Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout04/22/2010MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2010 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 Scott Morgan Thomas Smith Charles Frankel, III Malcolm Murphy Amanda Jones William H. Thrasher Rita L. Taylor Robert Fetrow Of Gator Engineering III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Mr. Morgan moved and Mr. Smith seconded to Special Meeting and Public Hearing of March further discussion. All voted AYE. Chairman Board Member Board Member Board Member Alternate Member Alternate Member Town Manager Town Clerk Agent for McDonnell of 3-3-10. approve the Minutes of the 3, 2010. There was no IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. There were no changes. V. Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. May 27, 2010 @ 8:30 A.M. b. June 24, 2010 @ 8:30 A.M. c. July 22, 2010 @ 8:30 A.M. d. September 23, 2010 @ 8:30 A.M. e. October 28, 2010 @ 8:30 A.M. f. November to be determined g. December 23, 2010 @ 8:30 A.M. Chairman Ganger asked if there were any conflicts with the scheduled meetings. He asked Clerk Taylor if there will be a May meeting. Clerk Taylor said there may not be a May meeting. Chairman Ganger asked if ^1 there were any applications that might possibly make the May meeting J deadline and Clerk Taylor turned the question over to Mr. Thrasher. Mr. Thrasher said there was one applicant that staff is working with, but they probably will not make the May deadline. Chairman Ganger commented that he hoped it was not a sign that building has stopped. Clerk Taylor said that there are several projects being discussed that may or may not go forward. Chairman Ganger asked if there were any ex -parte communications. Chairman Ganger, Mr. Murphy and Mr. Smith all stated they drove by the subject property. Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - April 22, 2010 Page 2 Clerk Taylor administered the oath to Robert Fetrow, Agent for Michael and Mary McDonnell. VI. PUBLIC HEARING. A. Applications for Development Approval 1. An application submitted by Robert Fetrow, as Agent for Michael and Mary McDonnell, the owners of property located at 7 Little Club Road, Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described as Las Casitas, Inc. a. SPECIAL EXCEPTION to permit addition of 179 Sq. Ft. to an existing dwelling with a non -conforming setback. b. LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit 179 sq. ft. addition of a master bedroom and closet to an existing Bermuda style single story dwelling. Mr. Fetrow introduced himself stating he is with the firm of Gator Engineering located at 4781 N. Congress Ave., #278, Boynton Beach, FL 33462. He said the first issue is the distance in the setback between 7 Little Club Rd. and 9 Little Club Rd. The distance is currently 10.1 ft. and Code requires 15 ft. Mr. Fetrow said that several years ago a neighbor built an addition to their home reducing the distance from 15 ft. to 10.1 ft. and the McDonnell's are looking for approval on that distance. He said, the second item is the site approval of the elevations and the 179 SF of floor plan being added consisting of the addition of a closet and the extension of the master bedroom. Chairman Ganger asked how much of the 179 SF is closet and how much is bedroom. Mr. Fetrow said the closet is about 120 SF and the bedroom extension is about 59 SF. Mr. Smith wanted to clarify that the home on the southeast corner put an addition on several years ago. Mr. Fetrow said that is what he was told. Chairman Ganger asked if this is the second in the ten homes to be expanded or if they will all eventually be expanded. Mr. Fetrow said he thought this would be the only one to be expanded. Chairman Ganger asked Clerk Taylor if the neighbors in all directions are aware of the plans. Mr. Fetrow stated that a copy of the plans were sent to the Homeowners' Association last year and they have no objections. Clerk Taylor said the Town received an official letter from the Homeowners' Association stating that they have no objections. Mr. Fetrow said the Homeowners' Association approved the project last year. Mr. Morgan asked if Unit #8 has voiced any concerns. Mr. Fetrow stated that Unit #8 has not been changed, but that is the property in non-conformance with what the McDonnell's want to do and they cannot go forward with #7 because of that non-conformance. Mr. Frankel moved and Mr. Morgan seconded to approve the Special Exception to permit the addition of 179 SF to an existing dwelling with a non -conforming building separation of approximately 5 feet. There was no further discussion. All voted AYE. Mr. Frankel moved and Mr. Morgan seconded to approve Level III Architectural/Site Plan based on a finding that the proposed 179 SF addition of a master bedroom and closet to an existing Bermuda style single story dwelling meets the minimum intent of the Design Manual and Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - April 22, 2010 Page 3 applicable review standards. There was no further discussion. All voted AYE. Clerk Taylor said that this matter will be on the agenda for the May 14, 2010 meeting of the Town Commission. VII. Reorganization. Clerk Taylor explained that the Code requires the Architectural Review and Planning Board reorganize once a year in April. Chairman Ganger asked if there were any term limits. Clerk Taylor said there are no term limits. A. Election of a Chairman Mr. Frankel moved and Mr. Morgan seconded to nominate Mr. Ganger to continue as Chairman. There were no additional nominations. All voted AYE. B. Election of a Vice -Chairman Mr. Smith asked who the current Vice -Chairman is. Mr. Morgan said it was Donna White who recently resigned from the Board. Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Frankel seconded to nominate Mr. Morgan as Vice -Chairman. There were no additional nominations. All voted AYE. Chairman Ganger commented that Mr. Morgan always makes very constructive comments and it is a pleasure to have him on the Board. He also commented that he is very happy to have Mr. Frankel back on the Board because of his experience and great judgment. VIII. Items by Staff. Calling attention to the memo on the desk, Mr. Thrasher said that these two items concerning code amendments will be on the next meeting agenda for discussion for two code changes because these are things that staff has experienced to be missing in the Code. He said that an example would be the hearing just completed where the Code does not speak of building separations and, on this particular site, it was necessary to find previous information on building separation. He said staff took direction from the Town Attorney in this matter who advised staff to use information from the previous Code. Mr. Thrasher said another ongoing issue is the location of fences visible from roadways and the use of PVC fencing. Chairman Ganger said the issue of whether the Code should be more C) explicit in terms of decoration on gates had come up at a previous meeting and he wanted to know if this would be included in the code changes. Mr. Thrasher said that the two changes before them are housekeeping items to be discussed at the next meeting, but there is a list of two items for discussion at a later date. One is gate decoration and the other is swimming pool ladders built from solid structures, which a Town Commissioner has asked the Board to examine. He said if there are other items that will not require change or re - codification to the Code, the Board will look at them. Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - April 22, 2010 Page 4 Chairman Ganger asked if the language being brought up to date regarding separation of buildings will change the outcome of the hearing concerning the property in Place Au Soleil. Mr. Thrasher said no, but it would have had an impact on the hearing the Board just completed, where there are multiple single family dwellings on one localized lot. In this case, the staff could not help the applicant because the language does not exist in the current code, which is why Mr. Randolph Cadvised using the language in the old Code. i Clerk Taylor commented that the subject property in the hearing just completed was an issue because multi -family setbacks and lot coverage are listed in Chapter 66, not tied in with FAR calculations, but rather tied in as a percentage of lot coverage. She said when the Town recently revised the Multi -family Code the fact that there was no mention of lot coverage or FAR in the new Code for multi -family was overlooked. Clerk Taylor said with a co-op on one piece of property, such as this property, percentage of lot coverage is more appropriate than doing an FAR and, when speaking with the planners and Mr. Randolph, the Town felt they should have something in place before there is another applicant with the same request. Clerk Taylor said the fence issue is a problem because our Fence Code does not address location of all fences. She explained that if a fence is installed outside of the minor accessory area or not within the setback area, there is nothing to control them and, if they it meets the setbacks for a principal structure, there is nothing to go by and, as a result, all kinds of fences are being constructed. Clerk Taylor said that if the Board had any suggestions concerning this matter, now is the time to address it because it is not too late to make a change. Mr. Morgan asked if the gate issue should be incorporated into the Fence Code. Clerk Taylor stated that Mr. Nilsen has removed his gate, but it is not clear whether it will be re -installed as originally approved or if a new gate will be installed. Chairman Ganger summarized the Nilsen matter for Mr. Frankel who was not present for that hearing. Mr. Morgan stated that Mr. Nilsen put a lot of money into the gate. Mr. Thrasher asked Mr. Morgan if he said he wanted to add the gate issue to the two code changes coming up on the next meeting agenda. Mr. Morgan asked if it should be a part of the discussion. Mr. Thrasher said that the other items are beyond discussion and staff is looking for suggestions for changes, but it could be incorporated if the Board would like that. Clerk