HomeMy Public PortalAboutARPB 03 22 2012 w/backupCHAIRMAN:
VICE CHAIRMAN:
BOARD MEMBER:
ALTERNATE MEMBER:
Robert Ganger
Scott Morgan
Paul A. Lyons, Jr.
Thomas Smith
Malcolm Murphy
Amanda Jones
Thomas M. Stanley
March 18, 2012
REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING BEING 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.
OW sm.,
I. Call to Order.
II. Roll Call.
III. Minutes: Regular Meeting and Public Hearing 2-23-12 & 3-2-12.
IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items.
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.
VI. Items by Staff.
A. Proposed Zoning Code Changes
1. Subdivision Review
a. Section 66-1, Definitions
b. Section 70-71, Floor Area Ratio
C. Section 70-68, Lot Size & Dimensional
d. Section 70-4, How to Use This Manual
2. Section 70-238, Roofs
3. Section 70-100, Roof & Eave Heights
4. Section 70-51, Minor Accessory Structures
5. Section 66-367, Swimming Pools
6. Section 66-369, Docks
VII. Items by Board Members.
VIII. Public.
IX. Adjournment.
Requirements
SHOULD ANY INTERESTED PARTY SEEK TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER
CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, SAID PARTY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE, MAY NEED TO INSURE THAT A VERBATIM
RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY
AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 286.0105, E.S.S.
0
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
°m
C
m
K
�•
�
p- o CD
CD
U]
�(D
CD
o'
m
— �.
►o
C
n
0 0
0
o
o C) 0
c
o o
o' � °
o
p'
Q
n
N N
cD
ti
N
00 00
O
CD CD
^
°
0
`d
o
0
0
o
�:
u
00
.p w
z
C
C
p
G.
0
°m
C
m
K
�•
�
p- o CD
CD
� o•
�(D
CD
o'
m
— �.
►o
C
o'
0 0
0
o
o C) 0
c
o o
o' � °
o
p'
Q
n
cD
ti
N
�.
CD CD
•J
CD
Cl.
°m
C
m
K
CD
C7 �
z
LWz
C) CD o
O o �.
c0
C-D
c
o o
o' � °
P 4h CD
p
o
o
o o a,
o
�:
CD
CD �:l
C
C
p
G.
oCD
0' 0
°. o a
--.i
(DD
° p' ci`c
lt�
n�3' D
cn
°
CD
r+ CD (D o
b o cD
i
c
o
r+
c
o a `° °
a. P
•� • °o o
c
�, CD C�
CD
U)q
�*
o
'Cl ° C 'o
�O
. p
OTI
a
r+ °
p, CD
z D
C43 cn
O CD a:
o
. , a, fD
CD
ID ° °
�c o °
0 ?t
a,
-
�.
�
C:)
o
CD
¢, o
O (D
CD 0
f6D N -h
(D
cn
CD
GQ
C���
5p-
o a o
CD
Y, cD
'
o '- h
cro �
a
o
C
w
.o
M
w
w
w
N
p
e-r•
°m
C
m
K
00 o\
O O
h-+ pp r-
d
y `7
rn
rn
rn
0
0
0\
rn
cy,
W
W
O
CN
C�
a
CD
C �
o
\1O
�1
W
o
R. O
J
0
o
O O
h-+ pp r-
d
y `7
� d
�
-Qj y
�-h
o °
P CD
CD 0
CD
o
a
CD
CD
o
°O �.
°
W
o
R. O
w
CD
0
o
0
a
.�� O' r'� ..
•�
A.
•
a . CD
�'.
CD
r° uq z y
o
CD
CD
�up
°
cn
CD
0
oq 'CD
�v0a
Hwy 0°'�
Q 0
rD
a.
-Qj y
C� z
P CD
CD 0
CD
n
a
CD
�' co
°O �.
°
o
o
R. O
CD n
CD �-
0
a
.�� O' r'� ..
•�
A.
(7Q
a . CD
un 6 �
r° uq z y
o
o
CD
�up
°
cn
CD
0
oq 'CD
�v0a
Hwy 0°'�
Q 0
CD Qn
r`S' '.3
P CD G O QQ ��++,
CD
t C -r
U r t
C
CD
CD CD
It
CD
� ° o
�;
cD
o
co � �
o. ° CD
o ~o
o °
�
t
CD
O ...
CD
o
n �.
CD
Qn
o 0
p CD cro
Y
CD
p
�34
81
cD °
CD 0
0
C) P+
a
o caD
o i
�. �
�'
CD
>v pa
•� cn
0
°
. . p�
CD �
R
CD O �, C
cn 0 CD
R. C
CD � �
CD
� �
� N
°
�•
�,
cn 6. CD ro R
•
�•
CD
O
a
tZ CD
CD
y rD :°
' `�
m
o CL
as
'D
cD
coo 0 CD
a n
R. CD w ¢�
_
CD n
>y O
CD
.�� CD
C7
•
'r3
cn p CD
a" CD
�
CD
A.
= En
0
� cn � G � R
W'.
p CD
>y
R.
a; o
o o a
n
CD •�
0 0 -' O
G. O
ID
°o
CD
m °, CD vim, (D
cn
cn �°
W
W
W
N
N
N
N
N
N
~
N
N
N
N
N
p�� M� O �° pp p'�.�• cu
°
P f° r* ° °. y
D• n co i
Ln `h N w P 10
�* Ot �, C CD Q,1 P Gn rr O P.
H CD O Cp
CD
p o CD �. c°
w W C. ° CD m
I w�w °' y' a, ra
W G
° .� (� ° ip a ° O m M
y o C, P <. G p
O p' p O b''
CD
o o
N n
rn O C fn rt O OID
N K M .CD w w
G ���o o�^
�Tl m d 0 to a
bs
„
Y
ro
$1
'�
5
b
r
o
O
o
o
p0
�O
N
o
15
O
O
O
°
°
O
co
(D
O
C
�
.
�
a O
-L
P.
P.
�
4
COD
.w
,
ry
CD
EOA
rn
�N
O%
N
n
CA O
con
H �
o'
o
0
� c
C.
y G
y �
v C
y
s.
y
7 P
y�
n �
Y p
c
n
P
yco
17
y
Y
Y C
D n
D
n r
y �
U
i�
n �
9 �
7 F
Q
W
N
N
N
z
0
— — — — — — — — — — 7
q 1.
q ;. _;� a;
A,
r.�
O
V)
O
CD
G
O
0
a+ a+ cr IN f5�
F"
z
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
|
��
�� \
��
��
��
m
C D
��
E
0
q \ ) \ )
9 R * &