Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout12/17/2009MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 17, 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 Lars Nilsen Shirley King Chairman Vice -Chairman Board Member Alternate Member Board Member Board Member Town Manager Town Clerk Applicant Court Reporter III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 11-19-09. Mr. Smith asked about language on page 3, paragraph 3 which reads, "Vice -Chairman White and Board members who voted at the first meeting", and said there was no vote at that meeting. Clerk Taylor confirmed that, but said the language appears as Mr. Mauro's comment. Vice - Chairman White corrected language on page 2, last paragraph, stating that Dr. and Mrs. Lichtenstein are physicians, not musicians. Chairman Ganger referred to language on page 7, paragraph 2, wherein Mr. Thrasher said, "as a Board, the ARPB could require a streetscape and could defer an application until provided," asking, on what basis could the Board make that requirement? Mr. Thrasher said the matter is a staff item to be discussed later in the meeting. Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Morgan seconded to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 11/19/09 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. January 26, 2010 @ 8:30 A.M. 0 b. February 25, 2010 @ 8:30 A.M. c. March 25, 2010 @ 8:30 A.M. d. April 22, 2010 @ 8:30 A.M. e. May 27, 2010 @ 8:30 A.M. f. June 24, 2010 @ 8:30 A.M. g. July 22, 2010 @ 8:30 A.M. Chairman Ganger asked Clerk Taylor if any anything had been submitted for the January meeting. Clerk Taylor said there was nothing and it is too late for anything major, but if anything changes she would contact the Board individually. Chairman Ganger asked if there were any conflicts with the January 28th meeting date. Mr. Morgan and Chairman Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting - December 17, 2009 Page 2 Ganger said they may be out of Town and Clerk Taylor said there would probably not be a meeting. Chairman Ganger asked if there were any ex -parte communications concerning the matter for public hearing. Chairman Ganger, Vice - Chairman White and Mr. Morgan all stated they drove by the property and Chairman Ganger said he had a brief conversation with staff concerning Othe matter. Clerk Taylor administered the oath to Lars Nilsen. VI. PUBLIC HEARING. A. Applications for Development Approval 1. An application submitted by Harvey K. Mattel, as agent for Lars Nilsen, the owner of property located at 1428 N. Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described as Lots 8 and BA, Donald B. McLouth Subdivision. a. LEVEL 2 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW requesting approval for a decorative monogram, that has been made a part of an entry gate, to remain. Lars Nilsen introduced himself and said that his gate was designed to match the railing on the balcony which includes some ornamentation and that the monogram has been in his family for many years. He said the same monogram exists on the gates of all of his properties and it has meaning to his family. Chairman Ganger asked Mr. Nilsen to explain the meaning of the monogram. Mr. Nilson said there are three initials, which are "J" for Jenny, his wife, "N" for Nilsen, and "L" for Lars, with the ancient Norwegian signs for girl and boy embedded between two hearts representing their two children. He said it is a simple and elegant design that he would like to keep. Chairman Ganger asked if such a monogram is commonly used in Norway and Mr. Nilsen said you would normally see just initials. Chairman Ganger said the question is if the ARPB would have approved the original gate permit application if the design included the monogram. Mr. Thrasher distributed the design that was attached to the Level I Permit Application he approved, explaining that the gate structure and style is simple and very typical of Gulf Stream Bermuda, but it would not have been approved if submitted with the monogram. He said previous gate permit applications with monogram designs were not approved, such as that submitted by the MacDonalds, Mr. Nilsen's neighbors, but staff Ghas always been able to work with a property owner to establish a permit by explaining the Code and the history and character of the Town. Mr. Thrasher said that a gate of this nature, excluding the monogram design, is something he can approve without other authority. Mr. Morgan asked how long the monogram has been in place. Mr. Nilsen said about six to eight months, explaining that the gate itself was installed and then the center was altered for the monogram. Vice - Chairman White asked Mr. Thrasher if the Town received comments from Mr. Nilsen's neighbors. Mr. Thrasher said there were none, but there are only three neighbors in what is the most southwest portion of the Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting - December 17, 2009 Page 3 district. He said there are no other monogrammed gates throughout the district or the