HomeMy Public PortalAbout11/15/2007O
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM,
FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2007 at 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL,
100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA.
I. Call to Order. Chairman Kent called the meeting to order at 8:30
A.M.
II. Roll Call.
Present and Hewlett Kent Chairman
Participating: Charles Frankel Vice -Chairman
Perry O'Neal Board Member
Donna White Board Member
Amanda Jones Alternate Member
Scott W. Morgan
Absent with
Notice: Robert W. Ganger
Also Present and William Thrasher
Participating: John Randolph
Rita Taylor
Quinn Miklos
William Wietsma
Alternate Member
Board Member
Town Manager
Town Attorney
Town Clerk
Agent for Swift
Agent for 3232 Polo
III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing 10-25-07.
Mr. Frankel moved and Mr. O'Neal seconded that the minutes be approved
as circulated and all voted AYE.
IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items.
There were none requested.
V. Announcements.
A. Meeting Dates
1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
a. December 27, 2007 @ 8:30 A.M.
b. January 24, 2008 @ 8:30 A.M.
c. February 28, 2008 @ 8:30 A.M.
d. March 27, 2008 @ 8:30 A.M.
e. April 24, 2008 @ 8:30 A.M.
f. May 22, 2008 @ 8:30 A.M.
Chairman Kent announced these dates and Mrs. Jones reminded that she
would not be present for the December meeting.
The Chairman asked if there were any exparte communications to declare
and there were none.
The Chairman asked that all persons who intended to speak please stand
to take the Oath. Town Clerk Taylor administered the Oath to Mr. Miklos
and Mr. Wietsma.
Regular Meeting Page 2
Architectural Review & Planning Board November 15, 2007
VI. PUBLIC HEARING.
A. Applications for Development Approval
1. An application submitted by Quinn Miklos as Agent for
Constance Swift, owner of the property located at 2562
Avenue Au Soleil, Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally
described as Lot 42 Place Au Soleil Subdivision.
Mr. Miklos displayed a site plan, color rendering and photographs of the
existing house and surrounding houses. He explained that the
improvements include a one story addition to an existing one story Gulf
Stream Bermuda style dwelling. Mr. Miklos stated that the color and
shutters would remain the same, the roof line, quoins and windows would
match the existing. A special exception is being requested to permit
additions to an existing non -conforming structure that encroaches 1 ft.
into the east side setback.
Mrs. Jones asked why the new windows depicted look different.
Mr. Miklos explained that it is the graphic drawing, the windows would
match the existing.
The Board members complimented that design.
There were no comments from staff.
a. SPECIAL EXCEPTION to permit conforming one story
additions to an existing non -conforming structure that
encroaches into the east side setback 1 foot as
provided in Section 70-75 (c)(1).
Mr. Frankel moved and Mrs. White seconded to recommend approval of a
Special Exception to permit conforming one story additions to an
existing non -conforming structure that encroaches into the east side
setback 1 ft. as provided in Section 70-75 (c) (1). Roll Call: Mrs.
White; AYE, Mr. Frankel; AYE, Mrs. Jones; AYE, Mr. O'Neal; AYE and
Chairman Kent; AYE.
b. LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit one
story additions consisting of a total of 2,376 square
feet to an existing one story Gulf Stream Bermuda
single family dwelling.
Mr. Frankel moved and Mrs. White seconded to recommend approval of a
Level III Architectural/Site Plan based on a finding that the proposed
one story addition, consisting of a total of 2,376 sq. ft., to an
existing one story Gulf Stream Bermuda single family dwelling meet the
minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards with
the conditions that: 1) Prior to painting and prior to a Certificate of
Completion, a Gulf Stream paint permit will be required. 2) If the
proposed site plan is altered because of the requirements of the Health
Department, a revised site plan will require ARPB approval. Roll Call:
Mrs. White; AYE, Mr. Frankel; AYE, Mrs. Jones; AYE, Mr. O'Neal; AYE and
Chairman Kent; AYE.
B. Items related to previous approval
1. Request for change of architectural style @ 3232 Polo Dr.
submitted by William Wietsma, Architect.
