HomeMy Public PortalAbout11/17/2011MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM,
FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2011 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL,
100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA.
I. Call to Order. Chairman Ganger called the meeting to order at
8:30 A.M.
C II. Roll Call.
Present and Robert W. Ganger
Participating Scott Morgan
Thomas Smith
Paul Lyons, Jr.
Amanda Jones
Thomas M. Stanley
Absent w/Notice Malcolm Murphy
Also Present and William H. Thrasher
Participating Rita L. Taylor
John Randolph
Douglas W. Mann, P.E
Coastal Planning &
Mr/Mrs Barry Goodman
3603 N. Ocean Blvd.
Chairman
Vice -Chairman
Board Member
Board Member
Alternate Member
Alternate Member
Board Member
Town Manager
Town Clerk
Town Attorney
of Agent/Goodman
Engeering
Applicant
Brian D. Pfeifler Neighbor of Goodman
Peter Bennett 2522 Ave. Au Soleil
Clerk Taylor noted that Thomas Stanley, the new Alternate Member of the
Board was seated in that position today. Chairman Ganger asked if Mr.
Stanley would have a vote. Clerk Taylor said that he would not have a
vote unless he was seated in place of an absent Board Member, but he can
participate in discussion.
III. Minutes of the Reaular Meetina and Public Hearina of 10-27-11.
With regard to the Goodman application, Chairman Ganger mentioned that
it was deferred at the last ARPB Meeting and he asked Staff if the
Minutes of the last meeting would be consolidated with the Minutes of
this meeting so that the Commission would have the benefit of knowing
the chain of events concerning this matter. Clerk Taylor said the
Commission will receive the Minutes of both meetings in their packets.
With regard to the Silverman project, Chairman Ganger asked Mr. Thrasher
if he had any contact with Ms. Brown after the last ARPB Meeting to
O inform her of the outcome. Mr. Thrasher said he did speak with her.
Clerk Taylor said Ms. Brown came to Town Hall and asked if the applicant
had changed the location of the dune crossover and Clerk Taylor said
they did not. Ms. Brown did not inquire about the applicant's final
landscape plan. For the benefit of the new Board Members, Chairman
Ganger explained that the neighbor to the north of the applicant raised
some questions concerning the final landscape plan and the possible
relocation of the dune crossover. They could not be present at that
meeting and, therefore, they expressed their concerns in a letter to the
Town and the Board felt that their concerns were addressed by the agent
for the applicant. He said the ARPB made the final decision on this
matter and the applicant's neighbor was satisfied with that decision.
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing
Architectural Review & Planning Board - November 17, 2011 Page 2
Mr. Smith moved and Vice -Chairman Morgan seconded to approve the Minutes
of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of October 27, 2011. There
was no discussion. All voted AYE.
IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items.
There were no changes.
V. Announcements.
A. Meeting Dates
1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
a. December 22, 2011 @ 8:30 A.M.
b. January 26, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M.
c. February 23, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M.
d. March 22, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M.
e. April 26, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M.
Clerk Taylor noted an error in the meeting schedule on the December
Regular Meeting date. She said it was mistakenly scheduled for
Wednesday, December 28, 2011 and has been corrected and is now scheduled
for Thursday, December 22, 2011. Clerk Taylor asked if there were any
conflicts and there were none.
VI. PUBLIC BEARING.
Clerk Taylor asked for any ex -parte communication concerning this
matter. Chairman Ganger said had ex -parte discussion prior to the last
meeting which was simply to walk by and see the property. Vice -Chairman
Morgan stated that Mr. Pfeifler called him to come by to see the
property and he did so this morning before the meeting. Mr. Smith
stated that Mr. Pfeifler also contacted him to discuss the information
he received by the State Authorities concerning this matter. Mr. Lyons
stated that he walked the property and had a discussion with Chairman
Ganger concerning the background of the Goodman property and the
property to the north. He said his decision will be based on the
minutes of the previous meeting and what he hears today.
Clerk Taylor administered the oath to the following: Douglas Mann,
Brian Pfeifler, Barry Goodman and Peter Bennett.