Town and the Town does not set precedents, but he believes there will be monogrammed gate applications in the future, citing that one exists in this location. Mr. Thrasher said he researched the Gulf Stream Bermuda style and the design is very simplistic with simple elements and smooth lines. He said his staff report references sections of the Code that speak to the issue and the O Comprehensive Plan speaks to simplicity and consistency in building elements throughout the Town. Mr. Thrasher said the Code does not say you shall not have a monogram, but the sections of the Code he referenced in his staff report speak to the issue of simplicity and ornateness and opposes any element that seems to be ornate. Mr. Smith asked when the house was built. Mr. Thrasher said it was built in stages. Mr. Nilsen said it was finished in the summer of last year and he has owned the home since them, but it was built as a spec house and it was not his design. Chairman Ganger said he agrees that the Bermuda style home is understated, elegant and simple in design, but his personal view is that Mr. Nilsen's home appears more sophisticated and elegant than the simple Bermuda style and it could be argued that the elegance of the monogram fits the style of the home as opposed to being in conflict with the essential design. Mr. Smith asked if any homeowners on AlA set up monogrammed gates and were then asked by the Board or Commission to change them. Mr. Thrasher said those applications were submitted for review, the Town Manager felt the designs were in conflict with the Code and was able to work it out with the homeowner by eliminating ornate features on entrance gates. He said this situation is different in that Mr. Nilsen applied for a permit and the design presented met with Code and was approved, but what Mr. Nilsen ended up with is not what was presented. Mr. Thrasher said that he and Clerk Taylor evaluate applications together and when they do not agree they seek a third opinion. He said there have been several such applications from homeowners along AlA which were not approved and he strongly believes that if this type of gate appears in the Town, it will introduce the design element to gates and there will be more of them. Mr. Thrasher said he did not create the history, it migrated to him from previous managers and he is trying to remain consistent. Chairman Ganger said the Board must also be consistent and if the monogram was part of the overall design and the Code refers to it as forbidden, the O Board's decision would be obvious. He said if the monogram was located elsewhere on the property and not visible from the street it would not be an issue. Mr. Ganger asked Mr. Thrasher if there were past issues with gate columns. Mr. Thrasher said there have been issues with columns, elements within the structure of the home, and ornateness that is not consistent with the Gulf Stream Bermuda style. Mr. Ganger said the question now is whether or not the monogram on the gate is ornate. Mr. Morgan commented, "I think it goes beyond that. I spent a fair amount of time reading the Code on this because there was nothing on point and I started with the history of the Code and it is the Code's Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting - December 17, 2009 Page 9 desire to maintain a similarity, a unique residential character in the Town, and to do that they lend credence to not having disparate architectural features, that is, they are always looking for typicality, existing structures, existing motifs. That is kind of the overall theme of the Code. I then looked for something that might be akin to what we are dealing with now and the closest I could get was the front yard accoutrements at 70-268 which prohibits objects of art, statuary or animal ornaments in the front yard if it is visible from the street, and then that was the point. What is visible from the street, if it is reflective of the property owner's taste and personality, is prohibited. That is a prohibited design, not a discouraged, and that is because an owner's personal tastes are not typical, they are unique to the property owner so I view the monogram as personal and unique to the property owner, it is visible from the street, and I think it would be prohibited, at least under the tenor of the Code." Mr. Murphy noted the round window above the entrance door and asked what the outcome might be if the monogram was placed in that window. Mr. Thrasher said it would be prohibited. Mr. Nilsen said things change, the Code has changed and, in his opinion, the monogram is not offensive to anyone and Vice -Chairman White suggested it might offend someone who previously applied for something similar and was denied. Mr. Morgan commented that it should have been applied for. Mr. Nilsen mentioned another mistake he made by having a flagpole installed in the wrong location and said he was asked to relocate it and he did so, but did not understand the logic. Chairman Ganger said if the design was presented as is, the Town Manager would