HomeMy Public PortalAbout06/25/1998MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM,
FLORIDA ON JUNE 25,1998, AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD,
GULF STREAM, FLORIDA.
I. Call to Order. Chairman Wilson called
the meeting to order at
Cat 8:30 A.M.
II. Roll Call.
Present and Howard E.N. Wilson
Chairman
Participating: Muriel Anderson
Board Member
Douglas Hornberger
Board Member
Hewlett Kent
Board Member
Sara Winston
Board Member
Also Present and Kristin K. Garrison
Town Manager
Participating: John Randolph
Town Attorney
Rita Taylor
Town Clerk
William Wietsma
Applicant/Agent
Edith Moore
Town Resident
Tom Murphy
Town Resident
Barbara Murphy
Town Resident
William Harvey
Town Resident
Joyce Harvey
Town Resident
Suzanne Speer
Town Resident
Yvonne Templeton
Town Resident
John Ekberg
Town Resident
Michael Mullin
Town Resident
Mrs. Anderson moved and Mrs. Winston seconded that the minutes be
amended to show that under Item V., Announcements, Mrs. Anderson, Mr.
O'Neal and Mrs. Winston will not be present for the July meeting rather
than the June meeting as shown, and that the minutes then be approved as
amended. Roll Call: Mrs. Anderson; AYE, Mr. Kent; AYE, Mr. Hornberger;
AYE, Mrs. Winston; AYE, and Chairman Wilson; AYE.
O IV. Additions. withdrawals. deferrals. arrangement of agenda items.
Town Manager Garrison requested to add, following Items by Board
Members, a request for comments regarding a code provision requiring
that a single family dwelling have a two -car garage. There were no
objections, time permitting.
V. Announcements,
A. Meeting Dates
1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing 7-23-98 at 8:30 A.M.
2. There will be no meeting held in August, 1998
Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
Architectural Review and Planning Board
June 25, 1998
page 2
3. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing 9-24-98 at 8:30 A.M.
4. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing 10-22-98 at 8:30 A.M.
These announcements were made by Chairman Wilson.
VI. PUBLIC HEARING.
CChairman Wilson asked that all persons who intended to speak at
this Public Hearing please stand to take the oath. The Town Clerk
administered the oath to Edith Moore, Tom Murphy, Barbara Murphy, Yvonne
Templeton, William Harvey, Joyce Harvey, Suzanne Speer, John Ekberg,
Michael Mullin, and William Wietsma.
The Chairman later asked if there had been any Ex -Parte Communications
and none were declared other than Mr. Kent's discussions with staff, but
Mrs. Anderson stated that she had visited the site.
A. Applications for Development Approval
1. An application submitted by William Wietsma Co., Inc., the
owner of the property located at 2930 Gulf Stream Road,
Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described as Lot
17, Gulf Stream Properties Subdivision.
a. A LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the
demolition of the existing single family dwelling and
screen enclosed pool deck, and the construction of a
new two story single family dwelling consisting of
4,533 square feet, and a swimming pool.
Chairman Wilson asked Mr. William Wietsma to make his presentation. Mr.
Wietsma stated he would prefer that Town Manager Garrison present her
recommendation and that he would then answer any questions regarding the
proposed project.
Town Manager Garrison stated that the proposed home appears to be
consistent with all applicable sections of the Design Manual with the
design incorporating numerous preferred features of the Bermuda style
(quoins, shutters, white tile roof, muntins, white trim, etc.). She
added that a concrete paver circular drive and a significant amount of
new landscaping would be installed in the front and that the existing
Oficus hedge along the side property lines would remain. The Town
Manager recommended the project for approval with the following
conditions: 1) The septic system must be approved by the Palm Beach
County Health Unit. 2) A five foot high pool barrier which complies
with the Palm Beach County pool barrier regulations shall be provided
prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 3) All chain link
fencing must be completely concealed by plant material.
Mr. Kent called attention to the sliding doors on the rear elevation and
asked if they would have dividers on the glass, adding that there are
percentage limits for undivided glass on an elevation. He believed this
Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
Architectural Review and Planning Board
June 25, 1998
to be a discouraged element of the design
the home is a very nice design.
page 3
Mr. Kent added however, that
Mr. Wietsma explained that he has used sliding glass doors without
divided glass on the rear elevations of other homes in the Town,
pointing out that they are always under a covered area as with this
home, and have never been able to be viewed from the street.
Mrs. Anderson moved that, based on a finding that the proposed home is
consistent with applicable review standards, approval of the Level 3
Architectural/Site Plan Review be recommended to the Town Commission as
submitted with the following conditions: 1) The septic system must be
approved by the Palm Beach County Health Unit. 2) A five foot high pool
barrier which complies with the Palm Beach County pool barrier
regulations shall be provided prior to issuance of certificate of
occupancy. 3) All chain link fencing must be completely concealed by
plant material. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hornberger. Roll Call:
Mrs. Anderson; AYE, Mr. Kent; AYE, Mr. Hornberger; AYE, Mrs. Winston;
AYE, and Chairman Wilson; AYE.