A. Applications for Development Approval
1. An application submitted by Douglas W. Mann, P.E. of
Coastal Planning & Engineering, as agent for Barry
Goodman, owner of the property located at 3603 N. Ocean
C, Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described as
a portion of Lot 8 of Replat of Lots 8 and 9, Gulf Stream
Ocean Tracts and a portion of Lots 7, 8 & 9, Block B Palm
Beach Shore Acres, to consider the following:
a. SPECIAL EXCEPTION to permit extension of existing
tile deck 12' seaward to the leeward foot of the
dune and will include placement of beach
compatible fill held in place by a retaining wall
constructed with railroad ties.
b. LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit
construction of a 648 square foot tile deck
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing
Architectural Review & Planning Board - November 17, 2011 Page 3
extension to the existing deck which will extend 12'
seaward to the leeward foot of the dune, placed on
beach compatible fill material with a retaining wall
of railroad ties.
Clerk Taylor read the application. Mr. Smith noted the letter from Mr.
Pfeilfer dated November 8, 2011 which was placed at their seat prior to
O the meeting. He asked if the Board could take a couple of minutes to
review Mr. Pfeifler's letter.
Douglas Mann of Coastal Planning and Engineering in Boca Raton, Florida
introduced himself and stated he has been practicing as a licensed
engineer since 1991. He said he would address some of the comments from
Mr. Pfeifler and talk about how he and Mr. Goodman worked to minimize
the impact this project may have on the neighbor.
Mr. Mann showed the Goodman property, pool and deck as it exists and the
proposed 12' x 54' deck expansion which was to project across the top of
the existing sloping concrete seawall located on his property. He
displayed the existing concrete seawall, which dates back to before the
1970s, and showed how it extends across both the Goodman and Pfeifler
properties. Mr. Mann pointed out the existing abundant vegetation
separating the two properties and Mr. Goodman's existing wooden stairs
with an existing railing that leads down toward the beach. He also
pointed to the line where they proposed a retaining wall to bring the
elevation up to meet the existing deck. Mr. Mann showed the elevation
drawing which was displayed at the previous meeting depicting the view
of the proposed retaining wall from the beach and the existing
vegetation. Because of the vegetation which will be left in place, Mr.
Mann said you would not see much of the retaining wall from the beach.
Mr. Mann referred to one of Mr. Pfeifler's questions concerning the
impact during a storm. He was retained by Mr. Goodman in 1998 to assist
in the permitting with the State of his existing house. Mr. Mann said
the beach condition was dramatically different at that time, but the
existing natural limestone rock still sits in front of Mr. Goodman's
property and over to the seawall in front of Mr. Pfeifler's property.
He said the beach may wash away in a severe storm, but lying under the
beach is the tremendously broad limestone rock in front of the seawall.
In his opinion, Mr. Mann said he does not see how a small frangible
retaining wall would have any affect on Mr. Pfeifler's property.
O Chairman Ganger asked Mr. Mann how deep the sand is in that area. Mr.
Mann said it is about 1' deep at the base of the stairs and from a
coastal engineering point of view he would look at how much volume of
sand exists. Mr. Lyons asked if the limestone rock extends to the
seawall. Mr. Mann said it naturally extends to the seawall and probably
under the seaward -most point of that property. He said the limestone
outcrop is natural and varies in elevation vertically up and down Palm
Beach County.
Mr. Mann said that Mr. Pfeifler raised a question about the overall view
and the potential impact on his property from the proposed seawall. He
displayed an aerial photo showing Mr. Pfeifler's property saying it is a
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing
Architectural Review & Planning Board - November 17, 2011 Page 4
unique property, it is angled off with the house set back to the north
and there are limited views from the property to the beach. He said if
you stand on the sandy beach and look back at Mr. Pfeifler's property
you see a window and door of his house, a small upper deck and a hedge
that fronts his pool area and the seaward deck. He said if Mr. Pfeifler
sat out on his seaward deck area he may see the northeast corner of Mr.
OGoodman's deck.
At the previous meeting Mr. Mann was asked whether or not a railing was
required around the deck and he was not positive, but did not believe a
railing was required. Mr. Mann contacted the City of Delray Beach
Building Department and spoke to the Structural Reviewer who said if the
drop off was more than 30" in vertical height a railing would be
required. Mr. Goodman did not want a railing around his deck and Mr.
