HomeMy Public PortalAbout11/19/2009MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM,
FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 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
Absent w/Notice
Also Present and
Participating
Chairman Ganger called the meeting to order at
Robert Ganger
Donna White
Scott Morgan
Malcolm Murphy
Thomas Smith
Amanda Jones
William H. Thrasher
Rita L. Taylor
John Randolph
Charles F. Carlino
Anthony Mauro
Chairman
Vice -Chairman
Board Member
Alternate Member
Board Member
Board Member
Town Manager
Town Clerk
Town Attorney
Applicant
Mauro Brothers LLC
Agent for Applicant
III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearina of 10-22-09.
Chairman Ganger pointed out that Hewitt Kent's first name was spelled
incorrectly in the minutes and requested that be corrected. Mr. Smith
moved and Mr. Morgan seconded to approve the minutes of the October 22,
2009 meeting, as amended. There was no further discussion. 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. December 17, 2009 @ 8:30 A.M.
b. January 28, 2010 @ 8:30 A.M.
c. February 25, 2010 @ 8:30 A.M.
Chairman Ganger asked Clerk Taylor if there would be a December meeting.
Clerk Taylor said nothing has been submitted for review and there
probably would not be a December meeting.
OChairman Ganger asked if there has been any ex -parte communications
concerning the matter before the Board. There were none.
Clerk Taylor administered the oath to Charles Carlino, Applicant and
Anthony Mauro of Mauro Brothers Construction, Agent for Applicant.
VI. PUBLIC HEARING.
A. Applications for Development Approval
1. Continued from hearing on October 22, 2009
An application submitted by Anthony Mauro, as Agent for
Charles F. Carlino, the owner of property located at
Architectural Review & Planning Board
Regular Meeting - November 19, 2009 Page 2
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 930 square foot screened porch to an
existing Polynesian style dwelling, and the
construction of a 2 -story garage & studio consisting
Oof 997 square feet.
Mr. Mauro said this is their second time before the Board asking for a
recommendation for approval of this project. He said he and Mr. Carlino
met with their architect concerning some of the Board's recommended
changes, mainly to the roof, and the architect felt that because of the
shape of the building and the location of the deck on the second floor,
the roof could not be changed or turned, but they added more vegetation.
Mr. Mauro distributed a color rendering of the elevations of concern,
stating he was not sure how the Board wanted to revisit the project and
opened the floor to questions.
Chairman Ganger mentioned the letter the Town received from a resident
of Place Au Soleil who refered to the project as a 3 -story structure and
thought he might be referring to the height of the roof which may appear
to be a 3=d story. Mr. Mauro said that the structure was designed within
zoning limitations and said he had not seen the letter Chairman Ganger
was referring to. Mr. Randolph stated that the letter is a form of ex -
parte communication and should be read into the record. Clerk Taylor
read the letter from Eric Lichtenstein of 2735 Avenue Au Soleil. Mr.
Lichtenstein stated in his letter that he and his wife have significant
reservations with the proposed project, specifically the height and mass
of the structure and its impact on privacy. He included several
recommendations in his letter which has been made a part of the Official
File.
Chairman Ganger asked Mr. Mauro to respond to Mr. Lichtenstein's
concerns. Mr. Mauro said Mr. Lichtenstein may be referring to the roof
as a 3=d story because he probably does not understand the plans and
asked if Mr. Lichtenstein had come to Town Hall to review them. Clerk
Taylor said Mr. Lichtenstein was away when he received the Notice sent
to the neighbors and he called the Town to ask for a copy of the plans.
Clerk Taylor said she faxed Mr. Lichtenstein a copy of the plans and
then he called to say he sent the letter since he would not return in
time to attend the meeting. Mr. Mauro said that if he could explain the
Oplans to Mr. Lichtenstein, he would have a better understanding of the
project and would see that this 2 -story structure is no different from
any other 2 -story structure in the neighborhood.
Vice -Chairman White said she felt the second paragraph of the letter
spoke directly to her concerns and she does understand the plans. She
said it sounds as if he is speaking about her property and how the
structure will tower over her pool and yard area. Mr. Mauro asked Vice -
Chairman White if she had spoken to Mr. Lichtenstein about her concerns
and Vice -Chairman White said she had not. She said Mr. Lichtenstein and
his wife are musicians and live in New York part of the time and they
may also have property in Palm Beach so he is not a full time resident
Architectural Review & Planning Board
Regular Meeting - November 19, 2009 Page 3
and she hasn't seen him in probably a year. Mr. Mauro wondered why Mr.
