HomeMy Public PortalAbout04/28/2011MINUTES 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 28, 2011 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
Charles Frankel, III
Malcolm Murphy
Thomas Smith
Amanda Jones
William H. Thrasher
Rita L. Taylor
George Brewer, Arch.
Brewer Architecture,
Inc.
Robert Glynn, Delray
Gardens
Mark Marsh
Bridges, Marsh &
Associates, Inc.
Elizabeth Brown
Timothy Diamond
Delray Ocean Estates
Chairman
Vice -Chairman
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Alternate Member
Town Manager
Town Clerk
Agent for Binnie
Rep. Binnie
Agent for Brown,
Davis & Silverman
Rep. Alexander
Agent for Coon/Condon
III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 3-24-11.
Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Frankel seconded to approve the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting and Public hearing of 3/24/11. There was no discussion.
All voted AYE.
IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items.
Mr. Thrasher requested an addition and a renumbering, adding a new Item
VII, Items Related to Previous Approval for 4110 County Rd., and
renumbering original Items VII through original Items X as Items VIII
through Items XI. There were no objections.
V. Announcements.
O
A. Meeting Dates
1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
a. April 28, 2011 @ 8:30 A.M.
b. May 26, 2011 @ 8:30 A.M.
c. June 23, 2011 @ 8:30 A.M.
d. July 28, 2011 @ 8:30 A.M.
e. No meeting in August 2011
f. September 22, 2011 @ 8:30 A.M.
Chairman Ganger asked if there were any applications for public hearing
for the May meeting. Clerk Taylor said applications have been submitted
Architectural Review and Planning Board
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - April 28, 2011 Page 2
for May. She asked if there were any conflicts in the meeting schedule
and there were none.
Chairman Ganger asked about the progress in finding a new alternate
member to replace Mr. Coleman. Clerk Taylor said there was an inquiry
and she advised them that a letter of interest would be required by
n early May. She said it will go to the Commission when received.
/ Chairman Ganger asked if there has been ex -parte communication
concerning any of the applications being heard. Vice -Chairman Morgan
said he spoke to Attorney Ballerano who said there would be an issue
brought before the Board concerning one of the applications. Chairman
Ganger said he will recuse himself from that portion of the hearing.
Chairman Ganger said one of the applications has been the subject of
discussion before the Civic Association Board, he has visited the site
three times with the Civic Association and one time on his own. He said
a decision was made on this property a couple of years ago and several
members are now concerned. Chairman Ganger asked if anyone present had
visited the site recently. Clerk Taylor said a decision was made in
2007 and noted that the matter will be heard at the end of the agenda.
Clerk Taylor administered the Oath to George Brewer, George Glynn, Mark
Marsh and Lisa Brown.
VI. PUBLIC HEARING.
A. Applications for Development Approval
1. An application submitted by George Brewer, Brewer
Architecture, Inc., as agent for William Binnie, owner of
property located at 1314 N. Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream,
Florida, which is legally described as Lots 4, 4A, 5 & 5A,
replat of Donald B. McLouth Subdivision.
a. LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW
(1) Demolish 1,378 sq. ft. of existing home and a 48
sq. ft. outbuilding
(2) Construct a cabana and an addition to the existing
Gulf Stream Bermuda style home, a total of 3,215
sq. ft.
(3) Construct a 2 -car garage, 762 sq. ft.
(4) Relocate swimming pool
(5) Relocate and add landscape material.
George Brewer introduced himself and displayed two color -coded drawings,
showing what currently exists and the proposed construction, yellow
indicating what will remain and orange indicating what will be removed.
He said there is very little information available for this property,
and believes it was built in 1969. The house is unique, with a wood -
frame structure and brick siding. Mr. Brewer said it is a very elegant
home, but there have been several owners who have made many changes. He
said there the ceilings are and where a garage existed at one time has
been converted into bedrooms and a kitchen. The original cabana is an
open structure located by the tennis court.
Architectural Review and Planning Board
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - April 28, 2011 Page 3
Mr. Brewer said they will not touch original pieces of the house and
plan to repeat the original details throughout the entire structure,
both interior and exterior. They will replace the septic system,
relocate the pool, the tennis court will remain where located, but the
applicant would like to change the surface from clay to a hard surface,
O realizing that one of the conditions for approval is that the existing
tennis court surface remains clay. He said the applicants prefer a hard
court and it would also conserve water use.
Mr. Brewer said the house is a wood structure and the new owner would
like more height in the new layout. The kitchen and family room will
face the view off to the northwest, the master bedroom will remain where
it is, there will be alterations to the master bath and there will be a
three-bedroom wing for the children. There will be a covered lanai off
of the family room and a lap pool accompanied by a cabana with a bath.
The original 3 -car garage will remain and the raised patio area will be
extended across to meet the house. Mr. Brewer said all of the new
construction will be higher than the existing home and, because they
cannot add on to wood framing, they will place block on the existing
slab which will jut out to accommodate a small breakfast nook and the
addition of an attached 2 -car garage.
