HomeMy Public PortalAbout02/25/2010MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM,
FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2010 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL,
100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA.
I. Call to Order. Chairman Ganger called the meeting to order at
9:35 A.M.
II. Roll Call.
n Present and
Participating
Absent w/Notice
Also Present and
Participating
Robert Ganger
Scott Morgan
Amanda Jones
Malcolm Murphy
Thomas Smith
William H. Thrasher
Rita L. Taylor
John Randolph
Chairman
Board Member
Board Member
Alternate Member
Board Member
Town Manager
Town Clerk
Town Attorney
III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing 12-17-09.
Mr. Morgan moved and Mrs. Jones seconded to approve the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of December 17, 2009. There was no
discussion. All voted AYE.
IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items.
Chairman Ganger noted that there will not be a quorum for Mr. Morgan's
application, as Mr. Morgan will have to step down for that discussion.
He asked if it would be appropriate to reschedule a hearing for Mr.
Morgan's application at this time. Chairman Ganger said there is quite
a bit of urgency in this matter and asked if a special meeting would be
allowed. He asked Mr. Morgan if these proceedings are holding up his
project and Mr. Morgan confirmed that and, therefore, Chairman Ganger
said he would like to reschedule a hearing as soon as possible. Since
the Town has not yet established a time certain, Mr. Randolph advised
the Board to defer, stating that Clerk Taylor would call the other Board
members for their availability for early next week. Mr. Randolph
advised Clerk Taylor to obtain contact information for members of the
public who are present for the purpose of notifying them of the hearing
date. Mrs. Jones moved, Chairman Ganger passed the gavel to Mrs. Jones
and seconded the motion to defer the hearing for Mr. Morgan's
application to a day early in the following week in order to establish a
quorum. Mrs. Jones passed the gavel back to Chairman Ganger. There was
no further discussion. All voted AYE. There were no other changes to
the Agenda.
Chairman Ganger said that Tom Smith is in town and can be reached later
this afternoon. Both Chairman Ganger and Mrs. Jones stated they would be
available during the first part of the week as long as it is early in
the day. Diana Mulvey was present at this meeting and Clerk Taylor said
she would notify her of the hearing date and time as soon as it is
determined. Clerk Taylor also said she would notify Mark Marsh, Agent
for Mr. Morgan, of the new hearing date.
Architectural Review and Planning Board
Regular Meeting - February 25, 2010 Page 2
V. Announcements.
A. Meeting Dates
1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
a. March 25, 2010 @ 8:30 A.M.
b. April 22, 2010 @ 8:30 A.M.
c. May 27, 2010 @ 8:30 A.M.
d. June 24, 2010 @ 8:30 A.M.
e. July 22, 2010 @ 8:30 A.M.
Chairman Ganger asked Clerk Taylor if there were any applicants
scheduled for the March meeting. Clerk Taylor said there are none at
this time. Chairman Ganger noted the scheduled meeting dates and asked
if there were any conflicts. Mrs. Jones stated that she would not be
available for the May 27, June 24 and July 22, 2010 meetings. Chairman
Ganger commented that there is an absolute need for able candidates to
take on the role of member and particularly as an alternate. Clerk
Taylor said that there may be some appointees by the March meeting.
VI. PUBLIC HEARING.
A. Applications for Development Approval
1. CONTINUED FROM HEARING OF DECEMBER 17, 2009
An application submitted by Harvey Mattel, Agent for
Lars Nilsen, the owner of property located at 1428 N.
Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally
described as Lots 8 and 8A, 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.
Chairman Ganger asked how they were going to have a Public Hearing on
this matter without the Applicant being present. He said he thought the
reason the hearing was continued to this date was based on the
Applicant's availability. Clerk Taylor explained that this matter is
continued from the December 17, 2009 hearing. She said that Mrs. Diane
Mulvey, who is present as a member of the public, informed the Town on
Mr. Nilsen's behalf that he would not be present and, if his application
is denied, he will not pursue the matter further. Clerk Taylor said she
did not receive a letter from Mr. Nilsen, but she spoke to his attorney,
Mr. Harvey Mattel, on three separate occasions and he said that Mr.
Nilsen has not contacted him. Clerk Taylor advised the Board that they
need to make a decision whether to approve or deny Mr. Nilsen's
application.
^) Mr. Randolph asked Clerk Taylor to read the application for the record.
Clerk Taylor read the application and explained that the applicant
changed the design from that which was originally approved. She said
that a gate was approved by the Town and it was installed properly, but
after the installation the monogram appeared. Clerk Taylor said that
the applicant was about to be cited for a code violation which would
have gone to the Special Magistrate for a decision, but on behalf of Mr.
Nilsen, his attorney requested the Town bring the matter before the
Architectural Review and Planning Board (ARPB) hoping the Board would
approve the monogram. The ARPB heard the matter on December 17, 2009
and cited Code violations in opposition to the monogram and, at that
Architectural Review and Planning Board
Regular Meeting - February 25, 2010 Page 3
time, Mr. Nilsen stated that he wanted to take the matter all the way.
Clerk Taylor stated that she suggested he speak with his attorney in
order to establish the best plan of action for his case. She said that
Chairman Ganger asked Mr. Nilsen at that time if he would like to defer,
giving him sufficient time to speak with his attorney and Mr. Nilsen
said yes. Mr. Morgan asked if a letter of withdrawal has been submitted
by Mr. Nilsen. Clerk Taylor said Mr. Nilsen has not submitted a letter
of withdrawal.
C"
Chairman Ganger said it is difficult to have a discussion on the matter
with an absentee Applicant, unless Mrs. Mulvey is empowered to represent
him. He said the arguments have been heard and the Code is clear in
that this type of decorative item on a gate, on a home or in a front
yard of a home is prohibited and would have been turned down. The
monogram was not found to be offensive, but the Code finds this as
prohibited.