Lichtenstein had not said something before now and Chairman Ganger
stated that, as a neighbor, Mr. Lichtenstein expressed his concerns and
it is the Board's obligation to address them as part of the decision
process.
Chairman Ganger asked if everyone understood the Applicant's response to
recommendations made at the first meeting and asked Mr. Mauro to confirm
that after exploring the possibility of changing the roof, they cannot
do so, and that the windows facing north over Vice -Chairman White's
property are faux. Mr. Mauro confirmed that they cannot change the
roof, and Mr. Carlino would be happy to make the three windows facing
north faux if that would satisfy Vice -Chairman White. Chairman Ganger
asked if the view from the windows, if not faux, would be through palms.
Mr. Mauro confirmed that, adding that the view would be just below the
soffit of Vice -Chairman White's roofline and, even without vegetation,
you would not see into her backyard. Chairman Ganger felt that it would
be an assertion on Mr. Mauro's part and Vice -Chairman White said that
from the inside of her kitchen and from the lanai she can see the roof
of the existing house as it peaks and, if she can see that, she will be
able to see the windows and the roof above. Mr. Randolph commented that
they have agreed to make them faux windows because of her concerns.
Vice -Chairman White referred to Zoning Code Section 66-199 Standards,
subsection (b)(12) a, b and c, stating that it is pertinent to the
privacy issue and read those portions of the Code. Chairman Ganger said
it has been established that the will of the Board, or at least for
Vice -Chairman White and Board members who voted at the first meeting, is
that the windows be faux. Chairman Ganger asked Mr. Mauro if he
believes the structure will be no higher than any structure on the
circle or in the neighborhood. Mr. Mauro stated that he was referring
to 2 -story structures throughout the neighborhood. Vice -Chairman White
stated she wants to be assured of her privacy and said that most of the
homes in Place Au Soleil are 1 -story, except for those that have been
demolished and replaced with a 2 -story structure, and the mass of this
structure is larger than any of the structures surrounding it. Chairman
Ganger stated that 2 -story structures are permitted in Place Au Soleil
and there will be more in the future.
Chairman Ganger referred to the Dudley drawings where the architect drew
a line across the drawing to show the height of the home compared to
those around it, giving the visual of the structure being a bit shorter
than the others. He said, it is hard to visualize the difference in the
height of Mr. Carlino's proposed structure to the height of the adjacent
homes, but it is a fact that it will be higher. Chairman Ganger asked
Mr. Mauro why the architect was unable to change the design of the roof
to make it less dominant. Mr. Mauro said that Mr. Carlino wanted a
different design which was a smaller roof and he displayed it at the
last meeting, but the Town's architect selected the proposed roof design
because it matched the existing architecture. He said they considered
turning the roof, but the architect would have to totally redesign the
building or turn it, moving the balcony to face the east or west, which
would pose additional problems. Chairman Ganger stated that the two
Architectural Review & Planning Board
Regular Meeting - November 19, 2009 Page 4
assertions would be, (1) that the roofline the Board asked to be
considered is not possible and, (2) the Applicant has agreed to use faux
rather than see-through windows.
Chairman Ganger asked Board members and staff if there were any further
questions or comments. Mr. Mauro repeated that they did add vegetation
to the plan and they are willing to add more. Mr. Morgan asked where
O Mr. Lichtenstein's property is in relation to the structure and Mr.
Mauro said that it is directly across the street to the east. Vice -
Chairman White stated that if the application goes through she would
request deed restrictions on the maintenance of the hedges, and any
masking landscaping is to be maintained by Mr. Carlino and future
property owners. She said that ficus hedges will not become dense
without proper sun exposure and other landscaping material would have to
be planted if the ficus is not dense. Mr. Randolph said that would be a
typical deed restriction stating that the landscaping shall remain in
place to assure privacy and the property owner is required to maintain
it. Vice -Chairman White expressed an additional concern with headlights
from vehicles entering or leaving Mr. Carlino's property and stated that
the Town's architect suggested putting up a privacy wall to block the
glare.
Mr. Morgan mentioned that some time ago another plan was submitted to
the Board was a different configuration to the expansion of the
structure. Mr. Mauro said there was a previous approval for a 1 -story
structure, but Mr. Carlino realized that it was not what he was looking
for and believes that this design better suits his needs. Mr. Smith
asked if they considered moving the structure to the other end of the
property. Mr. Mauro said they considered that, but the setback from the
road pushed the structure too close to house and would interfere with
the septic field.