Mr. Brewer mentioned that there are two layers of walls outlining the
motor court, saying that the outer layer of wall was added by a previous
owner which blocks visibility when exiting the property. He said they
want to remove the one layer of wall and adjust the landscaping in that
area to provide visibility. In addition, Mr. Brewer said the exterior
of the house is white with a white tile roof and the owners are
concerned with the overall mass of house being completely white. He
said he originally described the house as British Colonial/Bermudian
where white tile roof is preferred, but he would like the Board to
consider allowing for a gray slate -look tile roof in lieu of white.
In conclusion, Mr. Brewer showed a rendering of the house with the gray
slate -look roof tile, which he said will lighten over time, and said the
house will remain white, all windows will be replaced with impact and
the shutters will be dark green. He said the electrical service is
currently buried and they will bury the new service and, with regard to
O the landscaping modifications, he would like the Board to allow the
removal of the outer walls of the motor court to be replaced with
landscaping. Mr. Brewer referred back to the tennis court saying the
owners would like a hard surface rather than clay.
Chairman Ganger asked if Code requires the tennis courts to be clay.
Mr. Thrasher said he thought it was settled and the court would remain
clay, but Code does not require clay. He said the location of the court
is close to the neighbor to the east and his concern is the noise factor
with a hard surface. Being a tennis player and having knowledge of
court surfaces, Mr. Frankel said there is not too much noise from a hard
court unless it is surrounded by walls creating an echo. He said if
Code does not discourage a hard surface he has no objection because a
Architectural Review and Planning Board
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - April 28, 2011 Page 4
clay court is difficult to maintain and, from a conservation standpoint,
a hard court makes sense. Clerk Taylor said the other issue was the
basketball court the owners wanted to install to play off the tennis
court, which would be noisier to the neighbor. Vice -Chairman Morgan
asked if any of the neighbors have objections and Clerk Taylor said
there has been no comment from anyone, but thought staff and the owners
Owere in agreement about the court surface. Chairman Ganger asked if
neighbors are aware that the applicant would be asking for a hard court.
Clerk Taylor said they were aware of the application, but there have
been no inquiries from anyone. Mr. Brewer said the owners decided they
would not install the basketball court.
Vice -Chairman Morgan asked about the landscaping separating the
neighbor's view of the tennis court. Robert Glynn of Delray Gardens
stated that the neighbor's house sits back from the property line and
his pool is located near the court. There is an existing 6' Ficus hedge
around the property which will be maintained and, in addition, they will
add palms and relocate existing palms along the hedge to create a
double/triple buffer. Mr. Frankel asked if there was an existing fence
around the court and Mr. Brewer said a fence does not exist, but there
would usually be a 3' high fence around a court which may be installed
at a later date. Vice -Chairman Morgan asked about landscaping facing
Hidden Harbour Drive. Mr. Glynn said there are Coco Palms and a 16'
Ficus hedge which was just trimmed and they will be adding landscaping
there also.
Chairman Ganger said water is an issue and should the opportunity should
be taken to conserve. Therefore, if the neighbors do not object and
there is adequate landscaping surrounding the court, he has no objection
to the hard court. Mr. Thrasher said, as configured on proposed site
plan, the existing tennis court does not meet the minor accessory
setback, which is 30' for this district and, therefore altering the
court and changing the surface means it may be required to conform to
the 30' minor accessory setback. Mr. Frankel asked if they could get a
special exception. Mr. Thrasher said he does not know of a special
exception to allow a minor accessory of this nature. Vice -Chairman
Morgan commented that the design is not changing, only the surface, and
said he was not aware of the setback issue and would like to read the
Code before moving forward. Mr. Thrasher said another consideration
would be the drainage plan with the hard court and suggested this be
�) tabled for review to allow time to prepare. Chairman Ganger asked if it
was possible to conform to the setback and have the tennis court remain
in this location. Mr. Brewer said it would not.
Mr. Randolph said that rather than considering a special exception
because the tennis court does not conform to setbacks, a variance should
be considered with the entire property having to conform due to the
major renovation of more than 50% of property, and there being no other
location on the property for the tennis court. He said when you are
doing a major renovation to the entire property everything must conform
and that is what should be looked at. He added that there is no listed
special exception for accessory use, but they can file for a variance
Architectural Review and Planning Board
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - April 28, 2011 Page 5
for the setback, arguing that the hardship is that it already exists and
there is no other location on the property to accommodate it.
Mr. Frankel said he has no problem changing the court surface and Mr.
Murphy suggested prohibiting the basketball court as a condition.
Chairman Ganger said it is a beautiful design, but he feels the Board
O should consider Mr. Randolph's input. He asked about wind insurance and
termite damage and wanted to know if the house is considered a wood
structure. Mr. Brewer said a portion of the house will remain wood, but
they are going to use block for the new construction and will
investigate the trusses once they start demolition. He said he was not
yet sure about termite damage, but the wood is old and it could be an
issue in the future. He added that the house is sound and it is
beautiful and elegant and they do not want to take it down.