Mr. Thrasher stated that his report recommends denial based on the fact
that he did not feel it met the minimum intent of the design manual. He
said he cited Code Sections in his report, but it was brought to his
attention during the December hearing that there is a Section of the
Code that spoke more directly to the issue, which is Section 70-268(c)
indicating that prohibited objects of art that are visible from the
street are prohibited and not allowed. He said although his report did
not articulate that, it was articulated in the previous meeting and it
is pertinent for this discussion and the Board could choose any of the
items in his report or Section 70-268(c) to deny the application.
Chairman Ganger said he believes it is correct that a monogram on a gate
is not specifically prohibited. He said, for example, informative
information such as an address number of the home may have been
acceptable rather than initials in a design, which is uninformative. He
said that in writing rules, it is impossible to cover every situation.
Mr. Randolph asked if the Board feels compelled to find reasons to deny
if the Applicant has decided not to pursue. Chairman Ganger said if it
is not denied the matter is moot, but is the Applicant saying that he
will take the monogram off if denied? Mr. Randolph asked Clerk Taylor
what the Applicant meant when he said he would not pursue the matter.
Clerk Taylor said she did not speak directly with the Applicant, but
that Mrs. Mulvey stated that he does not want to pursue the matter
further if denied. She said if the Board denies the application, it
will be up to Staff to pursue the removal of the monogram from the gate,
and if denied, either the Applicant removes the monogram or the Town
will take him to the Special Magistrate to decide whether or not he is
in violation. Chairman Ganger asked, if denied, would Mr. Nilsen have
the right to go to the Commission. Clerk Taylor did not think he could
do so. Mr. Randolph said he thinks Mr. Nilsen lost that right when he
decided he would not pursue. Mr. Morgan stated that this is a
continuation of the prior hearing, the Applicant presented his evidence
and the Board should make a finding on what has been heard.
Mr. Morgan moved and Mrs. Jones seconded to deny the Level II
Architectural/Site Plan based on a finding that the proposed design
Architectural Review and Planning Board
Regular Meeting - February 25, 2010 Page 4
element, decorative monogram to attach to entrance gate, does not meet
the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards
in that it is not consistent or harmonious to the neighborhood and is
not consistent with the architectural style of the existing Gulf Stream
Bermuda style home. There was no further discussion. All voted AYE.
Chairman Ganger asked if the Commission will be made aware of this
C finding. Clerk Taylor said they would be provided a copy of the
Minutes, but they will take no action. Mr. Morgan asked why the
Applicant could not bring this to the Commission following the Board's
determination. Mr. Randolph said possibly he could since the Board has
made their determination based on the information presented at the
December hearing. Mr. Morgan stated that Mr. Nilsen presented his case
well. Chairman Ganger asked Mr. Randolph if the Code should be amended
to be more explicit concerning decorative gates. Mr. Randolph said if
the Commission finds decorative gates objectionable and does not want to
allow them, there could be a provision in the Code. Chairman Ganger
asked, if they added a provision in the Code and this case went to the
Special Magistrate, would that new provision be considered? Mr.
Randolph said it would not and said that the Board's action should be a
recommendation to the Commission. Chairman Ganger was concerned that
Mr. Nilsen's monogram may set a precedent since he may not be in a hurry
to remove it and another applicant may see it and want the same thing.
Mr. Randolph explained that the precedent being set is the determination
made at this hearing. Mr. Thrasher said that the Town would pursue Code
Enforcement on this matter immediately. Clerk Taylor stated that this
hearing before the ARPB was an accommodation to Mr. Nilsen. She said
this matter had already been set to be heard before Code Enforcement
because Mr. Nilsen made a change in the gate that was originally
approved.
2. An application submitted by Mark Marsh, Bridges, Marsh &
Associates, as agent for Scott and Lisa Morgan, owners of
the property located at 1140 N. Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream,
Florida, which is legally described as part of Lots 7 and
8 in Golf Course Addition.
a. LEVEL 2 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW & SITE PLAN
REVISION to permit enlargement of a previously
approved addition, construction of a roof over a porch
to replace a previously approved trellis and the
addition of a small one-story storage area, a total of
837 square feet, to an existing Anglo-American single
family dwelling.
This matter has been deferred to a date not yet determined.
VII. Items by Staff.
Clerk Taylor announced that Mrs. Donna White has resigned from the
Architectural Review and Planning Board based on philosophical
differences with the Town Commission. Mr. Ganger explained that the
Commission allowed Mr. Carlino to go to a second story with conditions
that the window facing Mrs. White would be faux and the landscaping was
revised to incorporate Fishtail Palms bordering the structure. He said
the Applicant submitted pictures of homes in the neighborhood and the
Architectural Review and Planning Board
Regular Meeting - February 25, 2010 Page 5
Commission felt that the Applicant met the minimum criteria with respect
to the privacy of the adjoining property. Chairman Ganger said the
Commission was interested in the historic history, being the first house
in that development and was designed by a well-known Chicago architect.
Mr. Morgan commented that Mr. Carlino's case is similar to Mr. Nilsen's
in that there was nothing specific in the Code that disallowed the
project. There was an overall sense that the mass of the structure is
O inconsistent with the neighborhood and, similarly, you could say the
same thing with this gate, and he said he would not be surprised if Mr.
Nilsen did go to the Commission. Mr. Morgan added that he was sorry to
hear about Mrs. White's resignation. Chairman Ganger agreed and said
that she is a very capable and respected person.
VIII. Items by Board Members. NONE
IX. Public. NONE
X. Adjournment. Chairman Ganger adjourned the meeting at
approximately 9:10 A.M.
Z a244�?,
Gail C. Abbale
Administrative Assistant