In summary, Mr. Ganger asked Mr. Mauro if (1) he believes they have a
design that best meets the owner's needs with the least amount of
disruption to the views and privacy of adjacent neighbors, (2) they are
within code and (3) this is the design the Applicant is asking the Board
to approve. Mr. Mauro confirmed that. Mr. Randolph stated that any
motion should include findings and Mr. Thrasher asked if the deed
restriction should be included. Mr. Randolph said that the deed
restriction should be a condition, as well as what the Applicant is
willing to do to comply with the Board's recommendations. Mr. Thrasher
Oasked if recommending the design be submitted to the Place Au Soleil
Homeowners' Association should be another condition and Mr. Randolph
said it does not have anything to do with the Board's vote, but the
Board can recommend that if the Applicant has not already done so, they
should submit the plans to the Place Au Soleil Board for review.
Mr. Murphy moved and Chairman Ganger passed the gavel and seconded to
recommend approval of the Level III Architectural/Site Plan based on a
finding that the proposed 430 sq. ft. screened porch to an existing
Polynesian style dwelling, and the construction of a 2 -story garage and
studio consisting of 997 sq. ft. meets the minimum intent of the Design
Manual and applicable review standards, with the following conditions:
Architectural Review & Planning Board
Regular Meeting - November 19, 2009
Page 5
(1) faux windows replace the see-through windows facing the property to
the north; and, (2) a deed restriction for landscaping be required
stating that the landscaping which screens the addition is to be
maintained in perpetuity. There was no discussion. Vice -Chairman
White, NO; Mr. Murphy, AYE; Mr. Morgan, NO; Mr. Smith, NO; Chairman
Ganger, AYE. The motion failed by a vote of 3-2.
Mr. Randolph stated that a motion to deny is required. Mr. Mauro asked
Mr. Smith why he changed his vote from the previous meeting and Mr.
Smith said he put himself in the neighbors' place and felt the design
created too much mass. Vice -Chairman White asked if the Applicant
wanted to split the Level III Architectural/Site Plan into two parts,
with the screened addition as a separate motion from the 2 -story garage
structure and Mr. Mauro said they preferred that it remain as one
project.
Mr. Randolph said there are two options, as follows: (1) Defer to a
later date giving the Applicant an opportunity to reconsider the design,
which they do not seem to want to do; or, (2) make a motion to recommend
denial stating the findings as they relate to the Code as to why it
should be denied, which recommendation will then go to the Commission.
Vice -Chairman White passed the gavel to the Chairman Ganger and moved to
deny recommendation of approval of the Level III Architectural/Site Plan
based on the mass of the structure and not being consistent with the
existing house and the neighborhood, per Town Code Section 70-107
Additions and rehabilitations, and replacement of existing features,
subsection (a) Generally, and based on the protection of privacy per
Town Code Section 66-144 Standards, subsection (b)(12)(a) Protection of
residential privacy, (b)(12)(b) Protection of property values and,
(b)(12)(c) Protection of use and enjoyment. Mr. Randolph stated that he
was concerned with Vice -Chairman White's statement about protection of
property values and said, if she believes this is something that inures
to her special private gain or loss she should recuse herself from
voting. Vice -Chairman White stated she has no indication that it would
lower her property value and has no information to that nature and
modified her motion excluding 66-144(b)(12)(b). Mr. Morgan seconded the
motion, with the modification excluding 66-144(b)(12)(b).
Mr. Murphy asked if the second motion is a direct result of the first
motion, qualifying the reasons denying the first motion and directly
relating to the portions of the code which the Board believes to be
contravened. Mr. Randolph explained that the first motion was made on
the basis that the proposal met all of the provisions of the Code, and
the second motion incorporates provisions of the Code which the maker of
the motion does not believe has been met. He said the motion must
include findings to make it clear to the Applicant and the Commission as
to why the Board is not recommending approval.
Mr. Mauro wanted to ask a question before the vote was taken and Mr.
Randolph asked if it was a question relating to whether they would have
an opportunity to defer, or was he going to get into the substance of
the conversation because, he said, normally the Applicant makes their
Architectural Review & Planning Board
Regular Meeting - November 19, 2009 Page 6
presentation, questions are asked and answered and the Board holds a
session and will vote, which would not leave room for discussion by the
public at this point. He said, however, if the Applicant desires to
seek alternative relief on the basis that this Application may be
denied, he can do so. Mr. Mauro said Mr. Thrasher was asked for his
opinion at the first meeting, which he feels is important, and was not
asked for his opinion at this meeting. Chairman Ganger said he asked
O for staff comment and there were no comments. Mr. Randolph added that
the Town Manager's remarks made at the first meeting, which incorporate
a recommendation for approval, were included in the Board packet. Mr.