Chairman Ganger asked if the Code permits a dark roof on a white house
and Mr. Murphy asked if the roof tiles were discussed in the pre -
application process. Clerk Taylor said it was discussed and Mr.
Thrasher said he thought they were in agreement. Mr. Thrasher read Code
Section 70-238 pertaining to Gulf Stream Bermuda Style as follows:
Required: White flat untextured tile except that gray slate or slate
style tile may be permitted on homes that are predominantly Georgian or
British Colonial with Bermuda influences, subject to Level II approval.
In the prohibited section of the Code, Sub -section (d), tiles other that
white flat untextured tile or gray slate tiles are prohibited. He said
a unique situation where the Code speaks to what is required and also
what is prohibited. Mr. Morgan said the Code allows for gray slate tile
under a Georgian Bermuda influence. Mr. Murphy said the house is listed
as British Colonial. Mr. Brewer said he found that British Colonial
does not exist and agrees that the roof should be white, but it is an
aesthetic decision for the applicant who is asking the Board to consider
the gray slate -look tile. Mr. Thrasher said there has been a lot of
discussion, with both the ARPB and the Commission, about roof tiles
being white flat tile through and through. Mr. Brewer asked if real
slate would be acceptable and Mr. Thrasher said it would. Mr. Brewer
said he would discuss white through and through and real slate tile with
the applicant.
Mark Marsh of Bridges Marsh & Associates was present on behalf of two
other applicants and said he will present a similar roof argument for
one of them. He said he believes Mr. Thrasher and staff may interpret
white on white as Bermuda, but it creates a likeness everywhere. The
Board can look at it in context and make a decision. He said there are
some questions concerning hurricane criteria, but he has used the gray
slate -look tile around Delray, it has a great look of slate and real
slate is triple the price. Mr. Marsh said if owners want to vary
slightly within the right context it should be encouraged. Chairman
Ganger asked Mr. Marsh if he agrees that the gray slate -look tile will
fade in time. Mr. Marsh said that it begins to silver out in about 4
months. Vice -Chairman Morgan said the architectural styles have a
blurring in their descriptions and agrees the Board should have more
Architectural Review and Planning Board
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - April 28, 2011 Page 6
latitude. He added that he thinks the gray slate -look goes well with
the house. Mr. Brewer said they will use copper drip edge.
Chairman Ganger said the points raised have made it difficult to make a
decision. He said from a structural point of view the tennis court is
irresolvable. Mr. Randolph said Mr. Thrasher raised the issue of the
O minor accessory setback of the tennis court, but the surface issue can
be resolved today. He said the Board can defer the tennis court portion
or they can approve it subject to Code approval. Mr. Randolph said if
it is not approved by Code the applicant must come back to apply for a
special exception or a variance claiming with the hardship being no
other location on the property to accommodate the tennis court.
Mr. Thrasher asked if the application was properly noticed. Mr.
Randolph said it was advertised properly and the Board would only be
acting on what was advertised, but it will be re -advertised if the
applicant must come back to the Board for a special exception or a
variance. Mr. Thrasher asked if it was too late for the next meeting
and Clerk Taylor said it may be possible, depending on what they are
asking for. Clerk Taylor said nothing was mentioned in the previous
advertisement about doing anything to the tennis court. She said the
gray roof tile was discussed, but until one week ago it was agreed the
roof would be white and, therefore, a Level II approval for the roof was
not advertised. With regard to the roof being subject to a Level II
approval, the Code section covers predominantly Georgian or British
Colonial style with Bermuda influences and the application submitted
describes the house as Bermuda/British Colonial.
Chairman Ganger said there is not much difference between deferring just
the two items and deferring the entire application. The process should
be consistent and he would like them to come back after Staff and Mr.
Randolph had an opportunity to consult. Mr. Randolph said there are two
options: Either defer the two items and approve the remaining portion of
the application; or, defer the entire application until next month, in
which case if a special exception or variance is necessary it would have
to be applied for and could take two months. He suggested the Board
make a motion to defer the entire application to next ARPB meeting,
giving staff an opportunity to determine if it can be heard at that time
based upon the setback of tennis court. Mr. Brewer suggested that the
applicant would agree to the white tile roof and leaving the clay
C) surface court and then bring both items back to the Board in a separate
application. He said other municipalities are adopting green practices
and the hard court surface will conserve water use and it is much easier
to maintain. Chairman Ganger said the tennis court is a bigger issue
than the roof color and if the Board is okay with the gray slate -look
tile they could move forward on that and bring the tennis court back as
a separate application.
Mr. Frankel moved and Mr. Murphy seconded to recommend approval of Level
III Architectural/Site Plan based on a finding that the proposed
demolition of 1,378 SF of the existing home and a 48 SF out building;
construction of a cabana and an addition to the existing Gulf Stream
Bermuda style home, a total of 3,215 SF, and a 762 SF 2 -car garage;
Architectural Review and Planning Board
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - April 28, 2011 Page 7
relocation of swimming pool; relocation of and additional landscape
material; roof material will be gray slate -look roof tile subject to
staff satisfaction; and, removal of drive way screen walls, meet the
minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards with
the following conditions:
1. The existing clay tennis court will remain clay.
O 2. Any minor modifications in the drainage plan shall be
submitted to the Town for review and approval and any major
modifications shall be brought back to the ARPB for review and approval.
