Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout03/22/2012MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 2012 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. I. Call to Order 8:35 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 Paul Lyons, Jr. Malcolm Murphy Amanda Jones Thomas M. Stanley Thomas Smith John Randolph William H. Thrasher Rita L. Taylor Marty Minor of Urban Design Kilday Studios III. Minutes: Regular Meeting and Public Hearin Vice -Chairman Morgan moved and Mr. Murphy seconde Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing and March 2, 2012. There was no discussion. All Chairman Vice -Chairman Board Member Board Member Alt. Member sitting as Board Member Alternate Member Board Member Town Attorney Town Manager Town Clerk Town Consultant 2-23-12 & 3-2-12. to approve the of February 23, 2012 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. April 26, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. b. May 24, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. c. June 28, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. d. July 26, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. Mr. Lyons reminded Clerk Taylor that he would not be available for the July 26, 2012 meeting. There were no additional conflicts. Chairman Ganger asked Clerk Taylor if there were any applications for public C; hearing for the April meeting. Clerk Taylor said there were no applications at this time. She said there have been pre -application meetings, however, she said those applicants have not yet applied for a hearing by the Board. VI. Items by Staff. A. Proposed Zoning Code Changes Marty Minor of Urban Design Kilday Studios introduced himself for the record. He prepared a Memorandum and a draft ordinance concerning "Zoning Code Amendments Regarding Subdivision Review, Criteria and Basement Definition" for review by Staff and the Architectural Review and Planning Board (ARPB). Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - March 22, 2012 Page 2 1. Subdivision Review Mr. Minor summarized the recommended changes to the Criteria for Subdivision Review saying that in Criteria A, the proposed language that read . . . "within 500 feet of the subject parcel" has been eliminated. He said proposed Criteria A now reads, "Lots to be created by the proposed subdivision should be consistent with the immediate and Oadjacent surrounding neighborhood." Mr. Minor read amended proposed Criteria B which language now reads, "Proposed subdivisions shall protect the character of the Town by incorporating features that are compatible with, and complementary to the preferred elements and overall character of the nPinhhnrhnnH district in which they are located including but not limited to parcel size, parcel shape, access, topography, berms and buffers, and encourage the orderly and aesthetic development of the Town." Mr. Minor said the 500 -foot language was eliminated and language was added to provide clarification on what the Town is looking for when reviewing future subdivision applications. He said this type of criteria does not exist in the current Code and he is proposing the addition of the criteria to provide a basis for decisions to be made by the Town. Mr. Minor commented on proposed Criteria G, which addresses hammerheads, and reads, "Streets and vehicular use easements shall provide safe and efficient access for municipal services such as fire, police and solid waste removal. As such, dead-end streets and easements ending in a "T" or "Y" turnaround shall not be permitted." Chairman Ganger asked Mr. Minor if other municipalities have similar language in their code. Mr. Minor confirmed that, and he said it is tied to municipal services for the safe and efficient provision of those services. He said there is a chain of logic between the Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and he said that goal is restated in the Comprehensive Plan. With regard to proposed Criteria D, Mr. Lyons asked Mr. Minor to explain the words . . . "and minimize conflicts among uses of land and buildings." Mr. Minor said if you are creating a subdivision and dividing land with existing structures on site, creating a non- conforming structure in that subdivision would be a conflict and could impact your neighbor with regard to where structures can be within that subdivision. Mr. Murphy said he noted that subdivision is a separate n issue from building structures in subdivisions and he asked Mr. Minor if there is language that provides guidance when looking at the design of buildings in subdivisions. Mr. Minor said the current Code defines that you have to come back for the building of structures in a subdivision. All Members of the Board stated that they were comfortable with the proposed Criteria and amended language in the proposed Criteria as it relates to subdivisions. a. Section 66-1, Definitions