Loading...
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