Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout03/02/20120 Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 23, 2012 Page 12 CONTINUATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2012 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA, WHICH WAS RECESSED AND RECONVENED ON FRIDAY, MARCH 2, 2012 AT 8:00 A.M. I. Call to Order: Chairman Ganger called the meeting to order at 8:05 A.M. II. Roll Call: Present and Robert W. Ganger Participating Scott Morgan (8:50 A.M. Thomas Smith Paul Lyons, Jr. Thomas M. Stanley Absent w/Notice Malcolm Murphy Amanda Jones Also Present and William H. Thrasher Participating Rita L. Taylor John Randolph Marty Minor of Urban Design Kilday Studios Chairman Vice -Chairman Board Member Board Member Sitting as Bd. Member Board Member Alternate Member Town Manager Town Clerk Town Attorney Town Consultant III. Minutes of The Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 2/23/12. Clerk Taylor asked to let the record show that both Malcolm Murphy and Amanda Jones are absent with notice, and she said Vice -Chairman Morgan has advised that he would be one hour late. Chairman Ganger stated that it would be necessary for him to leave at 9:50 A.M. IV. Items by Staff Continued from 2/23/12. A. Proposed Zoning Code Changes 1. Subdivision Review a. Section 62-10, Proposed Criteria Clerk Taylor said the Minutes of the February 23, 2012 Regular Meeting were included in the meeting packets; however, she said no action is required until the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing scheduled for March 22, 2012 at 8:30 A.M. She said the minutes will be continued to include the discussions of this meeting. Chairman Ganger said the February 23 Id meeting was recessed after presenting Mr. Minor with his assignment concerning FAR, proposed criteria as it relates to subdivisions and the definition of Basements. He asked Mr. Minor if he was prepared to discuss these items at this time and also if he had an opportunity to review the correspondence from Vice -Chairman Morgan dated March 1, 2012. Mr. Minor introduced himself for the record and stated that he reviewed the proposed language provided by Vice -Chairman Morgan and recommended incorporating it into the proposed criteria for subdivisions. Mr. Randolph said he does not understand the language Vice -Chairman Morgan Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 23, 2012 Page 13 proposes to be added to Mr. Minor's Criteria B which deals with design features. He said Vice -Chairman Morgan uses the word "architecture" in the last sentence of Paragraph B in his letter and, he said when looking at subdivisions you deal with the layout of the land and you should not incorporate design features in subdivision regulations. Mr. Randolph said when the Board reviews the proposed design of a house in a subdivision they will have the opportunity to deal with design features O under the Design Manual, where there is existing language that talks about maintaining the design of the neighborhood. Chairman Ganger referred to the applicant for the subdivision of the Spence Property and a continuous comment made by their attorney, which was that they were only applying for subdivision of the land at this time and not the architecture of future structures. He said the Board tried to impress upon them that architectural design features was another step in the process, which is something that should be made clear to an applicant proposing a subdivision. They must follow the Design Code and understand that they must maintain the character of the neighborhood with respect to design features, architecture and landscaping. Mr. Randolph said when the developers of the Spence Property made their presentation they made the mistake of showing houses on the property and, he said, he reminded them at that time that their application was strictly for the division of the land and nothing else. He said when plans for a house are presented to the Board they should rely on the strength of the Design Manual at that time. With regard to Vice -Chairman Morgan's proposed language in Paragraph B of his letter, Mr. Lyons suggested striking the word "design" in line 2 and the word "architecture" in line 4, so that Paragraph B reads, "Proposed subdivisions shall protect the character of the Town by incorporating features that are compatible with and complimentary to the preferred elements and overall character of the neighborhood district in which they are located, including but not limited to parcel size, parcel shape and landscaping." Mr. Stanley suggested striking the word "landscaping" and Mr. Thrasher did not agree. Mr. Thrasher said there have been several previous discussions concerning berms and buffers. Mr. Randolph suggested striking the word "landscaping" and replacing it with the word "topography" and Mr. Stanley suggested also adding the words "berms" and "buffers" amending Criteria B to read, "Proposed subdivisions shall protect the character of the Town by incorporating O features that are compatible with and complimentary to the preferred elements and overall character of the neighborhood district in which they are located, including but not limited to parcel size, parcel shape, topography, berms and buffers." Mr. Smith inquired