3. If not already, electric service lines shall be buried.
4. Any minor modifications in the landscape plan shall be
submitted to the Town Manager for review and approval and any major
modifications shall be brought back to the ARPB for review and approval,
prior to commencement of landscaping.
Mr. Thrasher asked Mr. Brewer if he was agreeable to the condition of
the gray slate -look tile being subject to the approval of staff. Mr.
Brewer said yes. There was no further discussion. All voted AYE.
2. An application submitted by Bridges, Marsh & Associates,
Inc., as agents for Mr. & Mrs. Martin Brown, owners of
property located at 2 Driftwood Landing, Gulf Stream,
Florida, which is legally described as Lot 8, Driftwood
Landing Subdivision.
a. LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW
(1) Construct a detached two-story Gulf Stream
Bermuda style guest house consisting of 1,225 sq.
ft.
(2) Construct a one-story detached garage consisting
of 469 sq. ft. with a new driveway access off
Driftwood Landing.
Mr. Marsh introduced himself saying he was representing Mr. and Mrs.
Brown, who own several lots in Gulf Stream, but the existing house at 8
Driftwood Landing does not have a garage. It is a private road and most
people park along the road. Mr. Marsh said when first discussed with
staff, the applicant only wanted to add a free-standing guest cottage
because they have a lot of property and their family has grown. It was
determined by staff, and Code also states, that you cannot build a house
without a garage; however, this house was built over 40 years ago. He
said they have responded to staff's request to create a free-standing
garage, but the owners are not pleased and have hired an attorney, Mr.
O Dixon, who is present today to listen to the discussion and to determine
whether it is fair to impact the owner with this condition. Mr. Marsh
said they are presenting the application to the ARPB with the garage,
but if the Board recommends approval, they will appeal to the Commission
for approval with the guest cottage only and not a garage.
Mr. Marsh said the lot is large and open and the house is classified as
Gulf Stream Bermuda Style, but it is a non-descript and eclectic
cottage -like structure. It was deemed that the access to the garage
would be from Driftwood Landing and there is a very big Ficus tree which
they want to keep. He said there will be a 1 -story 20' x 20' garage and
a 2 -story 2 bedroom guest cottage with a sitting room and bedroom on the
first level and another bedroom on the second level. Mr. Marsh said
Architectural Review and Planning Board
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - April 28, 2011 Page 8
everything conforms to setbacks and it will be consistent with the
Bermuda Style house, with a creamy Salmon -color exterior, white trim,
white shutters, and white tile roof.
Chairman Ganger asked why the applicant does not want a garage and Mr.
Marsh said there is plenty of parking and feels there is no need. Mr.
O Murphy asked if the driveway would be eliminated if there was no garage.
Mr. Marsh said there would be a pathway with landscaping to the main
house. He explained that the elder Mrs. Brown is a collector of trees
and there is an array of various types of palm trees on the north side.
The owner is concerned that bringing the driveway through to the garage
would mean the loss of trees. Mr. Murphy said he understands the intent
of the Design Manual and why this was included by staff, but it seems
the need for a garage does not exist on this property.
Mr. Thrasher said it is possible that when properly reviewing the Code
it would indicate that anything other than what is being suggested would
require a variance. This application was advertised as a Level III
application, not a request for a variance and Mr. Marsh has recognized
that the garage requirement is part of the Code. He said he has tried
to accommodate the request and the need to accelerate this application;
however, the issues that have been raised confirm that it is not a good
practice to accommodate acceleration. Mr. Marsh said he believes this
was not accelerated through the process. Rita said it was accelerated,
but not greatly. Chairman Ganger said if the application is approved as
is and then the applicant decides he does not want the garage, would he
have to come back to the ARPB or could he argue this with the
Commission? Mr. Thrasher said it would require a new application
beginning with the ARPB. Mr. Marsh said the original application was
for the free-standing guest cottage only and with their interpretation
of the Code Staff determined that a garage was required and a new
application was submitted which included a garage. Chairman Ganger said
the Code is correct, the Board will act on the application as submitted
and if the owner decides he does not want a garage he will submit a new
application.
Vice -Chairman Morgan moved and Mr. Frankel seconded to recommend
approval of Level III Architectural/Site Plan based on a finding that
the proposed two-story guest house consisting of 1,225 SF, a one-story
garage consisting of 469 SF, the style being consistent with the
�i existing one-story Gulf Stream Bermuda home and the new driveway cut off
Driftwood landing to access the new garage meet the minimum intent of
the Design Manual and applicable review standards with the following
conditions:
1. Prior to final approval the proposed site plan shall be
provided to the Driftwood Landings Home Owners Association for their
review and comments.
