Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout01/26/2012MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012 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 W. Ganger Scott Morgan Thomas Smith Malcolm Murphy Paul Lyons, Jr. Thomas M. Stanley Amanda Jones William H. Thrasher Rita L. Taylor John Randolph Mark Marsh, Architect Bridges, Marsh & Assoc Grant Thornbrough Landscape Arch., A. Chairman Vice -Chairman Board Member Board Member Board Member Alternate Member Alternate Member Town Manager Town Clerk Town Attorney Agent for Roach and Davis Agent for Roach Grant Thornbrough & Assoc. Pat Scullen Gulf Stream School III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing 12-22-11. Chairman Ganger said he hoped all Board Members had an opportunity to read both the 12/22/11 ARPB Minutes and the Minutes of the January 13, 2012 Commission Meeting. He said the Comp Plan revisions were approved by the LPA in context and some of the changes reflect the views of the ARPB. Chairman Ganger added that there were notations from Clerk Taylor concerning the process of revising the Comp Plan and Zoning Codes. Mr. Smith moved and Vice -Chairman Morgan seconded to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 12/22/11. 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. February 23, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. b. March 22, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. c. April 26, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. d. May 24, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. e. June 28, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. f. July 26, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. Mr. Smith asked if there would be a February meeting there will be a February meeting for the purpose of items concerning zoning code changes. There were no meeting schedule. Clerk Taylor said discussing other conflicts in the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - January 26, 2012 Architectural Review and Planning Board Page 2 VI. PUBLIC HEARING. A. Applications for Development Approval 1. An application submitted by Mark Marsh, Bridges Marsh & Associates, as Agent for Mr. & Mrs. Curtiss Roach, the owners of property -located at 3560 Gulf Stream Road, Gulf Stream, Florida, 33483, which is legally described as Lot 3, Block 2, Polo Fields. C a. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS to permit two, one-story additions to the existing one-story Gulf Stream Bermuda style single family dwelling, each of which would encroach 2.3 feet into the north side setback, and also to permit a single story addition to the same dwelling that would encroach 2.8 feet into the south side setback. b. LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the construction of three one-story additions, 809 square feet, to the existing one-story Gulf Stream Bermuda style single family dwelling with two of the additions encroaching 2.3 feet into the north side setback and one addition encroaching 2.8 feet into the south side setback, and to permit the reconfiguration of the driveway. Chairman Ganger asked if there was any ex -parte communication concerning this matter. There were no declarations. Clerk Taylor administered the Oath to Mark Marsh, Grant Thornbrough and Patricia Scullen. Mark Marsh introduced himself and stated that Grant Thornbrough, Landscape Architect, was present to review the proposed landscape plan. Mr. Marsh described the existing home as a Gulfstream Bermuda Style of the 1960s, which is not conducive to current lifestyles, and he said the owners are asking for modest renovations, minor expansions and some interior renovation and remodeling. He displayed photos of the existing home as viewed from Gulf Stream Road showing a white tile roof, a nice roof line and simple architectural detail. Mr. Marsh said the home sits on a standard lot, it consists of 3200 SF and the expansions will take it to 3900 SF. Mr. Marsh said they propose an extension of the garage 7' to the east, an addition of a bedroom/office area/ cabana and extend the dining area on the northwest side, and an addition of an office/sitting area off of the master suite. He said the reason for the Special Exception is that these additions are maintaining the existing n non -conforming setbacks, which were 12 ;1 feet many years ago when the house was built and are now 15' under current code. Mr. Marsh said they are in violation by 2.8 feet; however, he said in the past Staff and the ARPB have allowed such expansions that have no impact adjacent properties. Mr. Marsh said the plan modifications include moving the garage to the east to accommodate an interior laundry room, reworking the living room, family room, kitchen and foyer areas, and adding office/sitting areas and a cabana area. He said the courtyard has a very dark and alley -like feel and to capture the use of the courtyard they will reduce the wall Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - January 26, 2012 Architectural Review and Planning