Mr. Minor said there was a very interesting discussion at the previous meeting concerning basements which provided great input. He summarized the amended portion of the definition of basements which reads, "The square footage area of a basement completely under the first floor Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - March 22, 2012 Page 3 footprint and having no outside entrance shall be included as 75% of the building's Floor Area Ratio calculations. The area of a basement with an outside entrance shall be included as 100% of the building's Floor Area Ratio calculations." Mr. Minor noted that two graphics have been added which better reflect what the Code is asking for when there is a change in grade. OWith regard to Section 70-70, Floor Area Calculation, Mr. Minor noted that subsection (6) is amended to read, "Areas in basements shall be included as 75% when it is located completely under the first floor footprint and has no outside entrance. Areas in basements with an outside entrance shall be included at 100%." He said this is a limited situation within the Town of Gulf Stream, but he said there are cases of this and by including this language in the FAR calculations you reduce the size of the above -ground structure. Chairman Ganger asked Mr. Minor if he proposes use of the graphics in the Code. Mr. Minor confirmed that and he said the Code does an excellent job of incorporating graphics to explain complicated concepts. With regard to Section 70-27, District Descriptions, subsection (c), Mr. Minor said Vice -Chairman Morgan suggested including the phrase . . . "including parcel size, parcel shape, architecture and landscaping." He said it further defines the overall character of the district and that proposed projects must incorporate design features that are compatible with that type of character. Mr. Minor said the word "character" will always be subjective when rendering a decision. All Members of the Board stated that they were comfortable with the proposed language for Section 70-70, Floor Area Calculation, and Section 70-27, District Descriptions, subsection (c) as recommended. Chairman Ganger thanked Vice -Chairman Morgan for his contributions and he thanked Marty Minor and Clerk Taylor for a great job and for providing this information saying that it was very helpful to see the language in ordinance form. He asked Clerk Taylor when this might be presented to the Commission for first reading. Clerk Taylor said if there is a motion to recommend the amendments to Code it may be presented to the Commission at their next meeting. O Vice -Chairman Morgan moved and Mr. Murphy seconded to recommend that the Code of Ordinances of the Town of Gulf Stream be amended as discussed, particularly at: Section 62-10, Criteria for Subdivision Review; Section 66-1, Definitions; Section 70-27, District Descriptions; and, 70-70, Floor Area Calculation. There was no further discussion. All voted AYE. Chairman Ganger said he will present a short progress report at the Annual Meeting of the Civic Association which is scheduled for April 2nd to let their members know that the Town is taking action on these issues and it is a work in process. Clerk Taylor said the Commission will have an opportunity to review the minutes of this meeting and they will know where the Board is in the process. She pointed out that there Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - March 22, 2012 Page 4 is currently zoning in progress and suggested waiting on adopting the ordinance until the process is complete and zoning in progress can be removed. b. Section 70-71, Floor Area Ratio This matter will be discussed at a future meeting. C. Section 70-68, Lot Size & Dimensional Requirements O This matter will be discussed at a future meeting d. Section 70-4, How to Use This Manual This matter was covered in the discussion of Section 62-10 and 70-27. No further discussion or action is required. 2. Section 70-238, Roofs Mr. Thrasher said Mark Marsh is not present, but he said he invited Mr. Marsh to give his professional opinion concerning this matter at today's meeting. Mr. Lyons said he drove around Gulf Stream Rd., Polo Dr. and through Place Au Soleil where he saw some roofs with the slurry -coated tile and he said it was difficult to see a difference. He said he spoke to John Mulavey of RoofTec and found that you will not save money on maintenance with the slurry -coated tile because it requires yearly cleaning to maintain the whiteness, but he said the cost of the slurry - coated tile is about 40% less than the white flat cement thru and thru. Mr. Lyons said Mr. Mulavey stated that the manufacturing process is more expensive with the thru and thru and that there may come a time in the future when the only option will be to have the thru and thru custom made, which will make it very expensive. He said Mr. Mulavey also noted that, over