Regular Meeting Page 3
Architectural Review & Planning Board November 15, 2007
Mr. Wietsma displayed a color rendering of the proposed changes and
explained that the house was previously approved as classical anglo
Caribbean style. However, the owners have traveled extensively in Asia
and Africa and wanted a look that would allow the interior of the house
to be connected with the exterior, as is common in Singapore. The
changes requested include a verandah with lattice or louvers for shading
Oand air flow, nana wall doors that can be opened completely to the
exterior, fixed louvers and louvered shutters with dark brown trim at
the window openings and bamboo and woven raffia panels throughout the
interior to correspond with the tropical landscaping on the outside.
Mr. Wietsma explained that the dark color on the windows is in keeping
with many colonial Singapore houses, as are the other exterior elements
including the columns, moldings and arches.
Chairman Kent stated that the windows and shutters are not in keeping
with the neighborhood and bronze window frames are prohibited. He
suggested painting the window trim white, or a light tan or off white,
and the shutters a contrasting color.
Mr. Wietsma pointed out a provision in the Code Section 72-06, which
provides for houses other than those that are in the preferred and
prohibited section. He added that the window panes are not unusually
dark, they are the same gray color that he uses on all his houses.
Mr. Thrasher advised that the shutters must contrast and compliment the
body of the house
The Board members were concerned with the dark trim and the dark glass.
They agreed that the change is drastic compared to the previously
approved application and suggested that a new rendering be presented
showing the painted frames and shutters.
Mr. O'Neal moved and Mrs. Jones seconded to deny the request to amend
the approval that was originally given and suggested that Mr. Wietsma
return with a revised color rendering for 3232 Polo Drive. Roll Call:
Mrs. White; AYE, Mr. Frankel; AYE, Mrs. Jones; AYE, Mr. O'Neal; AYE and
Chairman Kent; AYE.
VII. Code Review
^ A. Additional Architectural Styles (single family)
�) The Town Manager reported there have been comments made that the new
homes are looking too much alike and the Commission has directed that
the Board consider whether or not additional architectural styles should
be provided under the "preferred" section in the Core District.
Mr. Frankel agreed and he has also heard comments about new homes
looking too "cookie cutter". He commented that he would prefer to see
more variety but they should be pure in style. Mr. Frankel suggested
that Urban Design submit renderings of some of the styles that would be
compatible with Gulf Stream.
Regular Meeting
Architectural Review & Planning Board
Page 4
November 15, 2007
Town Manager Thrasher commented that it seems like the town wants more
variety. However, the previous rendering that Mr. Wietsma presented was
denied.
Mrs. Jones agreed that more variety is needed but the type of style
selected should have all the elements of that particular style. She
offered to work with the town manager on different types of
�) architectural style.
Attorney Randolph suggested that Urban Design do a survey of the town as
to what other architectural styles would be compatible with the existing
homes and present renderings to the Board.
B. Maximum Glass Permitted per elevation (single family)
An application was recently considered for improvements to the home at
540 Palm Way. At first glance it appeared that there was an excessive
amount of glass on the elevation facing the water. At the request of
staff, a detailed analysis of the glass on this elevation was prepared
and it was revealed that they were just under the 50% maximum permitted.
The ARPB and Commission had concerns and asked that the provision be
reviewed to determine if the maximum percentage allowed should be
reduced.
Mr. Frankel stated that he is not concerned with changing the maximum
percentage allowed as there has only been one application addressing
this issue during his tenure on the Board. He believes applications
regarding this issue should be considered on an individual basis.
Chairman Kent asked if there could be a limit placed on the color of
glass.
Attorney Randolph advised that there is a rating system used on wind
shied glass color and this could be used on window glass as well. He
suggested that perhaps Urban Design could recommend a rating system and
revise the language on glass color to include "prohibited if it becomes
a dominant feature".
C. Upgraded Drainage Requirements
The current Code requires that a property retain the first one inch of
rainfall.
OTown Manager Thrasher advised that he does not recommend changing the
drainage regulations as he had been told it would be very difficult to
hold more than one inch in some areas in town.