Pfeifler did not want a railing impacting his view and, therefore, the
deck has been redesigned. Mr. Mann said he scaled back the original
design to 8' wide at the upper elevation and there will be a lower
retaining wall at 41. He said the total width is still 12', but it is
now a reduced -size structure. The 8' wide upper area will step down 30"
maximum, which complies with the local building code and does not
require a railing around the upper edge of the deck, and it will step
down to a lower elevation and much shorter retaining wall of about 18".
Mr. Mann said they will backfill with sand and plant some very short -
growing, 12" tall seashore plants so that the wall will not stand out or
obstruct views.
Chairman Ganger asked what the purpose would be for the lower area. Mr.
Mann said that Mr. Goodman wanted another set of stairs with a railing
at the center of his property which will take them down to the actual
sandy beach. Mr. Lyons asked why they would need a second set of stairs
and Mr. Mann explained that the other stairs lead only to the private
beach area. He said the stairs will be 6' wide with a railing, which is
required by code, and will be centered on his property. Mr. Smith asked
if the railing for the second set of stairs will be 4' above the deck
level and Mr. Mann said it will and it should be at the exact elevation
of the existing handrail. Mr. Morgan asked about the deck material and
Mr. Mann said it is a composite of a sand fill placement and match of
the existing stone, stone on sand.
In closing, Mr. Mann said he and Mr. Goodman have made an honest attempt
O to satisfy Mr. Pfeifler, maintain as much privacy as possible for both
properties and remain in compliance with Code. He said they would
appreciate the Board's support in this matter.
Mr. Pfeifler said he was concerned that the existing steps and railing
would change, but they will not and he is okay with that. He said
although the deck has been shortened by 4' he believes his patio area
will still be visible from the Goodmans deck, but less so and he has no
further objections.
Chairman Ganger pointed out that a question was raised about our special
exception code would lead to further discussion with respect to one
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing
Architectural Review & Planning Board - November 17, 2011 Page 5
clause which says "the proposed use of the structure will not cause
substantial injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood
where it is to be located." He said the question was raised properly,
both the Board and all parties involved have taken it seriously and it
was answered properly.
G For the record, Mr. Pfeifler said he would like to be assured that he
would get approval if he decides to do something similar to his
property. Mr. Randolph stated that this is a quasi judicial hearing and
it is appropriate for Mr. Pfeifler to ask the question, but it would be
inappropriate for the Board to give any indication as to whether or not
the Board would approve his request in the future. He said Mr. Pfeifler
would have to submit an application for consideration by the Board.
Vice -Chairman Morgan moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval
of a Special Exception to permit extension of existing tile deck 8'
seaward to the leeward foot of the dune and will include placement of
beach compatible fill held in place by a retaining wall constructed with
railroad ties based on the finding that the deck and retaining system
meets the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review
standards. Mr. Randolph pointed out that by "applicable review
standards" it means Code Section 66-164 where it says "all of the
findings you must make," which is 1 - 9, but it is covered in the
motion. There was no further discussion. All voted AYE.
Vice -Chairman Morgan moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval
of a Level III Architectural/Site Plan to permit construction of a 648
SF tile deck extension to the existing deck which will extend 8' seaward
to the leeward foot of the dune, placed on beach compatible fill
material with a retaining wall of railroad ties based on the finding the
deck and retaining system meets the minimum intent of the Design Manual
and applicable review standards. There was no discussion. All voted
AYE.
Chairman Ganger stated that a member of the public would like to make a
comment and requested to change the order of the remainder of the Agenda
so that public comments could be heard at this time. Peter Bennett of
2522 Avenue Au Soleil was present and requested to address the Board
concerning his reroof project. Chairman Ganger invited Mr. Bennett to
make his presentation. Mr. Bennett's comments are noted in Item IX.
OPublic.
IX. Public.
Peter Bennett of 2522 Avenue Au Soleil introduced himself and stated
that he plans to reroof his Bermuda Style home and would like to use a
new variety of tile which is flat white cement through and through, but
with a slurry coating. He said this tile is designed to prevent the
growth of mold and mildew and this product has already been used in the
neighborhood. Mr. Bennett said the Gulf Stream Bath & Tennis used the
slurry coated tile because it is a low -maintenance product and meets all
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing
Architectural Review & Planning Board - November 17, 2011 Page 6
Code requirements. He said there are no rules in the Code that restrict
the use of this product, it is appropriate for the style of his home, it
meets Dade County specs for roofing and it is rated as the highest
reflective cooling tile. Mr. Bennett said FP&L states that if you have
an R-19 or greater insulation in your attic and this roof tile is
installed, you will receive rebates from them. He said his adjoining
neighbors have seen a sample of this product, they approve of the use of
this tile and have signed a document indicating their approval of the
.product.