time, the glossy finish flattens out due to the elements. Chairman Ganger asked Mr. Murphy if he received negative comments concerning the slurry -coated tile roof in Place Au Soleil. Mr. Murphy said he has had no feedback. Chairman Ganger said that, as a Board, they have to acknowledge new technology that may bring new products and if they are similar to what is currently preferred it would be a bad idea to enforce the more expensive product. However, he said if there is a substantial difference in quality, the Board will have the authority to deny it. Chairman Ganger asked if the Code language can be drafted in such a way where the applicant must demonstrate that a different product is the same as the preferred product as far as appearance, durability, safety or any other pertinent criteria. Mr. Lyons said there are two issues, one being the appearance with respect to a flat or glossy finish, and ^ another being the width of the tile. He said it is difficult to �) distinguish between the flat finish and the slurry -coated tile, except for the width, and he said the fit is different where the narrow flat finish tiles are deeper with flat sides and the larger slurry -coated tiles are more tongue in groove. Mr. Minor said the Town demands a certain quality of building materials to be used on all its projects, and that should include roof tiles. He said Staff proposes that the white flat cement thru and thru is preferable, but he said they need some direction from the Board as to what is an acceptable roof tile. Mr. Minor said both arguments have been heard and now the Board must determine the level of quality that is acceptable in the Town of Gulf Stream. Mr. Thrasher asked to go on Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - March 22, 2012 Page 5 record saying it is true that the larger tile gives the appearance of a tongue in groove and he said if you look at it from a 45 degree angle you see a 45 degree run in that tongue in groove, which is counterproductive and conflicts with the linear concept in Gulf Stream Bermuda. He said, in his opinion, it looks a bit fake, and he said his recommendation would be to maintain the untextured, unpainted and O unfinished flat thru and thru. Mr. Thrasher displayed a drawing showing the smooth lines of the Bermuda Style and said the smaller tile aligns better than the larger tile with the smooth and flowing line. Mr. Murphy asked about the possibility of the thru and thru no longer being available. Mr. Thrasher said the Board will deal with that if it happens, but he said it is available now and we have permitted three homes in the last month that are using the product. Chairman Ganger said the Town does demand quality and if there is a perception that another material appears to be of a lesser quality it would affect the judgment of the Board. He said if there is another product that is indistinguishable from what is preferred at this time, there would be no reason to deny it. Clerk Taylor commented that while the Board is discussing the type of roof tiles they will also need to discuss color. She said existing Code says either white untextured, gray slate or slate -like. Vice -Chairman Morgan moved to retain Section 70-238 on Roofs and not change the color and texture of the roof tile as described in that section. Mr. Thrasher said the Board must discuss slate -like and other coloring of tiles as a part of this recommendation. He said there is proposed language which was discussed at a previous meeting that may amend this Section of the Code. Vice -Chairman Morgan struck his motion. Mrs. Jones suggested retaining white or slate and eliminating "slate - style." Chairman Ganger said the Board will soon be looking at proposals for six new homes which will be situated in one area, and he said we must establish quality standards. Mr. Murphy moved and Vice - Chairman Morgan seconded to recommend that Section 70-238, Roofs, (a) Required, at Page CD70:93 be amended to read as follows: Required. Flat, white thru and thru, smooth, un -coated tile, except that gray slate, may be permitted on homes that are predominately Georgian or British Colonial with Bermuda influences, subject to Level II approval. ^ There was no discussion. All voted AYE. The meeting was recessed at 9:25 A.M. and reconvened at 9:30 A.M. 3. Section 70-100, Roof & Eave Heights Mr. Thrasher said he feels the language is insufficient in this Section of the Code in defining preferred, discouraged and prohibited height of the entry feature. He said when defining "Preferred" it is not clear as to what the phrase in parenthesis . . . "(from 8 feet to 14 feet for entry feature)" specifically refers to. Mr. Thrasher said this concept was introduced to try to maintain a low profile front feature and to avoid a Boca look. He referred to the example drawing saying this was an application brought to the Town, and he said it