Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout10/30/1996MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA, ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1996, AT 8:30 A.M. IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. Call to Order. Chairman Wilson called the meeting to order at 8:30 A.M. II. Roll Call. Present and Howard E. N. Wilson Chairman Participating: William Lynch Vice Chairman Fred Devitt III Board Member Susanna Souder Board Member Sara Winston Board Member Also Present and Participating: Scott Harrington Rita Taylor Bettina Smith Town Manager Town Clerk Alternate Board Member III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting/Public Hearing of September 25, 1996. Mr. Devitt moved and Mrs. Souder seconded that the minutes of September 25, 1996 be approved as circulated and all voted AYE. IV. deferrals ement of agenda items. There were no changes requested. V. Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. November 26, 1996 at 8:30 A.M. 2. December 17, 1996 at 8:30 A.M. 3. January 22, 1997 at 8:30 A.M. These announcements were made by Chairman Wilson. ktj�ali-70CoMI0-Fmore l A. Applications for Development Approval Continued from 9-25-96. 1. Samuel Ogren, Jr., as agent for the Gulf Stream School Foundation, owners of the property located at 3600 Gulf Stream Road, Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described in metes and bounds in Section 3, Township 46 South, Range 43 East. a. LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW -To permit the existing white cement tile roof and the proposed white cement tile roof on a previously approved addition to be changed to a fiberglass -reinforced asphalt shingle, the color of which is a light greyish -white shade. The Town Manager called attention to a letter from the Gulf Stream School Foundation that had been distributed in the agenda packet requesting to withdraw the application for a roof change at this time. Mr. Lynch moved and Mrs. Winston seconded that the request be granted without prejudice. Roll Call: Mr. Devitt; AYE, Mrs. Souder; AYE, Mr. Lynch; AYE, Mrs. Winston; AYE, and Chairman Wilson; AYE. VII. Desian Manual Evaluation. Town Manager Harrington advised that during the past two years, since the adoption of the Design Manual, he had been keeping a running list of issues that may be in need of further clarification. To begin the evaluation process, he believed two basic decisions need to be made; what are the issues to be addressed and what process will be used to address them. Regular Meeting/Public Hearing Architectural Review & Planning Board October 30, 1996 page 2 It was agreed that the list of issues would be reviewed at this time and a selection of those to be addressed further would be made. This review was as follows: BUILDING DETAILS: 1. Use of Muntins/Maximum Size of Window Panes. It was determined that better language is needed to require muntins with certain exceptionsto be provided for elevations facing the ocean. Mr. Devitt suggested that panes over a certin size (to be determined) be shown as a discouraged item. 2. Roof Material. Mr. Harrington pointed out that the Manual does not address the use of asphalt shingles specifically and does not provide criteria for determining the appropriateness of a specific roof material with a particular architect- ural style, except for Gulf Stream -Bermuda and the Spanish -Mediterranean Revival styles. The Board believed that shingles should be prohibited on the Bermuda and Mediterranean styles. They further believed that the description of each district should be expanded to better establish the character of the district, thus making it possible to also consider if the roof material would be appropriate in the district regardless of style. 3. Degree/Amount of Architectural Detail/Complexity. Town Manager Harrington reminded that there had been problems with making a determination as to what design elements, or corbination of elements, were the source of complexity on certain elevations. He suggested that perhaps Mr. Skokowski could use, as an example, one of the elevations that the Board and Commission had felt to be too complex, and re -draw it to simplify the trim so it can be studied and compared to the original design. Following that, language could be included in the Manual, and possibly illustrations, to control the complexity. The Board agreed to this suggestion. 4. Small Satellite Dishes. In that a policy had been adopted by the Town Commission with regard to these small satellite dishes, Mr. Harrington believed that this, with or without further revision, should be incorporated in the -Manual. There were no objection's.to this. BUILDING MASS: 1. Eave Heights -and Number of Different E$ve Heights on an Elevation. Mr. Harrington and the members of the ARPB agreed establishing some control on eave heights could help solve problems of design complexity as well as building mass. It was noted that there are one story homes being built that appear to be two story due to having such high eaves,. The Board agreed that there should be a limit on eay.e heights and that there should be a limit on the number of various emve heights on a structure. 