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