HomeMy Public PortalAbout09/24/2009MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM,
FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2009 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL,
100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA.
I. Call to Order
8:30 A.M.
II. Roll Call.
Present and
Participating
Also Present and
Participating
Chairman Ganger called the meeting to order at
Robert Ganger
Donna White
Amanda Jones
Scott Morgan
Thomas Smith
William H. Thrasher
Rita L. Taylor
Charles F. Carlino
Anthony Mauro
Chairman
Vice -Chairman
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Town Manager
Town Clerk
Applicant
Representing
Applicant
III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 7-23-09.
Mrs. White moved and Mr. Smith seconded to approve the Minutes of
July 23, 2009. There were no comments. All voted AYE.
IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items.
There were no changes.
V. Announcements.
A. Meeting Dates
1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
a. October 22, 2009 @ 8:30 A.M.
b. November to be determined.
c. December 24, 2009 @ 8:30 A.M.
d. January 28, 2010 @ 8:30 A.M.
e. February 25, 2010 @ 8:30 A.M.
Chairman Ganger reviewed the meeting dates and noted that Mrs.
Jones would be out of town for a while. Mr. Smith said that he
would not be present for the October meeting. Chairman Ganger
asked Clerk Taylor if there was an applicant for the October
meeting and Clerk Taylor confirmed that there will be one
applicant, possibly two. Chairman Ganger announced that he and
Malcolm Murphy, an alternate member, would be present. Mr.
Morgan and Mrs. White stated that they will be present. Because
the November regular meeting date falls on Thanksgiving Day,
Clerk Taylor announced that the Board will be required to set the
November meeting Date at this meeting. It was determined that
the November meeting will take place on Thursday, November 19,
2009 at 8:30 A.M. Mrs. Jones inquired about the December 24th
meeting and it was decided that it would be moved up one week to
be held on Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 8:30 A.M.
Architectural Review & Planning Board
Regular Meeting - September 24, 2009 Page 2
VI. PUBLIC HEARING.
Chairman Ganger asked if there were any ex -parte communications
concerning the application being presented to the Board. Mrs. Jones
stated that she had a conversation with Commissioner Devitt concerning
the matter. Mrs. White stated that she had a conversation with the
applicant, Mr. Carlino, who showed her the plans for the project. She
also said that she discussed the matter with Town staff and had no
O conflict regarding any monetary gain or loss with this issue. Chairman
Ganger, Mr. Morgan and Mr. Smith all stated that they had driven by the
property.
Town Clerk Taylor administered the oath to Anthony Mauro of Mauro
Brothers who represents Charles Carlino, the applicant.
A. Applications for Development Approval
1. An application submitted by Anthony Mauro, as Agent for
Charles F. Carlino, the owner of property located at
2730 Avenue Au Soleil, Gulf Stream, Florida, which is
legally described as Lot 5, Place Au Soleil Subdivision in
Gulf Stream, Florida.
a. LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit
the addition of a 430 square foot screened porch to an
existing Polynesian style dwelling, and the
construction of a 2 -story garage @ studio consisting
of 997 square feet.
Mr. Mauro introduced himself, stating that his company is assisting Mr.
Carlino with the permitting, design and construction of an addition of a
430 square foot screened porch to an existing Polynesian -style dwelling,
and the construction of a two-story garage and studio consisting of 997
square feet. Mr. Mauro displayed the site plan showing the main house,
which is a one-story structure, and explained that the etched area
behind the house is the porch area and the structure beside it is the
proposed new garage area. The plans also show proposed landscaping to
the north and the west for the purpose of blocking the structure from
the neighbors on both sides. Mr. Mauro said that the property is
currently surrounded by an 8' to 10' Lindstrom Hedge.
Chairman Ganger referred to the neighbor's landscaping which currently
exists directly next to the proposed hedge on the west side. Mr. Mauro
said it is a large, dense, tall hedge running along the property. He
said that the proposed landscaping will add density to further obstruct
the neighbor's view of the upper portion of the new structure and will
be trimmed and maintained from the applicant's property.
