Loading...
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