2. Electric Service line(s) shall be buried if they are not
already.
There was no discussion. All voted AYE.
3. An application submitted by Mark Marsh, Bridges, Marsh &
Associates, Inc., as agent for Mr. & Mrs. James Davis,
Architectural Review and Planning Board
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - April 28, 2011 Page 9
owners of property located at 554 Palm Way, Gulf Stream,
Florida, which is legally described as Lot 1 and the west
41 ft. of Lot 2, Gulf Stream Cove Subdivision and the
south 50 ft. of Lot 21, Polo Cove Subdivision.
a. SPECIAL EXCEPTION to establish a waterfront minimum
setback of 30 feet.
b. LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW
(1) Additions of 1,328 sq. ft. to the existing two
story single family dwelling, the style of which
will become Dutch Colonial.
(2) Construction of a detached 910 sq. ft. two-story
storage/guest room.
(3) Construction of a 400 sq. ft. cabana.
Mr. Marsh said he is representing the applicant in the restoration and
addition to their existing home, which is an older, non -Florida -style
structure with a brick first level and mort and batten second level. He
said it is a mid -western style replica and is unattractive and shrouded
by landscaping. Mr. Marsh said he was approached by the applicant to
determine whether they should demolish and rebuild or whether there was
enough structure for renovation and, after surveying the property,
determined the structure was sound and they could add some amenities to
the property to make it special. Mr. Marsh said they are proposing
modest additions to the main house and two accessory structures, one
being a pool cabana adjacent to the pool area and the other being 2 -
story structure for storage on the first level and a guest cottage
above. He said side setbacks meet Code, but they are asking for a
special exception for rear setbacks of 30'. Mr. Marsh said they would
like to change the driveway giving it a more private approach because,
as it exists, it appears to be an extension to Palm Way and drivers use
it to make U-turns.
Mr. Marsh said they are proposing to change the home from its current
style to a Dutch Colonial, which will be quite a transformation. He
explained that the main house has no sense of entry, having only a small
portico with a sloped roof, and they create a better sense of entry with
a modest expansion to the front of the home on the north side. They
will expand a small family room into a playroom for the children and
create a loggia on the south side with the addition of a family room,
providing symmetry and balance. Mr. Marsh said there will be a loggia
off of the living room and kitchen area and the garage wing will remain
the same. The second story will include a study area over the new front
entry and the remainder of the second story will be gutted and redone to
accommodate three bedrooms for the children and a master bedroom. The
stairwell is confining, but will remain and they will open up the rails.
Mr. Marsh said the first floor is concrete block with brick veneer and
the second story is all wood -frame and they were not touching any of
that. He displayed drawings of the before and after, showing two bay
window projections on either side of the new front entry on the north
side, and a new family room, an extended loggia extending from the
playroom and two additional extended loggias on the south side. Mr.
Marsh said they have added shutters to the structure, it will have a
Architectural Review and Planning Board
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - April 28, 2011 Page 10
white exterior and a gray slate -look flat tile roof, giving the home a
Dutch Colonial style look. Mr. Marsh displayed a true British Colonial
and pointed out the appropriateness of having an all -white building with
a gray tile roof.
Mr. Marsh pointed out the pool and cabana area, which includes a bar, a
bathroom and dock storage. He described the 2 -story structure with
n
0 storage on the first level and a bedroom upstairs. He said the
accessory structures tie into the main structure by including simple
elements that are traditional to the Dutch style. Chairman Ganger asked
if there is a boat dock. Mr. Marsh said there will be a separate
application for the dock. He said the site plan shows an 80' setback
which will be corrected to meet Code, but they plan to create a new
seawall and dock and he is not involved with that. Vice -Chairman Morgan
asked Mr. Marsh to confirm that he is requesting Condition #2 be changed
to read the color of the roof tile would be gray. Mr. Marsh confirmed
that.
Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Frankel seconded to recommend approval of the
Level III Architectural/Site Plan based on a finding that the addition
consisting of 1,328 SF to the existing two-story single family dwelling,
the style of which will become Dutch Colonial, construction of a
detached 910 SF two-story storage/guest room and a 400 SF cabana meet
the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards
with the following conditions:
1. Electric Service line shall be buried if it is not already.
2. The color of the roof tile will be gray.
3. Docks and/or boat lifts will conform to Section 66-369 "Docks"
of the Code.
There was no discussion. All voted AYE.
Mr. Frankel moved and Vice -Chairman Morgan seconded to recommend
approval to establish waterfront minimum rear setbacks of 30'. There
was no discussion. All voted AYE.
4. An application submitted by Mark Marsh, Bridges, Marsh &
Associates, Inc., agent for Mr. & Mrs. Steven Silverman,
owners of property located at 1465 North Ocean Blvd., Gulf
Stream, Florida, legally described in metes & bounds in
Sec. 10, Twnshp. 46 S, Range 43 E in the Town of Gulf
Stream.
a. SPECIAL EXCEPTION to permit construction of a dune
crossover east of the Coastal Construction Control
Line.
b. LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit
construction of a 4 foot wide dune crossover structure
seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line.