2. Height of One -Story Structures. Since there is no set maximum height for one-story structures, it was agreed that a maximum height should be included and it should be less than 24 feet. 3. Height of Decorative or Small Structural Elements such as Towers. Mr. Harrington stated that this has not been an issue as yet but that it could become one if a height limit is placed on one story homes. It was agreed that a maximum height limit should be included in the Manual. Regular Meeting/Public Hearing Architectural Review & Planning Board October 30, 1996 page 3 4. Roof to Wall Ratio in Elevation. The Town Manager advised that another method of dealing with eave heights and roof heights is to establish a ratio between the height of wall (from floor to eavE) to the height of roof (from eave to peak). It was determined that this could be considered along with the consideration of eave heights. 5. FAR Calculation. Mr. Harrington reported that most of the homes approved under the Manual have been right at the maximum floor area limit and some level of discontent from people in the community has been expressed. He advised that it may be more difficult to lower this calculation due to the adoption of a new law that gives property owners the right to recover damages under certain circumstances if their property value is lowered by an act of this type. The members of the ARPB agreed that they are in favor of trying to reduce the FAR and Mr. Harrington stated he would contact the Town Attorney with regard to the legal impact of such an action. SITE STANDARDS: 1. Three -Car Garages Facing the Street. Town Manager Harrington advised that lots of 20,000 square feet or less may have garages that face the street but at the time this was established, two -car garages were the norm. Currently, three- or four -car garages have been the norm, he said. The Board indicated that they would like to consider prohibiting anything over two -car garages from facing the street. 2. Simulated Right-of-way Standard Adjacent to Private Roads. The members of the Board determined that this issue need not be addressed and the current provisions will remain intact. 3. Re-establishment of Coastal Construction Control Line. Mr. Harrington advised that it appears certain that the Coastal Construction Control Line will be re-established by the State with the new location being at least 50 feet west of the current location and this could have a significant impact on the design and location of new homes on beach front properties. In addition, certain standards in the Manual are directly tied to the existing Control Line and some thought and discussion regarding this issue will be necessary, he said. Mr. Harrington pointed out that construction seaward of the Line is not, and will not, be prohibited but permits will have to be approved by the State and it will be more costly due to additional building requirements that are imposed when building seaward of the line. He advised the Board that he will prepare material to show where the new line will be to assist in evaluation of the impact the relocation will have. This was agreeable to the Board. 4. Building Separation Credit. The Town Manager stated that the current setback provisions were working well except when applied to very wide lots. As an example he pointed to the Wheeler lot in Hidden Harbour that was approximately200' wide but very short in depth. This resulted in a total 60' setback. Since very long narrow structures are not attractive, the construction was broken up, or separated, and connected with a trellis. Mr;.. Harrington suggested that perhaps a credit for using a separation could be considered by including the space between structures as a part of the required setback. He added that this is only a suggestion and will require careful analysis with possibly some alternative solutions. The Board agreed to study this in the evaluation process. Regular Meeting/Public Hearing Architectural Review & Planning Board October 30, 1996 page 4 PROCEDURES AND DEFINITIONS: 1. Additions/Modifi f Structures with Non- conrorming Designs. The Town Manager advised that existing homes with prohibited designs, such as flat roofs, cannot .have additions that match the existing design C of the structure without approval of a Variance. He questioned if the Board would want to consider some criteria to permit additions to non- conforming structures. The Board agreed that the variance procedure was a bit harsh but they were in favor of still having a hearing procedure for this type of issue.. Mr. Harrington suggested that this could be handled through a Special Exception procedure such as is used to permit adding onto non -conforming structures that already encroach into the setbacks. The Board agreed with this suggestion. 2. Size of Additions/Structures Approved by Staff. Mr. Harrington advised that the staff is currently limited to approving additions of up to 300 square feet which has caused difficulty for some applicants who were trying to expedite the approval by keeping it at a staff level but had to make unwanted changes in order to stay ­*ithin the size limit. The Board did not feel any change was in order due to there being no notice to the neighbors when a public hearing procedure is not required. They believed that anything over 300 square feet should follow the public hearing procedure and notice requirements. 