Mr. Mauro explained that, per the Town's request, they obtained an
independent architectural review and, in fact, they had two separate
reviews, both of which were from J.C. Design & Associates and included
the review of eight articles. He explained that two of the articles did
not apply and, of the remaining six, four articles were 100% in
compliance and two were conditional. The architect recommended changes
as follows: Relocate the windows and add shutters; install a trellis
over the garage; redesign the flat roof to a sloped roof to provide
consistency with historical and present-day architecture; install a low
Architectural Review & Planning Board
Regular Meeting - September 24, 2009 Page 3
wall or screen to deter headlight glare to the rear yard and the
neighbor's yard; full to base landscape material should be kept and
supplemented along the north property line and include landscaping that
will soften the proposed two-story addition. Mr. Mauro stated that all
recommended changes have been made.
Chairman Ganger asked if the existing garage is currently being used.
Mr. Mauro said it is used mainly for storage, but there are future plans
to convert the space into a room, replacing the garage door with a
window. Mr. Smith asked if the plans include closing off the driveway.
Mr. Carlino said he would prefer to keep the driveway to provide guest
parking. Chairman Ganger asked Mr. Thrasher if future alterations to
the existing garage are pertinent to the proposed addition of a second
story. Mr. Thrasher stated that he would answer the question, but he
first requested that Clerk Taylor administer the oath to Mr. Carlino
which will allow him to comment or answer questions.
Clerk Taylor administered the oath to Mr. Carlino.
Mr. Thrasher noted that about one year ago the Town noticed the garage
was enclosed and in violation of Town Code and asked Mr. Carlino to
reopen the structure as a garage. In reply to Chairman Ganger's
question, Mr. Thrasher said he did not believe that additional parking
or an entrance to a non -useable, enclosed structure would be in
violation of the Code. Clerk Taylor said that the matter could be
addressed when renovations are made to the existing garage.
Mrs. White stated that she is the owner of Lot 4 and felt that the
proposed second story of the garage structure would impact her property
more than that of Lot 6. She explained that there is an existing 8;1
foot ficus hedge along her property and, just prior to Mr. Carlino's
purchase of his home, she added several ficus plants to give density to
the hedge and provide a higher level of privacy to her lanai, pool and
kitchen area, which is open. Mrs. White said, although the plans
included placing several palm trees along the concrete structure for the
purpose of masking it from her view, she felt that the windows of the
proposed second story which overlook that particular area of her
property would be an intrusion of her privacy. Mr. Mauro stated that
photos were taken while standing at the height of the second story as if
looking out of a window. He said that the palm trees will stand at 16
feet, which is above the window height, and will block the view from the
Jwindows.
Mr. Smith stated that after reviewing the plans and then driving by the
property, he felt that the bulk, mass and height of the garage and
living space seemed entirely inconsistent with the neighborhood. Mr.
Mauro displayed the east elevation showing the height of the existing
main structure and the height of the proposed second story structure,
which is only five feet higher than the main structure. Mr. Mauro
stated that the Town's architect believed the structures were in
proportion. Mr. Smith said that the west elevation appeared unbalanced
and that the north and south elevations appear massive and inconsistent
Architectural Review & Planning Board
Regular Meeting - September 24, 2009
with the style of the neighborhood
comment.
Page 4
Mr. Smith asked Mr. Thrasher to
Mr. Thrasher said he initially felt that the second story structure
appeared to be an add-on and not characteristic with the style of the
neighborhood and, although similar styles exist in the core, which the
applicant referred to in previous discussions, there were none in his
/1 district and it would be introducing something new. Mr. Thrasher said
�) that a consultant was brought in because he and the applicant were in
disagreement, and the consultant also identified this as something non-
existent in the neighborhood.