Mr. Randolph stated that this is only a public comment and the Board
will not be taking action on this matter at this time. He said he
assumes the Administrative Official has made a determination that this
product is not appropriate and in order to take action on this matter
the Board would require an application appealing the decision of the
Administrative Official, or the property owner would have an opportunity
to file an application for a variance. Mr. Randolph said the Board
would have an opportunity to a subsequent meeting upon application to
determine whether or not Mr. Thrasher's interpretation is correct.
Chairman Ganger asked how a variance would be required if this product
is being installed in Town and is already on the Gulf Stream Bath &
Tennis Club. Mr. Randolph said the question would relate better to the
appeal of the Administrative Official because he is making the decision
that a variance is necessary.
Vice -Chairman Morgan said Mr. Bennett did a thorough job presenting his
argument, but it should be done upon application to this Board. Mr.
Bennett said he was not aware of that and asked about the timeframe of
submitting an application and having it heard by the Board. Clerk
Taylor said this was discussed with Mr. Bennett and provided him with a
form for an appeal of the administrative decision. She said an appeal
would go before the Commission rather than the ARPB and there is a
timeframe in advance of the meeting when all material must be submitted.
Chairman Ganger said the Commission has deferred the decision of an
appeal to the ARPB in the past and then it could be a couple of months
before a decision is made. He asked Mr. Bennett if he had a timeframe
in which he needs to get this accomplished. Mr. Bennett referred to the
Land Development Regulations saying the term "through and through" is a
statement made when trying to get roof tile approved and yet there are
O no statements about "through and through" in the Code and there are no
statements addressing tile coatings. He said there is one statement and
that is "flat white tile" which is what this product is, but with a
coating to protect pitting, mold and mildew. Mr. Bennett said all flat
white tile without a coating is black with mildew and power washing over
500 PSI causes pitting. Mr. Bennett stated that Staff has been told to
reject roof tile with a slurry or paint coating. Chairman Ganger urged
Mr. Bennett to follow the process and urged Staff to be expedient. He
asked Mr. Randolph if the Board should consider this discussion as ex -
parte communication and Mr. Randolph said they should in the event this
matter comes back to the ARPB for a hearing.
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing
Architectural Review & Planning Board - November 17, 2011 Page 7
VII. Items by Staff. There were no items by Staff.
VIII. Items by Board Members.
Amanda Jones brought the White Fly situation forward for discussion
saying that although her garden is treated, she is experiencing a
problem because abutting neighbors are not treating their gardens and
her vegetation is re -infected. Chairman Ganger said that the Town of
Palm Beach is proposing an ordinance addressing this matter. Mr.
Randolph said he does not know of any other municipality in the State of
Florida that has dealt with this issue through mandate, but the Town of
Palm Beach held a public hearing and wants to pass an emergency
ordinance on December 13th. He said he does yet not know what it will
entail, but there are many complicated issues related to White Fly it is
appropriate to deal with it through education. Mr. Randolph said some
municipalities may attempt to regulate by ordinance, but many believe
treatment should not be mandated because it urges property owners to
pour chemicals on their vegetation. Chairman Ganger said the Palm Beach
Civic Association website provides information concerning this issue.
Mrs. Jones asked if an ordinance would make it essential to treat for
White Fly and Mr. Randolph said an ordinance would not specify a type of
treatment, but it would enforce treatment. Chairman Ganger said that
Home Depot sells a soap product that has been very effective.
Chairman Ganger said as a result of the proposed subdivision of the
Spence Property into six lots, he has been asked if it is possible to
modify Town Code so that large properties can either not be subdivided
into smaller lots or at least be constrained as to the number of lots.
