Loading...
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