Board Page 3 height and add a scallop and rail detail, create a trellis to serve as a winter porch and introduce an outdoor fireplace. With regard to the fenestration, Mr. Marsh explained that the detail along the east face of the home includes a Bay Window which will be replaced by casements with shutters to create a balance both inside and out. He said the existing sliding glass doors at the rear which face the pool area will be replaced with impact and the arched entryway will be simplified with plaster detail and simple embellishment. Mr. Marsh said the exterior wall color will be beige, the shutters will be a muted green, the projected garage will be an extended hip roof with white roof tile to match the existing. Vice -Chairman Morgan asked if there were any objections or comments by neighbors. Mr. Marsh explained that the only comments were from Gulf Stream School concerning the driveway, noise from the air conditioning and a drainage matter. He said the idea is to maintain the buffer and, therefore, they will relocate the driveway with hedging across the front and a small pedestrian entry into the motor court. They plan to replace the air conditioning units, but keeping them in the same location and they will eliminate the roof drainage with a new drainage plan. Pat Scullen of Gulf Stream School said there are no further objections as long as they maintain the hedge, which they have agreed to do. Mr. Marsh said there is a meandering well-established hedge along the north side of the property. He said the owners are environmentalists and appreciate the lush landscaping and they will maintain that hedge. He introduced Grant Thornbrough, the landscape architect, to explain the landscape plan. Mr. Thornbrough said the existing driveway is semi -circular and faces the Gulf Stream School parking lot. He said the proposed driveway will have one entrance and they will create a motor court area. The loose Chattahoochee material will be replaced with pavers, there will be a small seating area and planted areas in the motor court which will be enclosed by a short privacy hedge with piers and there will be a small pedestrian walkway into the motor court. He said there are low catch basins in the road and to avoid interference with the drainage the pedestrian walkway will be three steps up with a small privacy gate. Mr. Thornbrough described the front courtyard which will feature a trellis with vines, a small bench and a platform for decorative potted O plants. It will also feature a propane gas log fireplace and the exterior finish on the chimney will match the exterior wall color and finish. He said the exterior finish is currently stucco, which may change slightly. Mr. Thornbrough said there will be a continuous walkway from the front yard to the backyard, new irrigation and not much additional landscaping along the sides of the home; however, he said they will work with the adjoining neighbors in an effort to maintain the meandering hedge and Areca Palms along the north property line for privacy. He said they will use the existing pool and the deck, which will require some pilings underneath, and will be resurfaced using a stamp concrete with sea glass. Mr. Thornbrough said there will be a small patio with a garden off of the office addition which will be Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - January 26, 2012 Architectural Review and Planning Board Page 4 separate from the pool area, a small garden area around the pool and a Butterfly Garden with flowering plants in the back. Chairman Ganger asked about the road elevation and the house elevation. Mr. Marsh said the road elevation is 4 feet and the house elevation is 8.27 feet. Mr. Lyons asked about the School's concern regarding the drainage. Pat Scullen stated that the former owner of the home put downspouts through the hedge and the school property would get quite wet; however, she said this issue has been addressed. Vice -Chairman Morgan said his only concern was the non -conforming setbacks which will require the involvement of the north and south neighbors to work with the owner on landscaping. He complimented the consultants for maintaining the Old Florida look of the home. With regard to the roof plan, Mr. Smith asked about the Cricket. Mr. Marsh explained that it is elevated in the valley where two sloped roofs come together creating another interior sloped element which is called a cricket, and it diverts the water to the exterior. Chairman Ganger asked for comments from the Staff. Mr. Thrasher asked the consultants to verify the height of the piers in the front and the distance of the piers from the pavement. Mr. Marsh said the piers are 3 1,i feet back from the property line and 6' to 8' back from the pavement. Mr. Thrasher said he would like to add the condition that the height of piers and distance from the edge of pavement would conform to Code Section 70-187, subsection 6, which prohibits the top of piers to be greater than 4' tall and the edge of the pier would be at least 7 1,1 