2. An application submitted by William Wietsma Co., Inc., as
agent for D.B.Y.C. Partnership, the owner of the property
located at 2002 Pelican Lane, Gulf Stream, Florida, which
is legally described as Lot 9, Driftwood Landing
Subdivision.
a. LAND CLEARING PERMIT to permit the removal of exotic
trees and others to allow for ingress and egress to
the property and clear the site for the pool.
B. LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the
construction of a one-story single family dwelling,
consisting of 5,900 square feet, and a swimming pool.
Mr. William Wietsma began his presentation by explaining that the lot
frontage was 200' while the depth was only 1001, an unusual
configuration. He pointed out that this is a simple Bermuda design that
is similar to the dwelling under construction across the street. Mr.
Wietsma stated that the design complies with the Design Manual,
acknowledging that height of the roof does fall into the discouraged
Celement classification. He believe this height is necessary to be in
scale with the design.
Town Manager Garrison advised that the proposed design incorporates a
number of preferred features of the Bermuda style. In addition, she
pointed out that the proposal also incorporates a concrete paver
circular drive in front of the home, as well as a driveway approaching a
side -facing three car garage, adding that three car garages must be
adequately screened from the roadway. Mrs. Garrison noted that a
substantial amount of new landscaping is proposed in front of and behind
Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
Architectural Review and Planning Board
June 25, 1998
page 4
the home, including a 5 to 6' ficus hedge on either side of the driveway
entrance. In order to enable access to the circular drive in front of
the home, and to the drive accessing the garage, several existing plant
materials will be removed, including melaleuca, two seagrape trees and
one palm tree.
The Town Manager expressed concerns about the scale and massing of the
design even though the proposed floor area is significantly less than
the FAR limitations. Mrs. Garrison pointed out that the front elevation
of the home has very few relief features, except for the front entry and
the stepback to the garage. She reported that this was pointed out at
the pre -application meeting and a recommendation was made that the home
be slightly redesigned to incorporate an additional setback to break-up
the 110 foot wide front elevation. To address this recommendation, the
entry feature was enlarged slightly to provide more of a break in the
front elevation but the designer felt that no additional stepbacks could
be provided due to concerns that the lot's long narrow shape did not
allow enough square footage with an additional stepback, she said. Mrs.
Garrison felt that since the FAR is well under the maximum, the design
concession seems reasonable. She noted that the Heilakka residence
under construction across the street is similar in scale and massing.
The Staff recommendation was to approve a land clearing permit as
requested and to approve a Level 3 Architectural/Site Plan Approval,
based on a finding that the proposed home is consistent with applicable
review standards, with the following conditions: 1) The septic system
must be approved by the Palm Beach County Health Unit prior to issuance
of a building permit. 2) A five foot high pool barrier which complies
with the Palm Beach County pool barrier regulations shall be provided
prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 3) Any chain link
fencing shall be completely screened by landscaping material.
Mr. Kent called attention to the amount of undivided glass on the rear
elevation that he computed at 66%+, which he believed to be prohibited.
He further noted that these windows are paired and tripled which are
discouraged. Mr. Kent then pointed out that the flat front facade is
also a discouraged element, along with the height of the roof which
exceeds 20'. Mr. Kent believed the height of the roof is the most
critical and if the roof would be lowered to below 201, the impact would
be lessened. He complimented Mr. Wietsma on the stepbacks incorporated
on the rear elevation, remarking that the design would be improved by
incorporating them into the front elevation.
Mr. Wietsma replied that he was able to use the stepbacks on the rear
because of the angle of the rear lot line but that in order to place the
structure perpendicular with the street, which he felt was important, he
Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
Architectural Review and Planning Board
June 25, 1998
page 5
could not use the stepbacks on the front. Mr. Wietsma did not feel that
the front elevation is flat, but rather a formal design that has a
considerable amount of detail with the quoins, shutters, muntins, etc.
Chairman Wilson noted there are two chimneys and asked if one was false,
to which Mr. Wietsma replied that one is false and placed on the roof
CI for balance.
Mr. Wietsma advised that Mr. McGraw liked the Heilakka house and that is
why this design is similar. He reminded that there will be a 12' hedge
to screen the Heilakka site.
Chairman Wilson asked if there were any comments from the public.
Edith Moore advised that she is a contractor and an architect and had
built one of the early homes in the area approximately 44 years ago.
She stated the homes that were built in years past were homes of quality
and style as opposed to these that are of cheap quality, lacking front
design that results in giving an appearance of dormitories.
Tom Murphy advised that when the Brown's developed the area, an
Association was established and all designs were to be approved by the
Association. He further advised that Heilakka's had done this but DBYC
Partnership had not presented the design to the Association, applying
directly to the Town. He stated this is a house being constructed for
speculation and the design is a duplication of the Heilakka home. Mr.
Murphy further stated that the owner had said that the proposed
structure meets the Town's Code and there is nothing the Association can
do about it.
William Harvey also called attention to the fact that the proposed
structure is a 95% copy of the Heilakka house directly across the street
and is not in keeping with Gulf Stream designs. He reminded that tract
homes are not built in Gulf Stream. Addressing the 12' hedge, Mr.