Chairman Ganger noted that he had been approached by the Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) asking him to comment on the plan the
Board is about to hear. He said he spent a lot of time with the DEP in
the past and felt it was necessary to respond to their request.
Chairman Ganger said his response was not in the record and he has
provided copies to the Board and staff. Chairman Ganger recused and
Architectural Review and Planning Board
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - April 28, 2011 Page 11
turned the gavel over to Vice -Chairman Morgan and offered to answer any
questions. The Board took a minute to review Chairman Ganger's comments
to the DEP.
Mark Marsh said the applicant is asking for a special exception to
permit the construction of a dune crossover structure to access the
Obeach. He said there have been issues with the Alexanders, their
neighbors to the north, and there have been numerous negotiations to
resolve them. Mr. Ganger, the neighbor to their south, has been very
supportive of the improvements on the main site. Mr. Marsh said, at the
February meeting of the ARPB, he illustrated what was proposed for a
dune walkover structure at the extreme south of the property, which is
adjacent to Mr. Ganger's property, and it was not approved at that time.
Mr. Marsh said the DEP granted a permit to construct a dune crossover
and they began construction, which was halted by staff at the request of
Mr. Ganger. Mr. Marsh met with staff and was informed that it must meet
the criteria of special setback for minor accessory structures east of
the Coastal Construction Control Line which was established in 1978. As
a result, what they are required to do is come off 15 feet from any
property line, having little room to work with.
Mr. Marsh explained that years ago a bulkhead was built because there
was no beach, but today there is an extended beach area and a dune that
has established itself. (Historical records presented by Chairman
Ganger at a subsequent meeting show that there was an existing beach at
that time.) He said a previous owner of the Silverman property could
not meet setbacks for pool equipment and other machinery and, as a trade
off, granted an easement to the Alexander property allowing them to cut
through the bulk head wall to install a gate for beach access, which is
illustrated in a photo. The applicant is attempting to undo all of that
with the approval of the Alexanders and if easement is not revoked there
will be no way to access the beach. Mr. Marsh said Mr. Ganger would
prefer that access remain where it is, but it is not an appropriate
solution. He said they are proposing to come off 15 feet from the north
property line and construct a wooden walkover structure over the
bulkhead wall and stepping down toward the south to avoid affecting the
bulkhead wall and the quality of the dune and vegetation in that area.
The wood crossover structure complies with DEP criteria and will be
constructed under the Coastal Engineer's design.
C� Mr. Frankel asked if the easement still exists. Mr. Marsh said it is a
private easement that can be revoked in 30 days and both parties have
agreed. In the meantime, the Alexanders will allow the Silvermans to
use their beach access temporarily until the walkover can be installed.
He added that the gate will be removed and the bulkhead will be
restored. Mr. Frankel asked where the crossover would be in relation to
Mr. Ganger's property and Mr. Marsh said it would be about 30 feet from
his property. Chairman Morgan asked why the steps turn south rather than
north. Mr. Marsh said they could not use the Alexanders pathway and
they would get into a Sea Grape area. Mr. Murphy asked about the
security issue with no locked gate. Mr. Marsh there was no concern and
it is open access.
Architectural Review and Planning Board
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - April 28, 2011 Page 12
Mr. Frankel said it is unusual to have two properties conjoined and
asked Mr. Ganger if his concerns were more environmental than aesthetic.
Mr. Ganger gave a brief history saying that when the first walkover was
built in 1947, the beach was eroding. The walkover was where it was
when the beach is where it is now and the south entrance to the beach
was perfectly done, with no structure over the main bulkhead. Mr.
O Ganger said he talked to the DEP who said the crossover structure to be
built over the bulkhead must be a breakaway structure during a storm.
Due to the proposed location, he is concerned that debris from this
breakaway structure could end up in his home. He added that privacy is
also an issue and feels it is a simple solution to put the walkover
where it was and close the opening in the bulkhead. Chairman Morgan
said it would then cross over onto someone else's property. Mr. Frankel
asked if Mr. Ganger was saying that if both owners agree to revoke the
easement they could do so without interference. Mr. Ganger said he did
not know, but the properties have had several owners and it was never a
problem.
Mr. Randolph said there are specific standards set forth in Section 70-
75, Special exception setbacks, (g) minor accessory structures east of
the Coastal Construction Control Line established in 1978, (2) Specific
standards for review, a. through g., reading c. and g. and summarizing
a., b., d., e. and f. He said it appears that what we are considering
for special exception has been reviewed by the DEP and a determination
was made that it be constructed to minimize damage to the beach and dune
system. Mr. Randolph said this is the criteria the Board must consider
to make their recommendation. Mr. Marsh said the safety issue is a
concern, but this is a universal structure used up and down the coast.
Mr. Murphy asked if the reason for the switch in the easement is because
he cannot locate the crossover in its previous location. Mr. Marsh said
a 6' easement was granted to accommodate a previous owner on the north
property which is not being utilized by the current owner and they would
like to have it back.