D. Maximum Size Garage Doors (single family)
The Commission requested that a review of the current Code provision
relating to garages facing the street and dominating the front elevation
be performed.
Mr. Frankel asked the standard width of a garage door. He stated that
cars are being made larger and it is difficult to enter and exit a
standard garage. He suggested asking Urban Design to limit the
Regular Meeting Page 5
Architectural Review & Planning Board November 15, 2007
percentage of doors on the front and that the fagade or size of doors be
changed.
Mr. Thrasher stated that the normal width of a garage door is 9 ft. He
believes whether there are two or three doors with one stepped back, it
is still a dominant feature. He suggested limiting the number of doors
Ofacing the street because there is no way to effectively screen them.
Chairman Kent was concerned that limiting the size would impact homes on
smaller lots.
Town Clerk Taylor reminded that prior to the design manual, garage doors
were not allowed on the front but it was changed to accommodate smaller
lots and must be screened from the street.
Attorney Randolph suggested that this item be sent to Urban Design for
recommendation and the Board agreed.
E. Political Sign Regulations
Currently there are no provisions in the Code to address political signs
and they cannot be prohibited as it would be a violation of a
Constitutional Right. Staff prepared the following language and
recommended that it be made a part of the code
1. No sign shall exceed a maximum of four square feet in area.
2. No more than one sign shall be placed upon any property unless
such property fronts upon more than one street, in which event
two signs may be erected, one each frontage.
3. Signs shall be located only on properties where the property
owner has given permission.
4. The placing of signs anywhere on public property or rights-of-way
is prohibited.
5. Minimum setbacks from lot line of another -ten feet; from the
front property or from a street -5 feet; maximum height -four feet
including support for the sign.
6. Temporary political signs shall not be placed prior to 30 days of
the election to which they relate and shall be removed within 48
hours after the day of the election to which they apply.
Chairman Kent commented that he had no problem with the political sign
language as proposed.
OMrs. White asked if the lettering on the signs could be white.
Attorney Randolph advised that content or color cannot be regulated as
it would be a violation of a Constitutional Right.
Mr. Frankel moved and Mrs. White seconded to recommend adoption of the
regulation language for political signs. Roll Call: Mrs. White; AYE,
Mr. Frankel; AYE, Mrs. Jones; AYE, Mr. O'Neal; AYE and Chairman Kent;
AYE.
F. Clarify Roof Projection Special Exception Language
Staff has found the language in Section 70-72(b) regarding the Special
Exception for roof projections to be somewhat confusing. After
Regular Meeting
Architectural Review & Planning Board
Page 6
November 15, 2007
discussions with Urban Design it was believed that under item (2)d, it
would be much clearer if the word "additional" be eliminated.
Chairman Kent stated that he was in favor of eliminating the word
"additional" as he also found the section confusing.
Mr. Frankel moved and Mr. O'Neal seconded to recommend eliminating the
word "additional" under Section 70-72(b) 2(d). Roll Call: Mrs. White;
AYE, Mr. Frankel; AYE, Mrs. Jones; AYE, Mr. O'Neal; AYE and Chairman
Kent; AYE.
VIII. Items by Staff.
Town Clerk Taylor asked for direction regarding the next code review
meeting. She advised that Urban Design would be presenting the changes
on the multi -family structures and that there would be a roofing
contractor making a presentation on roofing material. She was concerned
that there would not be enough time to address the boat dock/lift issue.
Chairman Kent asked if Urban Design could do another study on this
matter.
Town Manager Thrasher advised that the Commission denied approving more
funds to Urban Design for a boat dock/lift study.
Attorney Randolph commented that there was a study done by Urban design
and advised that the Board could hear the presentation on the boat
dock/lift and the Commission could make a policy decision as to whether
a change is needed.
It was agreed that the boat dock/lift issue would be heard on the
January, 2008 agenda.
IX. Items by Board Members.
There were no items from the Board Members
X. Public. There were no comments from the public.
XI. Adjournment. Chairman Kent adjourned the meeting at 10:40 A.M.
Y nne E. Eckert, CMC
Deputy Town Clerk