have recommended denial for reasons previously stated. Mr. Smith agreed and stated that he sat through this discussion because of the costs incurred by Mr. Nilsen. Chairman Ganger said if the applicant wants to pursue this, the Board can state options without compromising very clear rules. Chairman Ganger asked Mr. Morgan to repeat the section of the Code concerning statues and other forbidden items which he referenced earlier. Mr. Morgan said, "in Section 70-268, which is not directly on point with gates, but I think the implication is there that what is prohibited are animal yard ornaments, lawn jockeys, objects of art visible from the street, the statuary visible from the street, it is the latter two, and implicit in that it is unique and reflective of a property owner's taste which may be different from the rest of the Ocommunity and I think it's the inability to find anything else like this in the Town that goes back to the original history of the Code. They don't want unique personal expressions on property that are visible from the street." Mr. Ganger said that if the Board denied the application for this gate retrospectively, there will probably never be a monogrammed gate in Gulf Stream. Mr. Thrasher said the monogram was beautiful and being offensive is not the issue. He said he has known since he came on board that the Town does not want evolution and the Town expects him to make decisions to maintain its character and history, which is a very high goal that many people do not appreciate, but he does. Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting - December 17, 2009 Page 5 Chairman Ganger asked if Mr. Nilsen would have the option to go to the Commission if the Board votes to deny and Mr. Thrasher said, by Code, this could be elevated to a Level II, not a Level III, and could not go to the Commission, but Mr. Randolph would say that Mr. Nilsen has the right to apply for a variance. Clerk Taylor said that a variance would end up with the Commission and Mr. Thrasher said it would come to the ARPB through a variance for a recommendation to the Commission. He said if the Board votes on this now, they will need to reference Sections of �J the Code in the motion and if the Board thinks it meets the minimum intent of the guidelines, that would be part of the motion, but if not, the board should cite as many sections of Code that are applicable, such as the definitive and relevant information referenced by Mr. Morgan. Mr. Morgan asked if the site plan review should be withdrawn. Mr. Thrasher said the Board would have to make that option available to the applicant and, if withdrawn and a variance application submitted, the Town would re -advertise for a variance and start over. Mr. Nilsen said he would like to take this matter further. Chairman Ganger said if the Board denies, they are obliged to cite reasons to affect an appeal. Mr. Morgan said if Mr. Nilsen intends to pursue this further, he believes he should withdraw this application and refile in a different manner. Clerk Taylor informed Mr. Nilsen that if he applies for a variance he is mandated to address eight criteria for a hardship, which brings this to another level of review. She said the Town previously discussed the matter with Mr. Nilsen's attorney when it first came to the Town's attention and she suggested that Mr. Nilsen contact his attorney. Diane Mulvey asked to speak. Clerk Taylor administered the oath to Mrs. Mulvey and she stated that the Nilsen's submitted a gate permit application, it was approved and the gate was constructed as approved, but then the Nilsen's decided to rebuild the gate to include the monogram and did not apply for another permit. Mrs. Mulvey asked if other monogrammed gate applications were talked down or did applicants come to the Board for a decision. Mr. Thrasher said that all applicants have strong personal desires and are used to having what they want, but over 90% of the time the applicant will modify their plan to match that of the history and character of Gulf Stream after staff has had an opportunity to explain the Code, the Town's history and character and its importance to the majority of the residents. Mrs. Mulvey said she does not believe Mr. Nilsen's monogram is visible from the street. She O said that the design on the balcony railing is not a monogram, but slightly ornate, and asked who gave permission for that. Mr. Thrasher said it was approved as part of the design. Mr. Thrasher asked Mrs. Mulvey if she photographed the monogram from the paved portion of the road. Mrs. Mulvey said she did. Mr. Thrasher said it is a private road and considered a roadway and, although it is not visible from AlA, according to Section 70-268 it applies. Mr. Thrasher said, for the record, he has had conversations with the contractor about the evolution of this matter and stated that the contractor needs to be a part of this process. Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting - December 17, 2009 Page 6 Chairman Ganger said he prefers "preserve" rather than "maintain" the character of the community because preservation is very important to the Town. He said the biggest issues arise and it becomes a major challenge when older homes are going to be remodeled and individuals decide that they do not want to preserve the community standard. Mr. Ganger said he realizes the importance of this matter to Mr. Nilsen and it could be approved through a variance. Clerk Taylor informed Mr. Nilsen that in a variance procedure the ARPB becomes the recommending body and the Commission becomes the deciding body. Mr. Thrasher asked Clerk Taylor to confirm her statement that staff had conversations with Mr. Nilsen's attorney relating to variances and the eight standards that must be met by the applicant. Clerk Taylor confirmed that and said, at the time, Mr. Nilsen's attorney thought this was the best route to take. Clerk Taylor again suggested Mr. Nilsen discuss this matter with his attorney. Chairman Ganger asked Mr. Nilsen if he would like the Board to vote. Mr. Murphy asked, if the Board votes and it is not approved, would it stop the process or would the applicant have another option? Clerk Taylor said Mr. Nilsen would be able to apply for a variance. Mr. Thrasher asked Mr. Nilsen to confirm that the monogram was designed for him. Mr. Nilsen said it was. Mr. Thrasher asked Mr. Nilsen to confirm that he previously stated that the monogram says something and Mr. Nilsen said it does, but only to him. Chairman Ganger said a motion to deny must cite the Code as written as reason for denial. Mr. Nilsen asked if there are options to appeal if denied. Mr. Thrasher said he has as least two options. Chairman Ganger said he can defer now to explore his options. Mr. Thrasher said if Mr. Nilsen defers now, it will allow time to discuss the matter with his attorney, and then bring this back to Board in the same form. The other option is for the Board to vote now to approve or deny. Mr. Nilsen said he would rather defer and discuss the matter with his attorney and Chairman Ganger suggested that he take this time to build a stronger case. He said that variances are not easy to get, but he can apply if he and his attorney determine that to be the best approach. He further stated that there have been times when the Board felt the Code was not as clear as it should be and the Code changed, but preserving the character of the community will never change. Mr. Thrasher asked Clerk Taylor if the motion to defer must include a time certain. Clerk Taylor said yes, otherwise the Town would have to re -advertise. Mr. Thrasher recommended that Mr. Nilsen defer to January 28th and if the timetable Cl did not work for Mr. Nilsen or his attorney, he could request in writing to be heard in February. Mr. Nilsen said he could not speak for his attorney, but he would not be available in January and asked to defer to February 25, 2009 at 8:30 A.M. Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Morgan seconded to grant Mr. Nilsen's request to defer to February 25, 2009 at 8:30 A.M. There was no further discussion. All voted AYE. Clerk Taylor requested that Mr. Nilsen have his attorney call her. Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting - December 17, 2009 VII. Items by Staff. Page 7 Clerk Taylor distributed "Procedures for Presenting Projects, Excluding Sign Approval, to the Town Commission and the Architectural Review and Planning Board (ARPB) of the Town of Gulf Stream," a document included in the Application Packet. After reviewing the document, Mr. Thrasher said the tools are already in place giving him the authority to make a streetscape mandatory and staff will change the application checklist. Clerk Taylor noted Paragraph 1 which states that a licensed architect must present the proposal to the Board and failure to have a licensed architect in attendance and the materials and exhibits listed herein at the meeting may result in deferral or denial. Mr. Thrasher said he was not sure he had the authority to require a streetscape and now believes he does. Chairman Ganger said the Town Manager believes the ARPB has the authority to require silhouettes, or streetscapes, and he attended the Commission Meeting where the Carlino residence was presented and Vice - Chairman White presented her objections and the decision was made to defer the matter until the streetscape and a revised landscape plan were submitted. He added that the Commission had the same concerns as the ARPB with respect to mass and privacy to the neighbors and the ball is now in the applicant's court by visually demonstrating that the mass, in terms of height, is not out of character with the surrounding homes. Chairman Ganger said the Mayor gave a history of the home which was relevant information and found it interesting that the applicant did not feel he should include that information in his presentation. VIII. Items by Board Members. There were none. IX. Public. There were none. X. Adjournment. Chairman Ganger adjourned the meeting at 10:40 A.M. Gail C. Abbale Administrative Assistant C