Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout01/22/1997MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA, ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 1997, 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 Participating: Also Present and Participating Howard E.N. Wilson William Lynch Fred Devitt, III Susanna Souder Sara Winston E. Scott Harrington John Randolph Rita Taylor Bettina Smith Kimberly Dellastatious Lane Collins III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of Decen Mr. Devitt moved and Mr. Lynch seconded as circulated and all voted AYE at Roll Call. Chairman Vice Chairman Board Member Board Member Board Member Town Manager Town Attorney Town Clerk Alternate Board Member Agent for Mathews Agent for the Little Club s be approved IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. It was agreed that Item X., Correspondence, would be heard immediately following the PUBLIC HEARING. V. Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. February 26, 1997 at 8:30 A.M. 2. March 26, 1997 at 8:30 A.M. 3. April 23, 1997 at 8:30 A.M. 4. May 28, 1997 at 8:30 A.M. Chairman Wilson made these announcements and Mr. Devitt advised that he would be unable to attend the meeting of March 26, 1997. VI. PUBLIC HEARING. Chairman Wilson asked for all of those persons who intended to speak during the Public Hearing to stand and take the Oath. The Oath was administ- ered by the Town Clerk to Kimberly Dellastatious, Mrs. George Mathews and Lane Collins. A. Applications for Development Approval 1. Kimberly Dellastatious as Agent for Mr. & Mrs. George Mathews, owners of the property located at 2580 Avenue Au Soleil, Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described as a portion of Lot 30 in Place Au Soleil Subdivision. a. SPECIAL EXCEPTION -To permit the replacement and enlargement of an existing screen enclosure that will extend the non- conforming wall of the existing dwelling which encroaches approximately 4 feet into the required 15 foot side setback Ms. Dellastatious explained that Mr. & Mrs. Mathews are seeking approval to replace a screen enclosure at the back of their residence and to extend the screen enclosure into the east side setback in order to line up the east wall of the enclosure with the east wall of the house.which is non- conforming in that it encroaches approximately 4 feet into the required 15 foot side setback. She advised that the proposed screen will have a mansard shape and the supports will have a bronze finish, similar to others in the neighborhood. She further advised that the screen will rise 9 feet with the top of the screen at just over 12 feet. Ms. Dellastatious pointed Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Architectural Review and Planning Board January 22, 1997 page 2 out that there is a 6' fence screening the enclosure from the adjacent properties and that the lot to the east, the side of the non -conformity, is vacant. She noted that the Town Manager had recommended that if the enclosure is approved, the approval should be conditioned on planting two palm trees in the east side setback to partially screen the top portion of the enclosure. Ms. Dellastatious advised that the Mathews' are requesting that they not be required to plant the two palm trees due to the fact that this area will be used as a walkway to access the pool and it will only be 11 feet wide. She further explained that Mr. & Mrs. Mathews plan to have the entire property re -landscaped in the future. Mr. Devitt asked if the property owner to the east had been notified of this request and was advised by the Town Clerk that they had been notified and there have been no replies. The other members of the Board did not believe it would be necessary to have the palm trees. Mr. Lynch moved to recommend approval of a Special Exception to permit the east wall of the screen enclosure to match the existing east wall of the house by extending 4 feet into the required 15 -foot east side setback, based on the plans and documents submitted by the applicant and a finding that the proposed project complies with all general and specific Special Exception review standards. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Winston. Roll Call: Mr. Devitt; AYE, Mrs. Souder; AYE, Mr. Lynch; AYE, Mrs. Winston; AYE, and Chairman Wilson; AYE. b. LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW -To permit the replacement and enlargement of an existing screen enclosure that will extend the existing non -conforming wall line of the structure that encroaches approximately 4 feet into the side setback. Mr. Lynch moved and Mrs. Winston seconded to recommend approval of a Level 3 Architectural/Site Plan Review for the replacement and enlargement of the screen enclosure based on the plans and documents submitted by the applicant and a finding that the proposed project complies with all applicable review standards. Roll Call: Mr. Devitt; AYE, Mrs. Souder; AYE, Mr. Lynch; AYE, Mrs. Winston; AYE, and