about Vice -Chairman Morgan's proposed language in Paragraph A of his letter to amend Mr. Minor's Criteria A. Mr. Minor said Vice -Chairman Morgan added the words . . . which term "surrounding" so that Criteria A would read, "Lots to be created by the proposed subdivision should be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, which term "surrounding" shall be defined as residential lots within 500 feet of the subject parcel." Mr. Minor referred to the map he provided Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 23, 2012 Page 14 which was done as a case study regarding how Criteria A would apply to a parcel and where the 500 -foot line would go. Chairman Ganger asked if the 500 feet is used by other communities and Mr. Minor confirmed that. Mr. Randolph said he does not see where Vice -Chairman's proposed language in his Paragraph A is that different from Mr. Minor's proposed language in his Criteria A and Mr. Smith said he is trying to emphasize what "surrounding" means, but it is covered in Criteria A. OWith regard to the overlay map, Mr. Smith said that, looking at the 6 lots superimposed on the map, it appears there was no way to deny the Spence subdivision. He said people are more concerned about six cookie - cutter lots all in a row and access to the lots from AlA. Mr. Thrasher said the neighbors did not want vehicular traffic on the private road and, therefore, there will be two entrances from AlA. One entrance will service one lot and the other entrance will service five lots. Mr. Randolph asked if the word "access" should be included in Criteria B. Mr. Stanley said it is covered in Criteria F which reads, "Proposed subdivisions shall avoid traffic congestion on streets, and eliminate conflicts between pedestrian and vehicular movements." He said when reviewing the overall Spence subdivision, Chairman Ganger asked the applicant several times where the roads would go and he also mentioned that they had to account for improvements, drainage and catch basins. With regard to roads, Mr. Thrasher said hammerheads totally eliminate the meandering roadways and he said there was previous discussion about prohibiting them. Mr. Randolph suggested that the proposed language in Criteria B be amended to read, "Proposed subdivisions shall protect the character of the Town by incorporating features that are compatible with and complimentary to the preferred elements and overall character of the neighborhood district in which they are located, including but not limited to parcel size, parcel shape, access, topography, berms and buffers." He further suggested including a separate statement in the Subdivision Criteria that says, "Hammerheads are prohibited." It was the consensus of the Board to amend the proposed language of Criteria B as recommended to read "Proposed subdivisions shall protect the character of the Town by incorporating features that are compatible with and complimentary to the preferred elements and overall character of the neighborhood district in which they are located, including but not limited to parcel size, parcel shape, access, topography, berms and buffers.". It was also the consensus of the Board to add a statement in the Subdivision Criteria that reads, "Hammerheads are prohibited." Mr. Lyons referred to the overlay on the aerial map and said there is enough there to suggest to a developer that he could develop a subdivision. He said the 500 feet could work against us and suggested eliminating that from Criteria A. Mr. Thrasher agreed and suggested there be no exact distance. Mr. Stanley suggested eliminating a radius and simply say, "the surrounding area." Mr. Randolph said he would prefer to not leave it vague, but he said Criteria A could read, "Lots to be created by the proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the adjacent or immediate property." Clerk Taylor suggested using the design district as the neighborhood because it is already defined. She Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 23, 2012 Page 15 said when they originally designed the design districts through windshield surveys the lots were somewhat the same size and architecture. Mr. Thrasher said there are three districts already identified on this aerial map, which are Ocean West, Beachfront and North/South. It was the consensus of the Board that the proposed language in Criteria A would be amended to read, "Lots to be created by the proposed subdivision should be consistent with the adjacent and Cimmediate properties. " Mr. Randolph asked Chairman Ganger to confirm that the Board concurs with all of the changes and that they are ready to make their recommendations to the Commission. Chairman Ganger confirmed that. Mr. Randolph asked Mr. Minor to prepare a final draft of the language for review by the Architectural Review and Planning Board before the make their recommendations to the Commission. b. Section 66-1, Definitions Mr. Minor said he reviewed the code provisions from other communities provided by Mr. Randolph and he has incorporated some of that language into proposed language previously discussed. He summarized the proposed language for Sec. 66-1. Definitions which reads, "Basement shall mean that portion of the building which is below the finished floor elevation of