Thrasher read Section 70-107 Additions and rehabilitations, and
replacement of existing features, subsection(a) Generally and
subsection(b) Required, paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3). Chairman
Ganger stated that Mr. Morgan was on record in the Minutes as having
said he did not agree and the Board did not vote. He said, because Mr.
Morgan did not agree and it was unclear as to what the outcome of a vote
would be, the Applicant asked to defer for the opportunity to consider
refinements. Mr. Ganger stated that the Applicant has the right to
defer now and Mr. Mauro said they did not want to defer. Mr. Ganger
recognized the motion and the second and asked for a vote, stating that
if you vote YES you are voting to deny and if you vote NO you are voting
not to deny. Vice -Chairman White, AYE; Mr. Murphy, NO; Mr. Morgan, AYE;
Mr. Smith; AYE, Chairman Ganger, NO. The motion passed by a vote of 3 -
2.
Clerk Taylor announced that the Application and the Board's
recommendation will go to the Town Commission on Friday, December 11,
2009 at 9:00 A.M. and asked the Applicant for 5 additional copies of the
material Mr. Mauro distributed to the Board at this meeting.
VII. Items by Staff.
Mr. Thrasher asked the Board for input regarding sections of the Code
which they would like to have revisited, examined or analyzed for future
change. He said the Town is at that stage of their new code where they
begin reviewing sections which may require modification. Mr. Thrasher
said that one Commissioner suggested this be a topic for discussion and
staff will be making a list of recommended future code revisions.
Chairman Ganger asked if there was some way for staff to remind the
Board of situations they have had where sections of the Code may not
have been clear and maybe should be modified. Clerk Taylor said that
staff is compiling a list and when they have enough items the Town will
(�J1 require the assistance of a consultant. She said staff will supply the
consultant with questions and the consultant will be available to answer
them.
Mr. Morgan asked if the responsibility of the Board was to apply general
understanding of the standards of architectural consistency of a
neighborhood and then give a gut reaction. Mr. Randolph said that the
Board is guided by the regulations of the Code which is why findings
that can support the evidence should be incorporated into a motion. He
explained that this is a quasi-judicial preceding where the Board acts
as judges and should not use their discretion or insert their own views
in regard to a particular project, but rather insert those views as they
Architectural Review & Planning Board
Regular Meeting - November 19, 2009 Page 7
relate to the provisions of the Code. Mr. Randolph said the Board must
act on fact because imposing too much discretion could cause their
decision to be overturned by the court. Mr. Morgan said he raised the
question because the section of the Code which was read is pretty broad.
Mr. Randolph said that the Board's decisions are not black and white and
they should have competent, substantial evidence in front of them on
which to base their decision because the Court will ask if there was
competent, substantial evidence to sustain their decision. Mr. Randolph
said the Board may want to require line drawings as seen in other
instances to show if a roof line is higher than others in a neighborhood
and the more objective information the Board gets from the Applicant and
consultant, the better off they will be in making your decision.
Chairman Ganger commented that the Dudley application was a perfect
example of a line drawing showing the roof to be lower than the average
neighbor and it sets a new standard.
Mr. Thrasher said the application given to every applicant includes a
request for streetscape, a terminology commonly used to profile a
neighborhood, which states that this item could be denied or deferred if
they choose not to provide streetscape. He said it is always brought to
the applicant's attention and they are told that it is suggested, not
required. Mr. Thrasher suggested that, as a Board, they could require
streetscape and could defer an application until it is provided.
Mr. Murphy wanted to confirm that there are no precedents and that every
case is taken on its own merit. Mr. Randolph confirmed that and said
that no case establishes a precedent. Vice -Chairman White suggested
that the Code needs to speak to some of these issues. Mr. Morgan asked
who would carry the burden of proof and Mr. Randolph said it is the
Applicant and the Board has to make a determination based on fact.
Chairman Ganger and Vice -Chairman White asked if they would have an
opportunity to speak at the Commission meeting when they review this
application and Mr. Randolph said they would.
VIII. Items by Board Members. There were none.
IX.
Public. There
were none.
X.
Adjournment.
The meeting
was adjourned at 9:35 A.M.
C
ail C. Abbale
Administrative Assistan