Chairman Ganger asked if anyone else in the Community had expressed
concern with this project and Clerk Taylor said no one else had
expressed concerns. Mrs. White addressed the photos which were taken by
the applicant from the height of the second story. She said she did not
take photos, but if photos were taken from her kitchen window they would
show that she can see the entire peak of the existing roof. Mrs. White
felt that, if she can see the peak of the existing roof, she would be
able to look into the windows and they will be able to look into her
kitchen window. Mr. Carlino said that from that point he would be able
to see her building, but not in her window. He said that if there is an
issue there, he would do whatever he could to maintain her privacy.
Mr. Mauro mentioned the palm trees that will be 16' to the top. Mrs.
White said that palms would soften the structure, but she does not
consider them adequate privacy screening and added that Arica palms
would be fuller, maybe some tied Magnolia trees and growing the ficus
higher. She said that Aricas are dense, but did not think there would
be room for them.
Mr. Carlino said that the windows could be modified to be non-functional
since they are not vital to his plan. He also said that the roof could
be modified and that he has a drawing of another roof design which he
was asked not to display. The drawing shows a lower pitched roof which
comes lower to the peak with much less volume and mass. Mr. Carlino
stated that it is a better design, it works esthetically with the design
of the home and it would remove the privacy issue and the impact on the
neighborhood.
Chairman Ganger referred to the Arica palms and their maintenance issue
and asked if similarly dense foliage would be less invasive. Mr. Mauro
stated that the Aricas will be planted inside the existing hedge and all
of the shedding would be on Mr. Carlino's property.
Mr. Carlino asked the Board if they would like to see the drawing of the
alternate roof design. Mr. Smith commented that in reading the report
from the architectural design firm, it seems as though they discouraged
Mr. Carlino from using this style. Mr. Carlino said that the
discouraged item was with the roof on the porch. Mr. Thrasher asked Mr.
Carlino if he was about to show the Board something he had not yet seen.
Mr. Carlino said that was not the case. Mr. Thrasher asked Mr. Carlino
to clarify his comment that he was asked not to show this drawing. Mr.
Architectural Review & Planning Board
Regular Meeting - September 24, 2009 Page 5
Carlino said that Mr. Mauro's firm asked that of him. He said he would
like to show the design because he believes it works esthetically and
architecturally and reduces the impact on the view of the home. He said
it is a more graceful view from the street, it works better with the
architecture and, rather than seeing a rectangular mass, you will see a
small peak.
Chairman Ganger said that the Board members were concerned with volume,
mass, privacy and compatibility with the neighborhood and asked if the
proposed solutions mitigated their concerns. He asked Mr. Morgan if the
alternate roof design would address his concerns. Mr. Morgan stated
that he preferred the original roof line, but the building itself
strikes him as out of balance. He said that aside from the privacy
issue, he is of the opinion that the mass of the detached, two-story
structure does not fit with the character of the neighborhood. Mr.
Morgan further stated that he has an issue with the attempt to mask the
structure with foliage reaching heights that are also inconsistent with
the rest of the neighborhood.
Mr. Mauro said that the purpose of the foliage is strictly to maintain
Mrs. White's privacy. Mrs. White said that in a previous conversation
with Mr. Carlino, he offered to install faux windows and trees so that
the windows would not be an issue and the palm trees would soften the
view. She said she told Mr. Carlino during that conversation that she
disliked the entire idea. Mrs. White stated that she bought the house
because of the privacy it offered and assumed that if someone purchased
the neighboring home they might expand, but she did not envision a
second story. Mr. Mauro said that there are similar two-story garage
structures in the neighborhood, but they are attached to the main
structure and they had considered attaching it, but because of the
intended purpose of the space, it did not make sense. Mr. Mauro added
that this plan meets all setbacks.
Mr. Thrasher said that he has always been encouraged to look at an
application with disregard to landscaping and base his decision on the
drawing. He asked Clerk Taylor to read to the record Town Code Section
70-107, Additions and rehabilitations, and replacement of existing
features, (b) Required, Sub -paragraph (2) and Clerk Taylor read the
Section 70-107 in its entirety. Section 70-107 is attached hereto as
Exhibit A. Chairman Ganger asked Mr. Thrasher if he referred to this
paragraph in his discussions with the applicant and Mr. Thrasher stated
Jhe had. Mr. Mauro said he thought the architect referred to that
section of the Code in his review where he found the applicant to be in
compliance. Mr. Thrasher said the architect was referring to a
different section.