Ms. Liz Brown, who is in charge of the Alexander property, was present.
She explained that Mr. Alexander talked with Mr. Silverman concerning
the matter and their respective attorneys believe the easements need to
be reversed. She said Mr. Marsh has done a great job, they have worked
O out the privacy issues with the addition and landscaping and Mr.
Alexander is only seeking integrity on his property. She thanked Mr.
Marsh for holding construction until the Alexanders leave Town. Mr.
Marsh noted that the easement became an issue when they were about to
start construction of the 7' privacy wall. The City of Delray Beach's
Building Planner said they could not apply for the permit because of the
easement, but it is a private easement and the parties mutually agreed
to revoke it. Chairman Morgan said it appears that the easement issue
is between the property owners and Members of the Board sympathizes with
Mr. Ganger concerns because any decision made will impact him. Mr.
Smith wanted confirmation that both of the parties will abandon the
easement. That was confirmed.
Architectural Review and Planning Board
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - April 28, 2011 Page 13
Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of Special
Exception to permit construction of a dune crossover east of the Coastal
Construction Control Line 1978 based on the finding that the dune
crossover meets the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable
review standards. There was no discussion. Roll Call: Mr. Frankel,
AYE; Mr. Smith, AYE; Mr. Murphy, AYE; and, Vice -Chairman Morgan, AYE.
The motion passed 4 - 0. Chairman Ganger was recused.
Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of a Level
III Architectural/Site Plan to permit construction of a 4 -foot wide dune
crossover structure seaward of the Coastal Construction Line 1978 based
on the finding the dune crossover meets the minimum intent of the Design
Manual and applicable review standards. There was no discussion. Roll
Call: Mr. Frankel, AYE; Mr. Smith, AYE; Mr. Murphy, AYE; and, Vice -
Chairman Morgan, AYE. The motion passed 4 - 0. Chairman Ganger was
recused.
Following the vote, the gavel was passed back to Chairman Ganger.
VII. Items Related to Previous Approval for 4110 County Road.
Clerk Taylor administered the Oath to Timothy Diamond, General
Contractor and Agent for 4110 County Road.
Mr. Thrasher said the Agent originally requested approval of a driveway,
including two parking spaces, in the front courtyard area of the home.
He said the Agent is now asking for is approval to install a circular
driveway, eliminating front gates and walls between the proposed
entrance gates.
Mr. Diamond explained that they want to change the driveway so the owner
does not have to back out of his driveway onto County Rd. The owner had
originally asked for a fence and gate at the front of the property for
security purposes, but would like to have the fence and gate removed as
he no longer believes there is a security issue. Mr. Diamond said he
drove through the corridor of Gulf Stream and found only three other
homes with gates, which were located on AlA and, therefore, does not
feel the gates are necessary. Chairman Ganger asked for clarification
that the gate shown for the driveway going to the garage would remain.
Mr. Diamond said the owner would like to have it all removed, but
believes Mr. Thrasher wants the gates installed only to address concerns
the neighbors have of someone falling down the driveway. Mr. Diamond
said they are proposing to leave the north and south driveways going up
to a circular driveway at the top, removing the two parking spaces, and
removing the walls between the gates and replacing it with a hedge
across the front. Chairman Ganger pointed out that the circular
driveway is basically there.
Chairman Ganger asked if the level of approval being requested meets the
standard of having to come before the ARPB. Mr. Thrasher said it does
not. Chairman Ganger said if this issue was advertised the room would
be full. He said it is a subject of great concern among neighbors and
Architectural Review and Planning Board
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - April 28, 2011 Page 14
others in Town due to the danger it presents to children in particular.
Vice -Chairman Morgan asked if gates currently exist between County Rd.
and the two driveway entrances. Mr. Diamond said the original site
approval indicates gates would be installed in those locations, but the
owner does not want them now. Chairman Ganger said the Board has the
right to approve changes in a plan that was approved four years ago, but
now they must deal with the potential of a safety issue and without the
gates there is nothing to protect people from real harm. He said if
Board Members are not familiar with the property and have not visited
the site, they should do so before making a determination.
Mr. Thrasher said several as -built requirements will be placed on the
property before issuing a Certificate of Occupancy and construction is
not complete at this point. Mr. Frankel asked if this is outside of the
purviews of the Board and the Code to determine safety issues. Mr.
Randolph said the building code deals with those issues, but when this
was originally approved it was approved with the gates. He said there
was no circular driveway on the original plans and, originally, the wall
went across the front of the property. When such significant changes
are requested, it should not come up the end of an agenda without
allowing time to prepare. Mr. Randolph said if the Board is comfortable
taking action on what is before them they have the right to do so.
However, because they are requesting significant changes from what was
previously approved, he believes the Board should defer the matter to
allow for research and preparation. Vice -Chairman Morgan and Mr. Murphy
agreed. Mr. Smith asked if Town Code allows for so many entrances.