was argued that it Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - March 22, 2012 Page 6 meets Code and that the eave height of entry feature was at an acceptable or discouraged level. Mr. Thrasher said the first thing you notice about this house is the entry feature and the height of that roof. He said the overall height of the entry feature should be controlled by the heights in the parenthesis, not just the eave height. In previous applications the Town was successful in requiring that the O overall height of that entry feature was from the finished floor to the very top elevation of whatever element was up there, and he said if this language concentrates only on eave heights an application could potentially be approved and end up with the look of this south elevation example, which we do not want in entry features. Mr. Thrasher said this looked wrong to Staff and we tried to convince the applicant to consider changing it to see what it would look like and they refused. He said it was sent to Mr. Minor for his assistance and with his interpretation of the Code it could not be prohibited, however, he said the applicant did not come back. Mr. Thrasher said if we want to control the entry height from finished floor to the very peak of what is up there the language must be changed to address that. Chairman Ganger said the proposed changes are consistent with the information and background provided by Staff and he asked the Board if they are comfortable with what is recommended. Mr. Thrasher said he has been successful interpreting the Code because the entry feature is controlled by the heights in parenthesis. Mr. Minor said it needs clarification and the recommended change clarifies this as looking at the entire feature and not just the eave height. Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Lyons seconded to recommend changes to Section 70-100, Roof and eave heights as follows: Entry features are the front portion of the structure which provide door entrance to the dwelling. The height of the entry feature is measured from the finish floor elevation to the upper portion of any balcony railings, Dutch gable or other such elements. Height: Preferred, from eight feet to 14 feet; Discouraged, from 14 feet to 16 feet; Prohibited, greater than 16 feet. Clerk Taylor asked if the same issue should be addressed with regard to two-story structures. Mr. Minor said the same text in parenthesis appears where the Code addresses two-story structures. Mr. Thrasher asked for confirmation from either Mr. Minor or Clerk Taylor that the same language appears for both single -story and two-story structures when addressing the entry feature. Mr. Minor said breaking it out and pulling the language out of the eave height category shown in parenthesis for both one and two-story structures will provide clarification. Chairman Ganger noted that the motion pluralized "elements" and asked if there are other elements that would add height. Mr. Minor said he could not think of anything else. Staff and Members of the Board agreed that "elements" will remain plural and that the language in parenthesis addressing entry features under eave heights shall be removed. There was no further discussion. All voted AYE. 4. Section 70-51, Minor Accessory Structures Mr. Thrasher said the recommendation is that the only addition to Section 70-51, Minor Accessory Structures, is the word "Waterfalls." Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - March 22, 2012 Page 7 Mr. Murphy moved and Vice -Chairman Morgan seconded to recommend amending Section 70-51, Minor accessory structures (2) at Page CD70:24, In -ground swimming pools and spas to read: "In -ground swimming pools, spas and waterfalls." There was no discussion. All voted AYE. 5. Section 66-367, Swimming Pools Chairman Ganger asked if there are a lot of requests for grottos and Mr. O Thrasher said no. He said they are very nice and a great thing for kids, but they do not fit in with Gulf Stream standards. Chairman Ganger asked if the 4 -foot height limit on waterfalls is a safety issue or an aesthetic issue. Vice -Chairman Morgan said he agrees with the 4 - foot height limit, but he said he was not sure about screening. Mr. Thrasher said the main focus is on height. Mr. Lyons asked if the sound from a waterfall would be a concern. Clerk Taylor said there is a section in the Code relating to fountains requiring they be turned off by a certain time and Mr. Thrasher said the minor accessory setbacks should be sufficient. With regard to paragraph (k), Chairman Ganger suggested that screening will be eliminated and there will be a period after the word "property." Mr. Stanley asked if a height is required on a grotto. Mr. Thrasher asked Clerk Taylor if a grotto is described in definitions and Clerk Taylor said it is not. Mr. Thrasher said the Code defines a structure as that which requires assembly, and he said a grotto would be a formation of rocks which would require assembly and would be prohibited. Mr. Minor said this would fall under minor accessory structures. Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Lyons seconded to recommend amending Section 66-367, Swimming Pools by adding the following paragraphs: (j) No grotto shall be permitted in any zoning district. A grotto shall be considered an artificial structure or excavation made to look like a cave or cavern; and, (k) Waterfalls, minor accessory structures, shall not exceed 4' in height as measured from the average finished grade of the property. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. 6. Section 66-369, Docks Mr. Thrasher said concrete docks have been allowed because it was not clear if the language in the Code prohibited them. He asked Mr. Minor if other municipalities control type of docks. Mr. Minor said the material is not typically controlled, but he said fake wood is usually prohibited. Mr. Stanley asked about concrete spun piles, which are concrete piles. He said spun pilings are not as warm -looking as wood pilings and they do not have the texture, but they are more durable. Mr. Thrasher said concrete docks look terrible when they are deteriorating and it is more expensive to remove them, and he said that wood docks and pilings should be required. Mrs. Jones asked about floating docks. Clerk Taylor said there is a State Law which prohibits the Town from not allowing them. Vice -Chairman Morgan said as pilings and dolphins deteriorate they are sheathed with concrete below the waterline to preserve them and he said the proposed language would prohibit that. However, he said you would not see the sheathing and it probably would not be applied for. Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Lyons seconded to recommend amending Section 66369, Docks (7) Materials and colors, at Page CD66:71 to read: "All docks and pilings will be made from wood." There was no discussion. All voted AYE. Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - March 22, 2012 Page 8 VII. Items by Board Members. Chairman Ganger asked Mr. Minor to update the Board on the changes to the Comp Plan. Mr. Minor said the changes were submitted to the the State and to the Treasure Coast Advisory Board and the comments have come back. He said there was one minor comment from South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and, as they requested, he has made the O changes to the water supply plan, which is a part of the Comp Plan. Mr. Minor explained that since Boynton Beach supplies the water to the annexed area, SFWMD wanted Boynton Beach to be better referenced in the water supply plan. He said he has supplied revised copies of the Comp Plan to Staff for the Commission to take up at their meeting. Chairman Ganger asked when the Comp Plan will go into effect if the Commission has no objections. Mr. Minor said if there are no objecttions there will be a 45 -day period and then the Comp Plan could go into effect either by late Spring or early Summer. Clerk Taylor distributed material to the Board which was submitted by Mr. Minor and will be on the Agenda for their next ARPB Meeting. Mr. Thrasher asked Mr. Minor to explain what their assignment is. Mr. Minor said that, based on the Code, his office has provided a visual look of what is permitted and what the existing FAR regulations provide for in both one and two-story structures in each of the single family zoning districts. He said the Board should look at possible alternatives and he will create a visual so that we can begin discussing whether or not they are appropriate for Gulf Stream. Mr. Minor said there are items on the cover of his material which were previously discussed that could provide revisions and encouragements for good design, such as where the Delray Beach Property Owners' Association allows an additional area of lot coverage if a second story is brought back 5 feet. Clerk Taylor said the purpose of this information is for the Board to determine whether or not our FAR is sufficient as it stands to address the issue of boxyness, and she said Mr. Minor has provided alternatives that the Board may want to consider. Mr. Minor said if the Board eventually recommends changes they will be able to show what is currently allowed and what is proposed, and he said it is easier to grasp when you provide a visual. Mr. Minor suggested that the Board study the material and decide whether they find the alternatives acceptable, too restrictive or not restrictive enough. Chairman Ganger said he would like to have Tom Smith in attendance when this matter is discussed because he suggested Oaddressing boxyness in our FAR. VIII. Public. There were no items by the Public. IX. Adjournment. Chairman ap imately 10:20 A.M. q --1// Gail C. Abbale Administrative Assistant Ganger adjourned the meeting at