Mr. Thrasher stated that the Board originally reviewed a single -story
structure which they approved and a permit was applied for. He said,
subsequent to that, the applicant wanted to go with a two-story
structure and, at that time, he thought he made himself clear that the
design seemed to be incompatible with many sections of the Code as it
relates to consistency, style and things of that nature. He said that,
on repeated occasions, he referred to Section 70-107 and he told Mr.
Architectural Review & Planning Board
Regular Meeting - September 24, 2009 Page 6
Carlino that if the application was viewed in that context it could have
a negative response. Chairman Ganger asked if the Code prohibits a
detached, two-story structure of any kind under those circumstances.
Mr. Thrasher said his interpretation of Section 70-107 is that it would
be viewed as inconsistent with the neighborhood and the district and,
therefore, prohibited. He said he told Mr. Carlino that he would look
for points in the Code that speak to the issue, but would seek technical
assistance to give Mr. Carlino the benefit of the doubt. Mr. Thrasher
did so and the review was favorable.
Chairman Ganger said that, in reality, it is already inconsistent with
the neighborhood, being the only Polynesian style home and, if the
design is consistent with the style, it will be more inconsistent
because of the height, which is the challenge the Board and the
applicant face. He said the other challenge is that the Code seems to
prohibit a two-story structure, regardless of the style. Mr. Thrasher
stated that, in his opinion or interpretation, based on inconsistency of
the design, inconsistency with the neighborhood and the mass of the
structure, it would be prohibited. Mr. Carlino said that the ficus
trees in front of the property block the structure from the street, but
it does impact Mrs. White from the north side and, therefore, the trees
will mask the structure from her view and he could lower the roof line
using the alternate roof design. He said he has completely renovated
his home, but it is small with limited inside space and he is trying to
gain space with the garage. He added that the value of his home is a
critical issue to him and felt that the eyesore would be adding a second
story to the main structure, which would be visible all around, rather
than adding a second story to the garage, which is further back on his
property. Mr. Carlino said that privacy and mass can be addressed, but
felt that the design is esthetically pleasing and would bring character
to the home and to the neighborhood. He pointed out that there is
another property in the neighborhood with a two-story, three -car garage
positioned in front of the home and visible from the street, and the
exact scenario does exist in other areas of Gulf Stream.
Chairman Ganger stated that Mr. Thrasher is correct in that the Board
should interpret the Code to the best of their ability and base their
decision on the building itself rather than landscaping, but the Board
has used landscaping as a condition of approval for projects in the
past. Mr. Mauro pointed out that the independent review done by the
Town's architect made no reference to the structure as massive, but the
architect did recommend the faux windows and the tall palms along the
structure to address the privacy issue. Chairman Ganger said that they
purposely have no architects on the Board because their goal is to
represent the residents and interpret the Code as they believe to be the
community standard.
Chairman Ganger asked that the Board make final comments to put the
matter to a vote.
Mr. Smith said he thought the structure was architecturally acceptable
and, since the architect's recommended changes have been made, he did
not have a problem with the architectural style. He said faux windows
Architectural Review & Planning Board
Regular Meeting - September 24, 2009
Page 7
and high, dense palms along the structure would make it acceptable to
him.
Mr. Morgan said that after looking at Section 70-107 of the Code again,
he did not believe the addition would match the original design of the
building.
Mrs. Jones said that she likes the original architecture of the building
C and finds it quite unique, but she does not like the addition and feels
that it detracts from how special the original architecture is. She
said she prefers the design with the larger peaked roof, but feels it
could be better than that and suggested they look further into the
Polynesian style.