the building and is located within the footprint of the first floor. A basement is not considered a story with regards to the height measurement of a building, unless the ceiling of the basement is greater than three (3) feet above grade. The square footage of a basement shall be included as 100 of the building's Floor Area Ratio calculations. Basements shall conform to all setback regulations for structures. There shall be no entrances to such basement on the street side and the exterior appearance of such basement shall conform to the general architecture of the building." Mr. Smith referred to Exhibit A, Illustration 1 -Basement, which was attached to the Jupiter Island Definitions, if a home has a real basement that is completely under the first floor with nothing more than an emergency exit to the outside, we should not be as punitive. Mr. Minor said if the ceiling of the basement is not more than 3' above grade it would not be counted in the FAR. Mr. Thrasher suggested using 75% in the FAR calculations rather than 100% if the ceiling of a basement is more than three feet above grade. Mr. Lyons said that part of the reason the Board is addressing basements is because of the home on County Road where there is concern over grade and the slope of the driveway and the danger it may cause. He said he is not sure how the proposed definition would avoid the situation and asked if we could define a slope and grade of a driveway. Mr. Randolph said it can be done, but he said it is a different issue. Clerk Taylor said that grade should be controlled under the terms of the Building Code rather than the Zoning Code. She said the Florida Building Code has regulations with regard to Multi -Family, but she said there are no restrictions that apply to Single Family. She asked if there would be a way to include a restriction that would apply without causing an issue. Mr. Randolph suggested incorporating an on -point regulation in the Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 23, 2012 Page 16 Design Manual that would address the grade and slope of driveways. Mr. Thrasher said the Town has asked the City of Delray Beach to examine the situation on County Road and advise whether or not their current code and inspections would prohibit such a driveway. He said their answer was "No" and he said Palm Beach County had the same answer. The consensus of the Board and Staff was that grade and slope of a driveway should be a separate issue. Mr. Lyons agreed that we should not be as punitive if a basement is not visible from the street, not creating mass or impacting the neighbors. Mr. Thrasher said it could still appear as a three-story from the rear. Mr. Randolph said there should be some impediment imposed if a house has a basement where a portion of it can be viewed. Mr. Stanley said it should be controlled by the entrance. He said a basement under the bottom floor, or under the footprint of the house, should only have access from inside the house, and he said if a basement has any external access you would include a percentage of the square footage in the FAR calculations. Mr. Randolph asked the Board if they agree that if a basement is designed in a way that it is habitable space, that space should be counted in the FAR calculations. The Board was in agreement. Mr. Lyons asked if office space or a workout room would be considered habitable space. Mr. Randolph said anything over a six or seven -foot ceiling should be counted as square footage. Mr. Minor asked the Board to confirm that square footage of a basement area having external access and creating a three-story look would be counted 100% in the FAR calculations. Chairman Ganger confirmed that. Mr. Minor asked for clarification concerning a basement completely under the first story with a ceiling that is no greater than 3' above grade with no external access. It was recommended that square footage of a basement completely under the first story with a ceiling that is no greater than 3' above grade and with no external access should be counted as 75% in the FAR calculations. Mr. Smith said a description of non -accessible, with the exception of an emergency escape from such an area, should be included. Mr. Stanley asked Mr. Minor for another sketch similar to Illustration 1 of Exhibit A that would include what has been discussed and agreed upon. Mr. Minor agreed that the sketches are extremely helpful and he would provide a new sketch that would depict the 100% and the 75%. O Vice -Chairman Morgan arrived at 8:50 A.M. Chairman Ganger updated Vice - Chairman Morgan on the changes the Board has agreed to so far and he thanked him for the letter to the Board saying that it was very helpful in their thought process and decision making. c. Section 70-71, Floor Area Ratio Mr. Minor said there have been discussions concerning the current FARs and some feel the FARs may be creating a boxy look to homes. He said we include design features such as covered space with no walls which provides flexibility, but he said we see less of that because if applicants feel they can have indoor space in that same area they will choose the indoor space. Mr. Minor asked the Board if they would prefer more articulation in the buildings or if they would prefer not