feet from the edge of pavement. Vice -Chairman Morgan moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of a Special Exception based on a finding that the proposed two, one- story additions to the existing one-story Gulf Stream Bermuda style single family dwelling, each of which would encroach 2.3 feet into the north side setback, and the single story addition to the dwelling that would encroach 2.8 feet into the south side setback meet the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. Vice -Chairman Morgan moved and Mr. Murphy seconded to recommend approval of the Level III Architectural/Site Plan based on a finding that the O proposed construction of three one-story additions, 809 SF, to the existing one-story Gulf Stream Bermuda style single family dwelling with two of the additions encroaching 2.3 feet into the north side setback and one addition encroaching 2.8 feet into the south side setback meet the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards, with the condition that the height of piers and their location comply with Code Section 70-187, subsection 4. No Discussion. All voted AYE. VII. Items Related to Previous Approvals. A. Revision of an approved renovation at 554 Palm Way submitted by Mark Marsh as Agent for Mr. & Mrs. James Davis to permit the elimination of a 2 -story garage with storage/guest room Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - January 26, 2012 Architectural Review and Planning Board Page 5 and the addition of a second story above the existing garage for storage/guest room. Mr. Marsh summarized the Davis application to renovate their existing home at 554 Palm Way which was approved last summer. He said construction began about two months ago and the owners have concerns about the proposed 2 -story detached building which would have been a one -car garage with a guest room and exercise area on the second floor. The structure cannot be attached to the house because of a 10 -foot drainage easement which dissects the property; however, he said the owners feel that a detached structure would be too remote from the main house and they would like to maintain that open space as a play area for the children. Mr. Marsh said they would like to eliminate the detached structure and are proposing to expand the existing two -car garage and add a second floor, which would be a full suite consisting of a guest room and bath and an exercise room. He said the entry element of the existing garage currently faces north and they are proposing to expand the garage about 12' to the north with flip garage doors facing east and a half -garage door facing north for bicycles and other recreational equipment. The entry into the second floor of the garage will be from an interior staircase going up to a loft play area and then into the exercise room and guest suite. Mr. Marsh displayed drawings of the new plan showing all views. He said the owners are going with a ventless fireplace and, therefore, propose removing the chimneys. Mr. Marsh displayed the new rendering, saying they have simplified what they refer to as the service area of the home by removing the heavy dramatic piers and creating wing walls instead. He said he would like the Board to support the removal of the piers. Vice -Chairman Morgan pointed out that there appears to be bars over the sidelight windows on the north elevation. Mr. Marsh said it is grillwork. In addition, Mr. Marsh stated that the grey roof tile which was originally presented to the Board may be revised to add mottling to the grey. Chairman Ganger said the Board is in the process of looking at the section of the Code that addresses roof tile and, therefore, the Board will definitely need to review any revisions in that regard. Mr. Marsh said he will come back to the Board with the actual tile, saying that it will be closer to the roof tile used in Ocean Ridge. Mr. Thrasher said, for the record, this went to Urban Design for calculations in two areas. The first was the FAR, and their response indicated that a variance would be required to exceed the FAR. In discussing the matter, Mark Marsh and Marty Minor worked it out and the plan was modified to conform to the FAR. He said the second area was the calculations of percentage of second story to first story, which seemed to be a bit massive with a 26% increase. Mr. Thrasher said Staff was trying to accommodate Mr. Marsh, but if he had more time for review he would have commented that the house as presented appears to be massive and not in context with the neighborhood. In closing, Mr. Thrasher stated that the FAR now conforms and the second story coverage has always conformed. Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - January 26, 2012 Architectural Review and Planning Board Page 6 Mr. Marsh explained that Marty Minor said the square footage and FAR did not correlate with their calculations. He said the ground floor has a brick veneer on concrete block and the owner could not decide whether to keep the brick and stucco over the brick or remove the brick and stucco over standard concrete block. Mr. Marsh said he took calculations to the outside face of the brick, which created the FAR situation. He said O the owner has decided to keep the brick and stucco over it. He said with regard to the other issue, the house has water on two sides, it is set back far from the edge of the water, they are 60 feet from the road at any point and they are 57% uncovered. Vice -Chairman Morgan said he had the same impression as Mr. Thrasher when reviewing the plans because there seemed to be massing on the north side when changing this property. He said the previous drawing had symmetry and now, with the ancillary wing and the elevated garage on the northwest side, the elevations caught his attention. Mr. Marsh said his presentations are always in 3D because it shows mass and imbalance. Vice -Chairman Morgan moved and Mr. Smith seconded to approve the revised renovations of 554 Palm Way to permit the elimination of a 2 -story garage with storage/guest room and to permit the addition of a second - story above the existing garage for a storage/guest room, the elimination of the chimneys, the elimination of piers as submitted, with additional drawings to come, and with submission of the adjustment of the color and texture of roof tile. There was no further discussion. All voted AYE. The ARPB Meeting was recessed at 9:30 A.M. to review a letter from Vice - Chairman Morgan addressed to the ARPB regarding changes to Article II of the Gulf Stream Design Manual/Single Family Districts, Art.II, Section 70; and, to review the Memorandum from Marty Minor of Urban Design Kilday Studios addressed to William Thrasher regarding subdivision analysis. The Meeting reconvened at 9:40 A.M. VIII. Items by Staff. A. Proposed Zoning Code Changes 1. Section 70-238, Roofs 2. Section 70-100, Roof & Eave Heights 3. Section 70-51, Minor Accessory Structures 4. Section 66-367, Swimming Pools O 5. Section 66-369, Docks 6. Section 66-1, Definitions 7. Section 70-71, Floor Area Ratio 8. Section 70-68, Lot Size & Dimensional Requirements 9. Section 70-4, How To Use This Manual Chairman Ganger suggested beginning with items having zoning in progress. Mr. Randolph explained that zoning in progress is in place on any item being considered for change by the Board, such as subdivisions, lot dimensions and any item under study, whether it was discussed at a previous meeting or during this meeting and it is reflected in the Meeting Minutes. Chairman Ganger asked for Mr. Randolph's insight, specifically concerning subdivisions because case law is cited, and Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - January 26, 2012 Architectural Review and Planning Board Page 7 Vice -Chairman Morgan asked Mr. Randolph to go over the Memorandum from Urban Design while it is still fresh. Chairman Ganger said the Commission is expecting the recommendations from the ARPB and he said when the State and Treasure Coast Regional Planning Counsel comments concerning the amended changes to the Comp Plan are received, there should be one change to the Comp Plan and one change to the Code at the Osame time. Mr. Randolph said, per the request of the Board, Mr. Minor included a list of lots in his Memorandum which may be subject to subdivision in the future. He said Mr. Minor also took note that the County has a provision regarding Coastal High Hazard Areas which indicates that no increase in density or subdivision should be included in Coastal High Hazard Areas. Mr. Randolph said he sent Mr. Minor a copy of Tequesta's Ordinance in that regard, which may no longer exist, showing that other communities had something in place which was similar to Palm Beach County in that respect. He said Mr. Minor looked at subdivision codes from other municipalities and saw that some are more complete than Gulf Stream Code. Mr. Randolph said the Board is not in a position to finalize anything today; however, he said suggestions, recommendations and proposed criteria included in Mr. Minor's Memorandum are worthy of continued study and consideration. Mr. Randolph said the Board may not implement all of the criteria, but he said one of the most specific proposed criteria provides that a subdivision shall be in character with other lots within 500 feet in any direction of the subdivision. He recommended that the Board ask Mr. Minor to continue with the study and come back with his presentation. Mr. Randolph said Mr. Minor pointed out the Burt Harris Act which was adopted about 15 years ago. He said any regulation in effect prior to the Burt Harris Act is not subject to the Act, but any regulation adopted subsequent to the Act would be subject to it. Mr. Randolph said the Burt Harris Act provides that if persons having reasonable investment -back expectations in a property at the time of purchase and regulations are imposed subsequent to the Act which could diminish their reasonable investment -back expectations and their property is diminished in value, the entity imposing those regulations may