Chairman Ganger said that Mrs. White had the greatest leverage since she
is directly next door and this will impact her more than the entire
community and he asked Mrs. White if what they are offering is
acceptable. Mrs. White said that the mass of the building seemed not
consistent with the original structure, but, if approved, she would like
to be assured that the windows will either be non-functional or not
there at all and that the landscaping will soften the view. She said
that Mr. Carlino has done a wonderful job with the renovations inside
his home and she understands that it is small and he needs more space,
but he has plenty of space on his property to build out rather than up.
Mr. Thrasher asked Chairman Ganger to clarify what he meant by stating
that Mrs. White has more leverage, since she is entitled to only one
vote. Chairman Ganger said he meant that she has more to gain or lose
as the next door neighbor.
Mr. Thrasher suggested that Clerk Taylor may wish to express her views
on the matter. Chairman Ganger stated that the Board was struggling and
asked Clerk Taylor for her point of view. Clerk Taylor referred to the
yellow home in the community with the garage at the front of the
property that had been referred to by Mr. Mauro and said that, as it is
positioned, it does not give the vision of mass. She added that if the
proposed structure was situated elsewhere on the lot it would give
balance to the property. Clerk Taylor said that when staff saw the
first design of the roof, it appeared to be in direct opposition to the
Section 70-107 of the Code.
^� Mr. Mauro said that setbacks and septic issues were considered when they
thought about building the structure in another area of the property and
asked if the Town would have given them relief with respect to setbacks
if they did so. Chairman Ganger said that would be a completely
different application.
Chairman Ganger said that the structure should look like a studio and
maybe look a little different from the main structure, but it should
blend properly. He said that a couple of subtleties that had been
suggested, such as modifying the roof line to be more consistent, more
appealing and less disruptive, and using faux windows and adding other
types of foliage, might be a solution. Chairman Ganger asked Mr.
Architectural Review & Planning Board
Regular Meeting - September 24, 2009 Page 8
Thrasher if the applicant would have to come back to the Board if they
were to make any changes to the design. Mr. Thrasher said that this
meeting is of record and, therefore, the Board should ask the applicant
if they would like to redesign and come back with a new set of plans to
be viewed and considered, or would they prefer to have the Board vote on
the design presented.
O Chairman Ganger asked the applicant whether they would like the Board to
vote on the matter at this time or redesign their plans for review and
consideration at the next meeting. Mr. Mauro stated that the applicant
would like to request time to re-evaluate and possibly revise the plans
and return to the Board at their next regular meeting.
Mrs. White moved and Mr. Morgan seconded the motion that, at the
applicant's request, deliberations of this matter will be continued at
the next regular meeting on October 22nd, 2009 at 8:30 A.M. All voted
AYE.
VII. Items by Staff. There were no items by Staff.
VIII. Items by Board Members.
Mr. Smith asked if any progress had been made in finding another
alternate for the Board. Clerk Taylor said that no progress had been
made.
Mrs. Jones asked if it was possible to participate in the next meeting
via telephone from Paris. Mr. Smith stated that he would not be present
for the next meeting, but was available to participate via telephone.
Clerk Taylor noted that a quorum in-house will be necessary. Chairman
Ganger was concerned that Mrs. Jones and Mr. Smith may not have an
opportunity to review the applicant's revisions before the next meeting.
Clerk Taylor said that it would not be an issue if the applicant
submitted his paperwork by the deadline. Mr. Thrasher noted that the
phone system may be a problem and Chairman Ganger offered the use of one
of the Coalition's telephones. There was discussion concerning the
possibility of changing the meeting date. Chairman Ganger, Mr. Morgan
and Mr. Smith were all available for Thursday, October 15th and Chairman
Ganger, Mr. Smith, Mrs. White and Mr. Morgan were all available for
Thursday, October 29th. Mr. Thrasher said he would present Mrs. Jones'
question and the possibility of changing the meeting date to Mr.
Randolph, the Town's attorney.
IX. Public. There were no items by the Public.
X. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 A.M.
ail C. Abbale
Administrative Assistant