counting Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 23, 2012 Page 17 as much of the outdoor spaces, such as porticos, overhangs and back porches, as a way of tweaking FAR calculations and how that transfers into design of houses. Clerk Taylor said a special exception is available which provides that you can go 300 SF over and above the maximum allowable FAR if it is a covered, unenclosed space, and she said almost everyone building a new house will take advantage of that special exception. She said the reason they offer the special exception is to O encourage balconies. Clerk Taylor said that the space can be used on any side of a house, but she said it is typically used on the first floor as a lanai and the Town would place a deed restriction on that area which restricts the area from ever being enclosed. Chairman Ganger asked if we have asked guidance from architects on how to achieve the amount of living space their client desires while being able to avoid mass or a boxy look. Mr. Smith said the 75% rule is not the problem, he said it is the 25% that must be taken off of the second story that needs to be defined. Mr. Stanley referred to the Delray Beach Code and said that Mr. Minor did the BPOA overlay for the North Beach. He said we are talking about flush walls and a lot of those issues are addressed in the Delray Beach Code and he asked Mr. Minor if there is anything in the Gulf Stream Code that addresses flush wall breaks or that provides incentives for breaking up a side of a building. Mr. Minor said there are standards for that within the Delray Beach Code, but he said there is nothing like that in the Gulf Stream Code. Mr. Stanley said Delray's issues are similar and he said Mr. Minor may have input from architects like Gary Eliopoulos and others that have projects in Gulf Stream. He said Delray has incentives, but you must have height plains coming from the street and flush wall breaks every so many feet on the house. Mr. Lyons asked Mr. Stanley to describe a flush wall break. Mr. Stanley said if you come in on three sides on the second story, there must be a break in the flush wall on the fourth side every 50 feet. He said the alternative is to have an additional architectural element on the street side to break up the flush wall. Mr. Stanley said other towns offer incentives that Gulf Stream may not be ready to offer at this time. Mr. Thrasher asked if Delray regulations talk to different architectural styles. Mr. Stanley said the regulations are shorter and simpler and leave room for interpretation, but he said they define four different architectural styles, including photos, as does Gulf Stream. He said the regulations are very similar and they could serve a model for Gulf Stream. He recommended providing more sketches and requiring flush wall breaks, and he said incentives could be considered down the road. Vice - Chairman Morgan asked Mr. Minor for his input. Mr. Minor said one of the things Delray was looking at was buildings as they relate to their neighbors to avoid creating canyons of buildings that are straight up. He said they want to create a preferred living environment with some building sections set back creating light in those areas. Mr. Randolph asked Mr. Minor if the implementation of height plane would help in this regard. Mr. Minor said it would be helpful. Mr. Randolph requested Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 23, 2012 Page 18 another sketch from Mr. Minor showing the apparent height from the street. Mr. Thrasher said many previous applications introduced different architectural elements and setbacks on both the front and rear of a structure, and he said the differences we see in large walls seem to appear on the sides. He said height plane seems to be something you O would look at from a front elevation only and, therefore, we should concentrate more on 75% second story coverage and/or some kind of setback break on more sides of a second story. Mr. Randolph said, due to height plane regulations, you cannot bring a side wall all the way to the front of a house and, therefore, you are dealing with the sides when looking at height plane from the front. Mr. Stanley said that Gulf Stream should include a separate section that addresses building height plane for corner lots, which is not addressed in the BPOA regulations. Mr. Thrasher said our setbacks are different for lots located on one, two or three streets, and he said you will typically see additional architectural elements on the street sides for that reason. Mr. Thrasher said, from a two dimensional drawing, it consistently appears that the 75% rule is not sufficient and it disputes the first impression of mass. He said when we send two-dimensional drawings to our consultants for recalculation they come back okay and, therefore, it appears that the 75% rule is lacking something. Chairman Ganger suggested that maybe the 75% rule should require all four elevations to contribute to the 75%. Mr. Thrasher said that type of restriction would limit creativity of a good architect and there are many architectural elements that can be used to create a break without creating a boxy look. He said the incentive concept is good if we can incorporate something similar to the Delray Beach, and he said the incentives would have