HomeMy Public PortalAboutARPB 04 26 2012 (limited backup)CHAIRMAN:
VICE CHAIRMAN:
BOARD MEMBER:
ALTERNATE MEMBER
Robert Ganger
Scott Morgan
Paul A. Lyons, Jr.
Thomas Smith
Malcolm Murphy
Amanda Jones
Thomas M. Stanley
April 20, 2012
REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING BEING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON
THURSDAY, APRIL, 26, 2012 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD,
GULF STREAM, FLORIDA.
AGENDA
I. Call to Order.
II. Roll Call.
III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 3-22-12.
IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items.
V. Announcements.
A. Meeting Dates
1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
a. May 24, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M.
b. June 28, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M.
C. July 26, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M.
d. No meeting in August
e. September 27, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M.
VI. Reorganization of ARPB.
A. Swearing in of re -appointed members
B. Election of Chairman
C. Election of Vice Chairman
VII. Items Related to Previous Approvals.
A. Change of roof tile at 554 Palm Way submitted by Mark Marsh
as Agent for Mr. & Mrs. James Davis.
VIII. Items by Staff.
A. Proposed Zoning Code Changes
1. Section 70-71, Floor Area Ratio
2. Section 70-68, Lot Size & Dimensional Requirements
IX. Items by Board Members.
X. Public.
XI. Adjournment.
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, F.S.S.
MINUTES 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 Hearing
Vice -Chairman Morgan moved and Mr. Murphy seconded
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
-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
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
adjacent 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 neighborhood
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
and reads, "Streets and vehicul
efficient access for municipal
waste removal. AS suc
or "Y" turnaround shal
Minor if other municip
Minor confirmed that,
the safe and efficient
chain of logic between
that goal is restated
Criteria G, which addresses hammerheads,
r use easements shall provide safe and
er_vices, such as fire, police and solid
d streets and easements ending in a "T"
ermitted." Chairman Ganger asked Mr.
alizies nave similar language in their code. Mr.
and he said it is tied to municipal services for
provision of those services. He said there is a
the Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and he said
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
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.
With 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.
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
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
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
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.
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 66-369, 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
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
addressing boxyness in our FAR.
VIII. Public. There were no items by the Public.
IX. Adjournment. Chairman Ganger adjourned the meeting at
approximately 10:20 A.M.
Gail C. Abbale
Administrative Assistant