Loading...
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