Chairman Wilson; AYE. 2. Lane Collins of Golf Buildings Development, Inc., as Agent for The Little Club, Inc., owners of the property located at 100 Little Club Road, Gulf Stream, Florida and legally described in metes and bounds in Section 34, Township 45 South, Range 43 East in the Town of Gulf Stream, Florida. a. LEVEL 2 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW -To permit construction of a 400 square foot building on an existing concrete slab to house an existing irrigation pump. Mr. Collins explained that the Little Club wishes to construct a 20'x20', concrete block building on an existing concrete slab to house an existing irrigation pump. He further explained that the building will be located immediately north of an existing maintenance building and would be accessed by the existing driveway located at the intersection of Sea Road and Gulf Stream Road. Describing the building, he stated it will have a smooth stucco finish, painted white to match the adjacent maintenance building, a white cement tile roof, louvered windows on all four sides, a service door on the west side and an overhead door on the south side. The height of the building measures 8 feet to the eave and 12.5 feet to the peak, with a 4/12 roof pitch, he said. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Architectural Review and Planning Board January 22, 1997 page 3 Town Manager Harrington advised that the proposed structure will be of a style that will match the maintenance building and he recommended that a condition be attached that a hedge be planted along the east and north sides of the building and maintained at a height of at least 4 feet, should the project receive approval. Mr. Harrington reminded that the Architectrual Review and Planning Board has final approval on projects -6f this size and this matter will not be reviewed by the Town Commission. The Board members believed that this equipment should be protected and they felt the aesthetics would be improved by covering the equipment. Mr. Devitt moved and Mr. Lynch seconded the motion to approve the Level 2 Architectural/Site Plan Review for the construction of a 400 square foot pump house building based on the plans and documents submitted by the applicant and a finding that the following condition is necessary for the proposed project to comply with all applicable review standards: a. a hedge shall be planted along the east and north sides of the building and maintained at a height of at least four feet. Roll Call: Mr. Devitt; AYE, Mrs. Souder; AYE, Mr. Lynch; AYE, Mrs. Winston; AYE, and Chairman Wilson; AYE. X. Correspondence. A. Request to discuss separation of lots at 2817 N. Ocean Blvd. - Attorney Roger G. Saberson. Mr. Devitt declared a conflict of interest in that the firm with which he is affilitated represents Mrs. Speer from time to time. Town Manager Harrington explained that in 1991 Mrs. Speer, owner of this property, sold the south 100' to Mr. Vander Wolk. As a condition of the approval of this subdivision, all of the remaining property was unified. He further explained that under the code provisions at that time, the minimum lot size was 20,000.lsq. ft::, In the Agreement that was executed in 1991, it was stated that any future development and/or subdivision would fall under the provisions of the code in existence at that time. Mr. Harrington advised that Mrs. Speer now wants to subdivide the remaining property into two 100' lots but there would not be 30,000 square feet in each lot as is now required in the Design Manual. Mr. Harrington reported that he had explained to Mr. Saberson that this subdivision could not be approved unless there were to be a change in the code. Mr. Saberson is asking that this possibility be explored, he said. The Town Manager advised that the matter of the relocation of the Coastal Construction Control Line will be considered at the next meeting as a part of the Design Manual Evaluation. He suggested that Mr.,Saberson's request be considered after this matter has been concluded. All of the members of the Board were in agreement. VII. Design Manual Evaluation; 1996-1997. A. Revised Definitions of Preferred, Discouraged and Prohibited. Mr. Harrington began by -advising- that the definitions have been revised based on previous Board discussions. He said that the primary objective in revising the Preferred definition is to directly tie the Preferred items into the existing and desired character of the zoning districts. He reminded that there will be better character definitions provided for each zoning district that will identify the predominate preferred elements within each district. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Architectural Review and Planning Board January 22, 1997 page 4 The Town Manager stated that the primary objective in revising the Discouraged definition is to put the burden of proof on the applicant to show that his proposed use of a Discouraqed item is not inconsistent with the existing or desired character of the zoning district, which will also cause the Town to make such a finding before the item can be approved. Town Manager Harrington then stated that the primary objective in revising the Prohibited definition is to limit the total number of Discouraged items to three per property, thus preventing applicants from proposing several Discouraged items and then negotiating them away one at a time. This limitation is also reflected in the revised definition for Discouraged, he said. The revised definitions of Preferred, Discouraged and Prohibited as proposed by Mr. Harrington are as follows: PREFERRED: Preferred items are design elements that, whenever possible, should be used in order to maintain the desired character and quality of the Zoning District within which they are located. These items are those typically found in Gulf Stream and which, in combination with other preferred items, define the existing and desired character of the Town and the Zoning Districts. Preferred items are thought to comply with the following goals with respect to desired Zoning District character and quality: consistency of neighborhood character; consistency of architectural style; consistency of building form and mass; consistency of materials and colors; and consistency of location of elements. Incorporating preferred items into a design increases the probability of, but does not assure, project approval. DISCOURAGED: Discouraged items are design elements that should not be use ink to maintain the desired character and quality of the Zoning District within which they are located. These items are not typically found in Gulf Stream and detract from the existing and desired character of the Town and the Zoning Districts. Discouraged items are thought to not comply with the following goals with respect to.desired Zoning District character and quality: consistency of neighborhood character; consistency of architectural style; consistency of building form and mass; consistency of materials and colors; consistency of location of elements. Incorporating discouraged items into a design decreases the probability of project approval and may result in project denial. In order for a discouraged item to be approved, applicants must show, and the Town must find, that the proposed item is not inconsistent with the above goals. The use of more than three discouraged items on any property is prohibited. PROHIBITED: Prohibited items are design elements that do not maintain the desired character or quality of the Zoning District within which they are located and are not permitted under current codes or regulations. The use of more than three discouraged'items on a property is prohibited. Use of prohibited elements mandates project denial. During discussion it was unanimously agreed that the proposed revised definitions are not in need of any changes. Mr. Lynch moved to approve the revised definitions of Preferred, Discouraged, and Prohibited as presented by the Town Manager,and authorize that they be included in the recommendations to the Town Commission for revisions to the Design Manual. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Winston. Roll Call: Mr. Devitt; AYE, Mrs. Souder: AYE. Mr. LVneh: AYE. MrR_ WinGtnne AVR- AnA rhnirmnn Wilcnn• AVR. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Architectural Review and Planning Board January 22, 1997 page 5 B. Additions and Rehabilitations to Existing Structures Mr. Harrington reported that the Manual currently does not directly address the expansion or rehabilitation of existing structures and there are no provisions for expanding a non-conforming/prohibited structure, such as one with a flat roof, without a Variance. He then presented C proposed language intended to address both of these issues as follows: ADDITIONS OR PARTIAL REHABILITATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES Additions and partial rehabilitations should be designed to match the design of the rest of the existing structure so that when finished, the addition or rehabilitated portion appears to be an "original" part of the structure. Wherever possible, existing discouraged design elements should be removed or replaced and preferred elements incorporated. Very large additions or significant rehabilitations will be treated as completely new structures. REQUIRED For existing homes identified as having one of the styles of architecture described in Article VII of this Manual, the design of the addition or rehabilitated portion shall conform with all standards found in that article for the particular architectural style. The design of the addition or rehabilitated portion shall match the design of the rest of the existing structure as closely as possible. The design of the addition shall represent a logical extension of the existing structure in terms of location, form, mass, design and use of design elements. The