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