Harvey remarked that the hedge will not screen the high roof and it will
be like driving down "Wall Street" when passing between these two
structures.
Chairman Wilson ask that the record show that the proposed structure
would be 136' across the front and coverage increases to 170' when the
driveway is included.
Joyce Harvey advised that her home was built in 1977 and that all homes
up to now have been before the Association for approval. Any problems
have been resolved in a cooperative spirit, she said. Mrs. Harvey
further advised that she had spoken to Mrs. Brown in Kentucky and she is
Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
Architectural Review and Planning Board
June 25, 1998
page 6
very opposed to this project. In closing, Mrs. Harvey reported that
there is trash all over the Heilakka site, blowing over the
neighborhood, and upon speaking to Mr. Wietsma, she was advised that he
could not control the workers in this regard. Mrs. Harvey then gave a
letter to Town Manager Garrison from Wendy Overton that was read into
the record expressing Ms. Overton's objection to the size of the
Cstructure, it's placement on the lot and the similarity to the Heilakka
home.
Barbara Murphy stated she lives in back of the Heilakka home and that if
the proposed structure will be as large as the Heilakka home, it cannot
be covered with landscape material. She feels this will take away the
charm of the community.
Paul Ekberg advised he is a 10 year resident and opposed to the size of
the proposed structure, adding that the lot is not meant for a 7,000 sq.
foot home.
Mr. Hornberger asked if the Town is responsible for enforcing deed
restrictions and was advised by the Town Attorney that the Town only has
authority over enforcement of the Town Code. He then requested that the
file on the Heilakka home be available for review as he was concerned
about a precedent being set.
Attorney Randolph advised that he did not believe the approval of the
Heilakka project had set a precedent as each application and project is
considered on its own merits.
Chairman Wilson stated that he is unhappy with the scale of the home and
the similarity to the Heilakka home is undesirable.
Mr. Kent moved to defer action on the Land Clearing Permit and the Level
3 Architectural/Site Plan Review until the meeting on July 23, 1998 at
8:30 A.M., prior to which the applicant is requested to present for
staff review a design that does not include prohibited and discouraged
Oelements, those being the height of the roof, windows on the rear
elevation, and the front facade, and that will be in keeping with the
character of the neighborhood. The motion was seconded by Mrs.
Anderson. Roll Call: Mrs. Anderson; AYE, Mr. Kent; AYE, Mr.
Hornberger; AYE, Mrs. Winston; AYE, and Chairman Wilson; AYE.
Mr. Kent reminded that the Code does not permit approval of a project
with over 3 discouraged elements.
Michael Mullin, while not identifying himself, stated that design
changes would be made to conform to the Manual. He further stated that
Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
Architectural Review and Planning Board
June 25, 1998
page 7
he believed Mr. Don McGraw may be able to attend the July meeting to
address some of the comments that were made regarding the project.
VII. Items by Board Members, Mr. Kent questioned if there should be
more definitions added to the Manual. As an example, he pointed
Cout that the Manual uses the term stepback but there is nothing to say
what an acceptable stepback is.
Attorney Randolph advised that this code was designed to allow for
discretion on the part of the Board and the applicant. The Board would
need to determine what is reasonable under the particular circumstance
and the applicant has an opportunity for more creativity, he said.
Chairman Wilson advised that if everything is specifically defined, the
applicant could bring in a design that met every provision and still
have a project that would not fit in Gulf Stream but could not be
rejected. He favored having some latitude.
Mr. Kent then asked the Town Attorney what should be covered in a motion
to deny a project. Mr. Randolph stated that there are three things that
must be present in a denial; 1)It must be based on criteria; 2) It must
be based on evidence; and 3) You must state your findings. He reminded
that this is a quasi-judicial proceeding and in the event of an appeal,
the court would not decide the case but would only consider if the
justification of the denial was valid based on the records of the
Hearing.
VIII. Items by Staff. Town Manager Garrison advised that she is
requesting input from the Board in regard to the requirements
that there be a two -car garage for each single family dwelling with two
additional on-site parking spaces. She explained that an owner wants to
turn a one -car garage into a two -car garage but cannot meet the required
setback and would need a variance. She questioned if the Board believed
the need for a two -car garage was important enough to justify a
variance.
GMrs. Garrison further advised that another owner wants to construct an
addition to an existing dwelling with a one -car garage that will cost
more than 50% of the value of the existing structure. She questioned if
the Board felt the owner should have to meet the requirement of a two -
car garage with an improvement of this scale. She said that there may
not be space to expand the garage without a variance. The Town Manager
then cited Page V-22 in the Manual which requires that 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 in the Manual.
Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
Architectural Review and Planning Board
June 25, 1998
page 8
After considerable discussion, the Board suggested that the applicant be
urged to provide a two -car garage in an improvement project only if it
is possible and practical to do so without a variance. Should the
project be over 75% of the value of the existing structure, the
applicant should be strongly urged to upgrade to the existing Code.
VIII. Public. There was no comment from the public.
IX. Adjournment, Chairman Wilson adjourned the meeting at 10:00 A.M.
!2A � d' 7 &
Rita L. Taylor, Town Clerk
C}