design of the rehabilitated portion shall not create an inconsistency of design between the rehabilitated structure and other structures on the property that are not to be rehabilitated. Additions and/or rehabilitation projects which exceed 75% of the value of the existing structure shall be considered to be "new" structures and shall be subject to the standards found in Articles V and VI and VII of this Manual. PREFERRED Replacement/removal of existing discouraged and prohibited design elements throughout the structure wherever possible. Use of Preferred design elements whenever possible DISCOURAGED Use of discouraged design elements not present on the existing structure PROHIBITED Use of prohibited design elements not present on the existing structure. Use of prohibited design elements present on the existing structure without approval of a Special Exception (see Article IV, Section B.1. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS 1. Use of a Prohibited Design Element in an Addition or Partial Re- habilitation of an Existing Building which has such a Prohibited Design Element as an Intergral Part of its Design or Structure a. Permitted Design Elements Any design element listed as prohibited that is an intergral part of an existing structure proposed for expansion or rehabilitation. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Architectural Review and Planning Board January 22, 1997 page 6 b. Specific Standards for Review The addition or rehabilitation shall comply with the standards listed in Article IV, Section 10 of this Manual. The prohibited design element shall be an integral part of the design or structure of the existing building. Integral items shall include, but not be limited to: architectrual style, building form, roof material, windows, and doors; but shall not include cosmetic elements such as paint colors. The incorporation of an existing prohibited design element into the design of the addition or rehabilitated portion of the structure shall be minimized to the extent necessary to provide a continuity of design between the rest of the existing structure and the addition or rehabilit- ated portion. The prohibited design element shall not have a more prominent appearance on the addition or rehabilitated portion of the structure than it has on the rest of the existing structure. The rehabilitation or addition shall not incorporate any discouraged or prohibited elements not currently present on the existing structure. The cost of the addition or rehabilitation shall not exceed 758 of the value of the existing structure. Mr. Harrington stated he believed that when the cost of the improvement exceeded 758 of the existing structure, it should be considered a new structure and be subject to those provisions. He said that either a defini- tion of "value" would be provided in the code or default to the flood pro- visions for value. He further believed value is easier to quantify than a percentage of structural renovation or additions to structures. He remind- ed that this only deals with non -conforming designs, not setbacks. The Board felt 758 to be a reasonable standard and were in agreement with all of the language Mr. Harrington had presented. Mr. Devitt, moved and Mr. Lynch seconded the motion to approve the proposed language related to Ad- ditions and Rehabilitations to Existing Structures as presented by Mr. Harrington, and include it in the final draft of recommended changes/ additions to the Design Manual for consideration by the Town Commission. Roll Call: Mr. Devitt; AYE, Mrs. Souder; AYE, Mr. Lynch; AYE, Mrs. Winston; AYE, and Chairman Wilson; AYE. Mr. Harrington advised that a Variance and a Special Exception both require Commission action and take the same amount of time to get approved, but the difference is the criteria that would apply. To approve a Variance, the applicant must prove that there is something unique about his property and that the code creates a hardship making it nearly impossible for him to comply, he said. He further said that to approve a Special Exception, the applicant need only meet the general criteria found in the Zoning Code and the specific standards for review listed above. The Town Manager advised that neither uniqueness nor hardship are part of the Special Exception criteria. VIII. Items by Staff. A. Construction In Progress for December, 1996. In December, 1996, there was $9,700,059 worth of construction in progress. IX. Items by Board Members. There were no items from the Board Members. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Architectural Review and Planning Board January 22, 1997 page 7 X. Correspondence. This item was considered earlier on the agenda. XI. Public. There was no comment from the public. CXII. Adjournment. Chairman Wilson adjourned the meeting at 10:00 A.M. following a motion to do so made by Mr. Lynch that was seconded by Mrs. Winston with all voting in the affirmative. Rita L. Taylor, 07own Clerk