3. Definition of "Preferred". In that those items listed as "preferred" in the Manual compose the existing and desired "character" of the Town and the neighborhood, Mr. Harrington suggested that the definition be amended to indicate this. The Board agreed. 4. Definition of "Discouraged". Town Manager Harrington noted that "discouraged" elements are those that are not a part of the character of the Town or neighborhood and are presumed to be disruptive to the character. Accordingly, "discouraged" elements, when used, put the burden on the applicant to prove that his particular use of such elements will not be disruptive, and the definition should be amended to better reflect this, he believed. The ARPB members were in agreement with this. 5. Definition of the "Character" of each Neighborhood. Mr. Harrington explained that as written, the Manual covers nearly all of the character defining elements of the Town and neighborhoods but the ability to look at the overall design of a home and property with the overall character of the area is somewhat limited. He believed that providing a greater definition of the general character of the community would provide a better method for determining the suitability of a Particular design as a whole. He added that the existing character of the Town and the various neighborhoods was defined in the first draft of the Manual,that was actually a study, and some of that information could be used. The Board was in agreement. Chairman Wilson advised he must leave and he passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Lynch at 10 A.M. 6. Site Plan Review Standards. The Town Manager pointed out that the specific standards in the Manual have been the primary focus of review during the application approvals process. He further pointed out that Article V.1, of the Land Development Code provides 12 different architectural/site plan review standards, only Regular Meeting/Public Hearing Architectural Review & Planning Board October 30, 1996 page 5 one of which addresses consistency with the Design Manual. He said that these standards are important because they are much more broad in scope than the standards found in the Manual or elsewhere in the Code, and they permit the Board to take an arm's length look at a project for overall consistency with the intent of the Manual and Code. He believed if some of the character definition changes are made as have been briefly discussed, it may be wise to review/revise some of these 12 standards to incorporate criteria for overall consistency with the defined character. Mr. Devitt asked if there is mention of the other standards in the Design Manual. Mr. Harrington replied that they were cross-referenced in Part B of the Appendix. Mr. Devitt suggested that perhaps this should also be reviewed for clarity. The members of the ARPB were in agreement with all of the suggestions regarding this issue. 7. Application Requirements and Process. Town Manager Harrington explained that the application requirements and process are difficult for the average homeowner to understand and comply with without professional assistance. He questioned if the Board felt it necessary to review the requirements during this evaluation process. Mrs. Souder stated she understood the complexity of the process but felt that persons who are undertaking a project must recognize the requirements are a necessary part of the process and she did not believe anything could be changed if development is to continue in an ordery fashion and the character of the Town protected. Mr. Harrington believed that a review was necessary:during an,evaluation and the Board agreed. Bettina Smith was recognized and stated that she was concerned that the architects would be including many discouraged elements in order to be able to "trade-off" some of them at the hearing and still come out with a design that contained several discouraged elements. Mr. Harrington and the others felt this is a valid concern. It was agreed that there be established a maximum number of discouraged items that would be considered on an elevation. Vice Chairman Lynch requested that an issue of "Outdoor Lighting" be added to the list for review and all agreed. EVALUATION PROCESS: The members of the Board favored working on the evaluation at the end of the agenda at each Regular Meeting with the meetings to conclude at 10 A.M. Mr. Harrington advised that he would prepare enough material to cover approximately 1 hour for each meeting. It was agreed that if the process does not move along fast enough to get a recommendation to the Town Commission by April, 1997, special meetings would be scheduled. VIII. Items by Staff. A. Construction in progress in September, 1996 The report reflected there to be $5,775,321 worth of construction in progress. IX. Items by Board Members. There were no items from the Board Members. Regular Meeting/Public Hearing Architectural Review & Planning Board October 30, 1996 page 6 X. Public. There was no comment from the public. XI. Adjournment. Vice Chairman Lynch adjourned the meeting at 10:35 A.M. on a motion tc do so made by Mr. Devitt that was seconded by Mrs. Souder with all voting in the affirmative. )KA /_ Rita t. Taylor, Tr Cler