Clerk Taylor said there is nothing to prohibit it as long as they are 5
feet off the property line. Mr. Thrasher said when this was originally
approved there were only two accesses to County Rd. Because of what you
are requesting now, there will be four, but there is nothing prohibiting
that.
Chairman Ganger asked if these requested changes would result in other
differences in what was originally approved. Mr. Thrasher said he
walked down the driveway and there are changes in the driveway
elevations. The elevation in front of the garage was 18 feet and is now
15 feet and the slope of the driveway has also changed to 25 feet, but
there is nothing in the Code that regulates that. Mr. Thrasher said it
was originally permitted under Palm Beach County and he contacted them
Oto see if anything in the Florida Building Code addressed that and it
does not regulate that for single family homes. He said he will look at
as-builts relating to drainage and retention walls which are under the
Town's zoning requirements and there may be other issues.
Mr. Randolph said, if the board defers, any significant changes from the
original plan should be advertised and placed on the agenda. He said
Mr. Thrasher will meet with the applicant to be sure any of the
requested changes do not affect other portions of the original plan
which was previously approved. Chairman Ganger was concerned about
issues raised by the neighbors. He said if the Board recommends approval
they may have to go to the Commission as private citizens to express
their concerns. Vice -Chairman Morgan said this must be kept within the
Architectural Review and Planning Board
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - April 28, 2011 Page 15
purview of the Board and he is not comfortable acting on this before
having an opportunity to prepare. Mr. Diamond said the owner is running
out of money and needs to make some decisions. Mr. Frankel said that
financial situations should not interfere in the approval process.
Mr. Diamond proposed going forward with a circular driveway, the two
C; gates on each end and with a hedge across the front replacing the
fencing between the gates. Chairman Ganger said he would like to defer
and is concerned with not having an opportunity to study this and visit
the site. Mr. Morgan and Mr. Frankel agreed. Mr. Thrasher said the
landscaping plan would have to be modified and he does not know when the
applicant can install the gates, but the gate installation would address
some of the concerns of the neighbors. Mr. Frankel said they could
approve the circular driveway and gates and anything else that needs to
be changed can go through the channels. Vice -Chairman Morgan said the
circular driveway is a great improvement.
Mr. Frankel moved and Vice -Chairman Morgan seconded to recommend
approval of the Level II proposal approving an amendment to the original
plans, adding the circular driveway as presented, and elimination of the
fencing across the front with the exception of two outer gates. Mr.
Thrasher asked if it would be appropriate to add the condition that the
two gates be electric. Mr. Randolph said they can impose that
condition, but it would be more important to impose the condition that
the gates be closed at all times, except when in use. Mr. Frankel
amended his motion to include the following conditions: (1) The gates
must be electric; and, (2) The gates must remain closed at all times,
except when in use. Mr. Smith seconded the amended motion. There was
no further discussion. Roll Call: Mr. Frankel, AYE; Mr. Morgan, AYE;
Mr. Smith, AYE; Mr. Murphy, AYE; and, Chairman Ganger, NO.
VIII. Items by Staff. There were no items by Staff.
IX. Items by Board Members. There were no items by the Board
Members.
X. Public. There were no items by the Public.
XI. Adjournment. Chairman Ganger adjourned the meeting at 11:37 A.M.
Gail C. Abbale
Administrative Assistant
rVKM an MCI iliviu ijum Wr YVIINV rvR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
I 1+1 NAML-IIRST NAME-MIDULE NAME NAME OF BOAR'. COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY. OR COMMITTI
GANGER, ROBERT WARD Architectural Review & Plannina Rd,
INC;
DA
1443 N. Ocean
Gulf Stream,
April 28, 2011
THE BOARD. COUNCIL. COMMISSION. AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE ON
WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
X CITY ' COUNTY I ! OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
NAME OF POLI rICAL SUBDIVISION:
Palm Beach I Town of Gulf Stream
Nil' POSITION IS:
,' ELLCTIVL' R AFI'OINI'IVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board.
council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non -advisory bodies who are presented
with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although
the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form
before completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
ELECTED OFFICERS:
person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures
to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special
i gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained.
In either case, you should disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on
which you are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording
the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the
special gain of a principal (other than a government agcnLy) by whom he is retained.
k person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must
disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether
made by the officer Or at his direction.
[F YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH
THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN:
• You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for
recording rhe minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes.
j • A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
• The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest.
II III N(,
AI
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION OR VOTE AT THE MEETING
• You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict In the measure before participating.
• You should complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minu
of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
DISCLOSURE OF STATE OFFICER'S INTEREST
l Robert Ganger hereby disclose that on April 28. 2011 't14bLx--
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
/lq� t/ J IgVC n1G` IOSS
_ inu' rcrd to my special private gain• or
inured to the special gain of
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows:
Date Filed
by whom 1 am retail;
cr/-")UVuf taU — Gt `tc !s' 7Y(�(tr'
Signature
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUI.
DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOW'
IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTIOI
SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000.
rF ! 0R%1 RR - 10-A6