recommendation.
Mr. Minor suggested that he come back to the Board with photographs
containing measurements or some line drawings that would illustrate the
results of the change.
Mr. Thrasher asked Mr. Minor to include the home at the west end of Palm
Way and Chairman Lyons stated he would also like to include some for
review. Mr. Lyons also believed we should have input from a couple of
architects that do work in the Town. Chairman Lyons suggested that a
n
ARPB Regular Meeting
And Public Hearing
October 23, 2014
Special Meeting be held to consider matters discussed at this meeting
that are felt to need further study.
Mr. Roach moved and Mr. Murphy seconded that a Special Meeting be held
on December 9, 2014 at 8:30 A.M. for these purposes and all voted AYE at
roll call.
b. Color
Q (1). Section 70- 106(b) Principal building
(2). Section 70- 106(c) Trim
(3). Section 70- 106(d) Accent
Town Manager Thrasher reported that Attorney Randolph had drafted this
proposed language and staff believes it is very good. However, he
pointed out that two homes have recently been approved with the second
story being of a different color and material than the first floor which
could not have been approved with this proposed language. He added that
if the suggested waiver provision were to be adopted, that could be used
for approval of the 2 color application.
Chairman Lyons suggested that these matters also be included on the
agenda for the future Special Meeting, and that perhaps Attorney
Randolph will be able to be present.
VII. Items by Board Members.
There were no items from the Board Members.
VIII. Public.
There was no public comment.
IX. Adjournment.
Chairman Lyons adjourned the meeting at 10:10 A.M.
Rita L. Taylor
Town Clerk
W
5