Taylor said the Board would have to determine the language they want to use. Chairman Ganger asked if we could amend "fences" to "fences and gates." Mr. Thrasher said that some of the language on fences talks about screening so we would have to include specific language in the gate section prohibiting monograms, initials and works of art. Mr. Morgan recalled nuances of whether a fence is a gate or an opening to the property, which is not clearly defined. Mr. Thrasher said that gates on the Ocean West section must be open to be able to see through, not solid, but gates on the Oceanfront section do not have to be open and some of them are solid wood. He said one of the gates on the Ocean Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - April 22, 2010 Page 5 West portion was constructed with angled louvers which were openings, but when the gate was closed, you could not see through it. Chairman Ganger suggested deferring the gate issue to a later date. IX. Items by Board Members. Chairman Ganger said that our neighbors in the unincorporated South C County pocket, operated under the Palm Beach County Building Code and administered by the County's Planning & Zoning Department (P&Z), have requested consideration to be annexed into the Town of Gulf Stream. He said if anything were to be built there, Palm Beach County P&Z would decide whether it fits the standards of that area. Chairman Ganger said it is possible that the Town could annex that area in, at which time the boundaries would be redrawn or it could become a separate district of Gulf Stream with its own Code. Chairman Ganger wanted to know if it would be a year's worth of work to revise, create or simply modify Code to bring the area into compliance if they were annexed into Gulf Stream. He pointed out that much of the area would be non-compliant, such as the multi -story buildings that are taller than the Town's 40 ft. height restriction. Mr. Thrasher said it would be his objective to complete the work in less than a year. He said this matter will come through the ARPB and then to the Commission and thoughts and discussions concerning material issues, such as height and density, will be discussed rather quickly. Chairman Ganger said if this were to happen our Comprehensive Plan would be amended to add about 150 residential units to our current base and there would be many issues to consider as we create our vision of how this area will develop over time and become compatible with existing Gulf Stream. He said it will be very interesting, a comprehensive amount of work and a very important piece of business for the future of Gulf Stream. Mr. Morgan asked what the boundaries are. Chairman Ganger said it goes over to the south end of St. Andrews, jutting around the St. Andrews tennis courts which are already in Gulf Stream, and comes up the center of County Road to Sea Road to the ocean. Mr. Frankel asked if it would include the time share. Chairman Ganger said yes and there is always a possibility that the time share would be sold and redeveloped. He said the benefit of redevelopment under Gulf Stream is that it would be more tasteful and less dense, as opposed to Boynton annexing the area and dictating their standards or Palm Beach County P&Z dictating their standards. He said that the Sea Horse property is 3.5 acres and the time share is 1.5 acres. Chairman Ganger said the possibility of annexation will be the first time that the Board would participate in building the Town. Mr. Morgan asked what the legal process for annexation consists of. Chairman Ganger said the process begins with an Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement (ISBA) where jurisdictions determine what would be in their best interest, the best interest of those being annexed, and allowing both sides to vote for annexation, not requiring 100% to vote in favor. He explained that voluntary annexation requires 100% to vote in favor, Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - April 22, 2010 Page 6 which is almost impossible. The ISBA starts with service agreements already in place, such as water, sewer, fire/EMS and police agreements, and then the jurisdiction determines the best way to service the area being annexed. Chairman Ganger said both the State of Florida and Palm Beach County would like to get rid of unincorporated pockets and enclaves all over the County because the County is responsible for administering these services which can become a burden. He said if this is done under a routine Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement it can be C accomplished fairly quickly, but the process becomes more difficult when you begin to amend the Comprehensive Plan and renegotiate services. Chairman Ganger said the real issue is that there are some very tall and non-compliant structures in the area and the density is 12 residential units per acre, which is considerably higher than Gulf Stream's residential density. X. Public. There were no items. XI. Adjournment. Chairman Ganger adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:50 A.M. 004 Gail C. Abbale Administrative Assistant 0