to be tailored to the two predominant architectural styles in Gulf Stream. Mr. Thrasher said we encourage architects to be more creative with the introduction of architectural elements and there may be common terminology that will create incentives to increase the use of those elements. He asked Mr. Minor to provide some information. Mr. Minor said it would be an excellent addition to the Code to address this issue. Chairman Ganger asked Mr. Stanley about other architects who contributed to the Delray Beach Code. Mr. Stanley said Bob Curry, Jeff Sowers and William Wietsma contributed their ideas and he said Gary Eliopoulos sat 0 on the Delray Beach Commission when they were reviewing the Code. Vice - Chairman Morgan asked how long it has been in place and if it is working. Mr. Stanley said it is now on the Delray Beach website, but he said it has been in place for five or six years and it works primarily because of the FAR. He said the setbacks are better, structures have to be smaller and are limited to 6,000 SF on an average lot. Chairman Ganger said the Board would like to go in this direction to address mass and the boxy look. Mr. Minor said he has a very good idea of what the Board is looking for and he will come back with his recommendation. Mr. Thrasher asked why Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 23, 2012 Page 19 we do not have second story requirements in the Beachfront and Ocean West Districts. Clerk Taylor said it is because of the larger lots. Mr. Stanley said if you have a larger lot with a 30' or 40' setback from your property line, general design standards allow you to go up, and he said it should be based on actual lot size and not district specific. He said the idea is the larger the setback, the bigger the buffer, the more you can do. Mr. Thrasher said it really shows up when we are O dealing with a stand-alone garage with a second story apartment. Clerk Taylor referred to the existing special exception which allows an additional 300 feet of covered, unenclosed space and asked if it would help to increase the additional allowable area. Mr. Thrasher said he likes the elements they have to produce in those areas. Chairman Ganger said it could be used as an incentive in that if you are under the 75% you will receive a credit on the 3001. He said it is logical because those elements create breaks and it would be the rewarding of good design. d. Section 70-68, Lot Size & Dimensional Requirements Chairman Ganger asked if there is a formula that would preserve some larger lots where large lots exist. Mr. Randolph said the Board is attempting to do this in the subdivision regulations, and he said you must keep in mind that with lot size requirements you are dealing with regulations within an entire district and you could create a problem if you try to change lot size. Mr. Thrasher asked if a reward system could be applied with regard to larger lots that would allow a larger FAR. He said, for example, for the first 20,000 square feet of lot the FAR is 33%, thereafter it is 20% of the remaining square footage, and somehow you would correlate that 20% upward in relation to the size of the lot to encourage future subdivision to be larger lots. Mr. Thrasher asked if that would work to help us maintain larger lot sizes. Mr. Minor said you may want to limit that to a large size of a certain threshold as a way of encouraging preservation of larger lots. Chairman Ganger said Ocean West is where we are focused and we are talking about how to maintain the economic value of the entire community by having a sprinkling of beautiful estates as part of our inventory of homes. He said it is a concept worth pursuing and it should be done in terms of acre as opposed to lot, and he said we should say that the reason for doing this is to maintain a few large lots. Mr. Stanley said he believes we need to move forward, but he said some of these things will have to be tested over a period of time to see results. Mr. Minor said he will come back with several options and he will also provide a three- dimensional sketch -up with regard to that point. Ce. Section 70-4, How to Use This Manual There was no discussion concerning this item. 2. Section 70-28, Roofs Mr. Thrasher said Staff has issued four reroof permit applications in the last few weeks where contractors are using the white cement tile thru and thru which is a flat material with no slurry coating. He said this tile has been used forever and he said its purpose was to mirror the original design of the Bermuda Style homes. Mr. Thrasher said there has been more discussion recently concerning white roof tile material, specifically the white cement thru and thru with a slurry coating and a slight glaze. He said there are pros and cons concerning both roof materials, but he said Staff's recommendation is to maintain our Code in Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 23, 2012 Page 20 the manner in which we have administered it for several years, and that is the use of the white flat cement thru and thru, untextured, unpainted and with no slurry coating. Mr. Thrasher said there have been reports that this tile is no longer available, but he said Staff has found that to be false. He asked the Board if they want to allow the white slurry - coated tile to be placed on Gulf Stream Bermuda Style homes. O Mr. Thrasher said there has been additional discussion as to what the Board would like to do with grey slate -like roof tile. He said the Board has allowed a solid grey tile, which does not appear to be slate - like, and a light green, which was approved for the Sargeant home. He said the discussion between slate and slate -like allows distortion and he said architects feel that limiting them to white or grey tile handicaps their ability to create a desirable look. Mr. Minor said he spoke with a carpenter/roofer friend who does work up and down the Island, and he said his friend confirmed that the non - slurry -coated white flat cement tile thru and thru by Entegra is readily available. Mr. Randolph asked what there is in the Code that precludes a slurry -coated tile. Mr. Thrasher said that when he sought guidance from the ARPB several years ago, the Board directed him to approve the white flat cement thru and thru. He said there were discussions in the past about consistency in the Bermuda styling and he said there is also some language in the Code that discourages shiny -surfaced roof tile and specific tile material in certain districts, or in the Core. Clerk Taylor said there is an additional word in the description of roof tile under "Required" which reads, . . . white flat untextured tile. Chairman Ganger said the ARPB and the Commission cannot be oblivious to new technology or a new product, but he said there has to be some benefit to using it such as, it has the same look or that it is better than what has been used in the past. He said the functionality of each tile may be similar, but he said we are trying to maintain a certain look. Mr. Randolph said those who presented the slurry -coated tile say they are advised that it holds up better, it avoids mold and it is not harmed when pressure cleaned. Mr. Thrasher said there are contractors that believe the non -slurry -coated tile is the better product and Mr. Minor agreed saying that professionals claim the non -slurry -coated tile holds up better and is preferred. Chairman Ganger pointed out that the slurry -coated tile is a larger tile. Mr. Thrasher said the size of the tile is what alerted Staff to the slurry -coating, but he said there is nothing in the Code that defines size. Mr. Lyons said the slurry -coated tile is too big and suggested adding something in the Code that defines size. Mr. Stanley pointed out that the slurry -coated tile could probably be custom-made to any size. Mr. Smith said roofers are selling the larger slurry -coated tile because it is easier to install and it is cheaper to maintain. Mr. Lyons commented that the larger roof tile will give the appearance of mass. Mr. Thrasher said with regard to requesting a variance, money cannot be a hardship. Mr. Smith said that Peter Bennett is the resident who has a Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 23, 2012 Page 21 slurry -coated roof tile and suggested driving by the property to see what it looks like. He said he supports not going to multi -color tile on Bermuda Style homes. Vice -Chairman Morgan said color is covered under Section 70-238, but he said the slurry -coated tile is not covered and it would be subject to interpretation. Mr. Thrasher explained that Mr. Bennett's permit application for the slurry -coated tile was denied at the administrative level and he appealed the administrative decision. He said his appeal came before the Board of Adjustment and they approved the slurry -coated tile, then directed there be Zoning in Progress. Vice -Chairman Morgan said that, because of the way the Code Section is written, the Board of Adjustment could not preclude the slurry -coated tile. Chairman Ganger agreed saying the word "untextured" can be interpreted in different ways. Chairman Ganger excused himself from the meeting at 9:50 A.M. In closing, Mr. Thrasher said Mr. Bennett, in Place Au Soleil, has the slurry -coated tile roof and two houses south of Mr. Bennett has the white flat cement thru and thru. He said if you drive by you may be able to see the difference, and he said try to picture the slurry -coated tile in the Core. Mr. Thrasher said there is a variety of architectural styles and roofs in Place Au Soleil, but he said it is mostly Bermuda Style in the Core Area, and he said once a decision is made you can affect the character of the Town. He said roofs are a very important element in the architectural styling of Gulf Stream and there are no tools in place as guidance to make these decisions. Mr. Randolph said the Code is vague, Mr. Thrasher's interpretation of the Code was challenged and the Board of Adjustment granted it, but then held zoning in progress, giving the ARPB an opportunity to look at it and decide whether a change is appropriate. Mr. Randolph suggested looking at some of the roofs that have the slurry -coated tile, ask Mark Marsh for his opinion and make your decision based on that information. VII. Items by Board Members. There were no items by Board Members. VIII. Public. There were no items by the Public IX. Adjournment. Mr. Lyons moved and Mr. Smith seconded to adjourn the ting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 A.M. O l _ �1. a-auu 11 Administrative