Loading...
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