be subject to the provisions of the Burt Harris Act and may be responsible to pay the difference incurred as a result of the regulation. He said communities should not fear the Burt Harris Act, but should consider it in their Oplanning process. Mr. Randolph said when the Commission is determining whether to put new regulations in place they should give consideration to how the Act will impact those regulations. Mr. Randolph was asked, if a change had been made by the Board with respect to subdivisions prior to the Spence matter that would have potentially restricted the purchaser to the use of that property, would the next step have been some form of appraisal. Mr. Randolph confirmed that and said it would only relate to the regulations that were imposed subsequent to Burt Harris. He said the reasonable investment -back expectations would have applied to the prior owner of the property and, if they wanted to sell to a developer and regulations were imposed prior Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - January 26, 2012 Architectural Review and Planning Board Page B to their sale they would have had a cause of action and the next step would be to get an appraisal. The appraiser could say that, as a result of the regulations put in place, the property has diminished in value at "X" amount, which would present an opportunity for mediation between the Town and the property owner to come to an agreement. If an agreement is not reached, the property owner could go to court. OMr. Randolph was asked if existing Code predates Burt Harris and he confirmed that saying most of the Code was in place prior to Burt Harris and there have been substantive changes, but none that would invoke the Burt Harris Act. He said if regulations in Section 70-4 allowed the Town to give consideration to the size of surrounding lots when determining whether or not a subdivision could be approved, he believes those regulations were in effect prior to Burt Harris. Mr. Randolph said the concern should be with any future amendments made to the Code that could invoke Burt Harris. Mr. Randolph was asked, what if in five years from now someone wants to subdivide and states they were not aware of the impact on the value of their property five years ago, but they are now. Mr. Randolph said that question went unresolved in the courts for a long time because they questioned whether or not the year runs from the time of the imposition of the code or from the imposition of the regulation on their property. He said he would look into that for clarification. Mr. Randolph was asked if there was anything in the proposed criteria that does not already exist in the Code which could invoke Burt Harris, and if there is a stipulation in the Code with regard to the 500 -foot rule. In response, Mr. Randolph said the 500 -foot rule does not currently exist in the Code, unless we can determine that Section 70-4 is similar, and he said that would have been the one criteria proposal he would have pointed out in Mr. Minor's list that could invoke Burt Harris. Mr. Randolph said the other criteria are very general, almost implying "shall protect the character of the Town." He said, if put into place it would not change the current state of the law as it relates to subdivisions and it would not invoke Burt Harris, but neither does it provide a tool to allow the Town to turn down a subdivision. Mr. Randolph summarized the other criteria saying Bullets #3 and #4 are similar and Bullets #5 through #9 are implied in existing language of the Code. OChairman Ganger asked if the 500 -foot rule is appropriate and has it been tested. Mr. Randolph said he has discussed this with Marty Minor and he needs to do some research in other codes with regard to the 500 - foot rule. Vice -Chairman Morgan said the point of his letter was to show that the 500 -foot rule is already in the Code and, with regard to the Spence Property, the Board may have considered this and felt that the property was not inconsistent with the character of the Town. Mr. Randolph said there are no decisions being made today and he encouraged the Board to not act too quickly in putting new language in place. He said as these matters are being studied, the Town Manager cannot grant building permits until the study is complete. Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - January 26, 2012 Architectural Review and Planning Board Page 9 Vice -Chairman Morgan asked if there are State Laws that may be in conflict with what the Board is trying to accomplish. Mr. Randolph said there is specific case law with regard to subdivisions, one in particular which provides that as long as a subdivision application is in conformity with all of the lot, yard and bulk regulations within a zoning district, the municipality has no discretion as to whether or not Othey can turn it down. He said he would like to study Chapter 163 which addresses Coastal High Hazard Areas and examine that with regard to the Burt Harris Act. He will look for language putting people purchasing property on notice that if they are in a Coastal High Hazard Area the municipality may have a right to restrict further density and subdivision within that district. Mr. Randolph said that, although the Town may not have that language in effect, if Chapter 163 gives notice to people purchasing property that such restrictions may go into effect in a Coastal High Hazard Area it may be a defense for Burt Harris if the Town is ever in a position to defend itself. Chairman Ganger said the State has removed that policy and the County has chosen to maintain it and, therefore, DCA will not be looking at this, but it may come back. He said we are a municipality within a county that has this policy and we should lean heavily on it. Mr. Randolph said if the Board feels any of Mr. Minor's recommendations are worthy of study, the Board should ask him to continue and come back with his findings. He said there may be an opportunity for the Board to include provisions beyond lot size when giving consideration to subdivision. Mr. Randolph said there is more than lot size included in the current Code, such as road width, easements and lot frontages and, after reviewing Mr. Minor's findings and further case law, the Board may find one or two items that would be helpful or find nothing further to impose. Mr. Randolph said it may be necessary to have a study of what the actual lot sizes are of all homes within a particular district as opposed to what the Zoning Code calls for and we may find that most of the lots are larger than the minimum lot size in the Code. If that is so, it would be justification to increase minimum lot size. If it shows that they are all as set forth in the Code, it would be difficult to select certain areas in a zoning district to increase lot size. When asked if it would invoke Burt Harris if lot size is increased, Mr. Randolph confirmed that, but he said it would depend on how much the lot size was increased. Chairman Ganger used the empty lot recently annexed into Gulf Stream as an example and Mr. Randolph said that different laws Omay come into play. He said State Law says that the zoning applicable in the County will apply until rezoned by the Town. Chairman Ganger said there are 24 lots that have the potential for subdivision and asked if it is worth the effort to seek opportunities to maintain the scale of the community. He said citizens of the community do not want to see massive subdivisions, which is why we are addressing the matter. Mr. Randolph said Mr. Minor has provided the information requested by the Board and, if the Board feels that the report is dramatic enough to impose further regulations he suggests that Mr. Minor continue a study of the items he proposed from the standpoint of specific regulations and the Coastal High Hazard Areas. Clerk Taylor Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - January 26, 2012 Architectural Review and Planning Board Page 10 said she has a question concerning the lots Mr. Minor chose and believes it is strictly by lot size. She said the beachfront requires that frontage be 150 feet and she is not sure this was taken into consideration when counting the lots that could be divided. Clerk Taylor said some of the lots include canals and they should not be counted. OChairman Ganger asked Mr. Minor to be more specific with lots and land mass and to tighten the language. Mr. Randolph said it seems as though the Board would like the study to continue with regard to lot size and dimensions and with regard to subdivisions, to include the various items discussed today, such as Coastal High Hazard Area and some of the proposed criteria. He recommended that the Board make a motion to authorize the Consultant to move forward with a study of all of the items considered today, specifically those items which were included in the Consultant's January 25, 2012 Memorandum, the Coastal High Hazard Area, lot size and dimensions and subdivision viability. Vice -Chairman Morgan moved and Mr. Smith seconded to authorize Urban Design Kilday Studios to continue their study and subdivision analysis, following up on issues raised in their January 25, 2012 Report and issues discussed at this meeting, specifically looking at lot size and subdivision viability, Coastal High Hazard Area and how it may impact any decision by the Architectural Review and Planning Board and the Town Commission, and other legal ramifications. There was no further discussion. All voted AYE. IX. Items by Board Members. Mr. Lyons asked if Gulf Stream would be addressing the transient housing issue. Chairman Ganger said it is not the Town's jurisdiction; however, he said the City of Delray Beach Commission will consider changes in their regulations relating to transient housing as early as February 7, 2012 or as late as February 21, 2012. X. Public. There were no items by the Public. XI. Adjournment. Mr. Smith moved and Vice -Chairman Morgan seconded to adjourn the Meeting. The Meeting was adjourned at 10:35 A.M. ail C. Abbale Administrative Assistant