Mr. Thrasher said there are some restricting factors as it relates to
size of lot in a particular district. Mr. Randolph explained saying the
Town would have to amend their Zoning Ordinance and a study of a
particular area would be required to do that. He said even though
zoning regulations in a particular district may require a certain size
lot, if the study revealed that the lots in that area were larger than
lots throughout the zoning area you may be able to create an overlay
district. If that overlay district had different characteristics than
the entire zoning district you could apply different regulations and
within that overlay district require larger lots. If the zoning
ordinance required larger lots, the subdivision ordinance would follow
accordingly. Mr. Randolph said there may not be an area in Town where
land planners could make the determination that it is composed of larger
Olots than in the overall district.
Chairman Ganger said he wanted to bring this to the attention of the
ARPB in the event this comes up in the future. Vice -Chairman Morgan
said the property just north of the Spence property is ripe for
subdivision and he has noticed many developers at ARPB meetings to
listen to subdivision discussions. Mr. Thrasher said the minimum size
lot in that district is currently 30,000 SF. Mr. Smith said there are
about 5 or 6 properties that could be affected and he suggested that the
group of people who are concerned about potential subdivisions should
attend a Town Meeting to address their concerns. Mr. Thrasher said that
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing
Architectural Review & Planning Board - November 17, 2011 Page 8
other findings have been provided by Mr. Randolph and presently the
Board must consider subdivision.
With regard to the slurry coated tile, Mr. Lyons commented that he has a
new white flat tile roof which was installed by Rooftec and they
recommended someone to maintain and clean his roof. He said he does not
^ power spray to clean the roof, but it always looks new. Mr. Smith
�1 wanted to clarify that if a slurry coated tile is proposed it will be
denied. Mr. Thrasher said there is a new technology that the Town was
not aware of which is the white flat cement tile through and through,
but with a slurry coating, and one reroof with this product was approved
in error. The larger size of the tile, which is unique, indicates it is
slurry coated and that is how Staff has been able to spot it. He said
Staff has been writing like kind, white through and through on all
roofing permit applications and now Staff has added "unpainted and
untextured" and "no slurry coating" to do code enforcement. Mr.
Thrasher said this has been successful up to the last 8 months or so.
Mr. Smith asked about the Gulf Stream Bath & Tennis Club. Mr. Thrasher
said this restriction is specific to single family and the Bath & Tennis
is in a different district. Clerk Taylor said the Code does say
untextured.
Vice -Chairman Morgan asked about the Coon residence on County Road and
inquired about the status. Mr. Thrasher said it does not have a
Certificate of Occupancy (C/O) and conditions were placed upon the
applicant to receive a C/O, most recently being that the operative gates
must remain closed. He said there are other criteria that Staff has not
yet looked at as it relates to engineering reports and certifications
and architectural completion. Mr. Thrasher said Staff has contacted the
owner several times, but a C/O will not be issued until the gates are
closed and operable and other criteria are met.
Vice -Chairman Morgan said the Commission approved the building permit
application, but did not approve the current grade of the driveway and
asked if they are in violation for using a steeper grade than was
approved. Mr. Thrasher said the Town Code does not address the grade of
a driveway and nor does the Palm Beach County permit and inspection
process as it relates to single family. The Florida Building Code has
different criteria as it relates to multi -family where they do regulate
driveway slope. He said the current slope is mathematically different
O than that which was approved and it can be determined because the
elevations at the bottom of the driveways have changed by almost 31.
For the benefit of the new Board Members, Chairman Ganger explained that
the ARPB argued that an occupiable cellar should not be allowed because
it would make it a 3 -story residence, but the Commission overruled the
ARPB. Mr. Thrasher said their argument for not following the
recommendation of the ARPB was that the importance of the Code was to
control mass as viewed from the street. In this case, they ruled that
you do not see a 3 -story building or a higher elevation from the street
and, therefore, does not violate that section of the Code. Mr. Thrasher
said there was verbage that would prohibit habitable space, but it was
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing
Architectural Review & Planning Board - November 17, 2011 Page 9
primarily for driveways, storage and equipment and it was changed. He
added that the Town is extremely fortunate to have this house as
finished as much as it is. Chairman Ganger said they just had an open
house, which he heard was not well attended, but he also heard that the
seller believes they will have a C/O very soon. Mr. Smith said if
obtaining a C/O is mainly a financial issue, it is possible that a buyer
would provide the funding to complete the project as approved and get a
C/0.
X. Adjournment. Chairman Ganger adjourned the meeting at 9:50 A.M.
Il
Gail C. Abbale
Administrative Assis ant