The URL can be used to link to this page

2015.07.08_PB_Minutes_Regular -•016 N C,t�� '•m TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH C.1 4r'• I MINUTES OF THE 'h ' • .. ''• PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING Wednesday,July 8, 2015 9:30 AM Members Present: Chair Carol Stern; Vice Chair Ilyne Mendelson; Board Member Ronald Clark; Board Member Stephen Golding; Board Member William Svenstrup and Board Member Charles Shane; Board Member Harvey Mart. Also Attending: Town Attorney Brian Shutt; Building Official Michael Desorcy; Town Manager Beverly Brown; Commissioner Louis Stern; Commissioner Rhoda Zelniker, Town Clerk Valerie Oakes, Deputy Town Clerk Patrice Robinson and members of the Public. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Stern called the Regular Meeting to order at 9:30 AM in the Commission Chambers. Chair Stern expressed thanks to everyone for their prayers and kind wishes during her recovery. Roll call was taken by Town Clerk Valerie Oakes followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. ADDITIONS,DELETIONS OR ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: By consensus,the agenda was accepted as presented. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND REOUESTS: No public comments and/or requests. 4. PRESENTATIONS: No presentations. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: • February 18, 2015 —Regular Meeting Chair Stern called for a motion to approve the February 18, 2015 minutes. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 8, 2015 Paae 2 of 30 MOTION: Member Shane moved to approve the minutes of February 18, 2015. Member Svenstruu seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 6. OLD BUSINESS: No old business. 7. NEW BUSINESS: A) Application No. 37238—4308 Intracoastal Drive; JMW Florida Properties CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STORY, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE OF APPROXIMATELY 10,446 SQUARE FEET IN THE RS (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONING DISTRICT. APPLICANT: Ed Clement Chair Stern read the application title into the record. The board members were asked to disclose any ex parte communication(s). None were disclosed. Town Clerk Valerie Oakes swore-in all those who would testify for all agenda items. Staffs Presentation: Building Official Mike Desorcy —This application is for site plan approval for a single family home at 4308 Intracoastal Drive. The applicant has submitted a site plan review to construct a two story single family residence approximately 10,000 square feet, 8,400 square feet under air and approximately 950 square feet for balconies, entries and patios. The Building Department has reviewed the submitted documents and found that the zoning and design meets the ordinance requirements of the Town of Highland Beach. Board's Questions: Member Shane asked if there were issues concerning the height and elevation. B.O. Desorcy—The original design showed the building to be a little too high. The plans were sent back to the architect and revisions were made to reduce the building height. Member Clark asked for information concerning the swimming pool and setbacks. Member Svenstrun asked if the swimming pool required a separate permit. B.O. Desorcy — The swimming pool contractor will come in as subcontractor unless the owner requires that they get their own permit. Member Stern asked if the new construction is better for erosion. B.O. Desorcy —There was an issue on the big set of plans with the swimming pool deck to be built over the seawall cap. I asked the contractor and architect if the deck was going to impact the subject property or the adjacent properties. The response was that the pool deck grade height is visually unobtrusive to neighbors, does not create a visual impact, does not extend pass the building side setbacks, and the pool deck slope gradient is preferred to resist erosion. Vice Chair Mendelson asked if the architect's response was proof enough or does it need to be more specific. B.O. Desorcy— I did not see the calculations where he arrived at his opinion. The Board can request the Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 8,2015 Paze 3 of 30 calculations. The Board has approved similar decks and the decks have been built in conjunction with the seawall cap. A house across the street had the same situation in which they extended the pool deck into the side setback and the architect showed that it did not impact the property or the neighbor's property. Architect Quinn Miklos— We are asking to do the same design that has been done three times on Intracoastal Drive. The code recognizes there are certain situations for the 5 foot area buffer between the setback and the seawall cap. The main concern is due to the elevation of the homes for flood plains and the seawall cap having a fixed height. Since we are raising the house to a certain level the gradient slope between those two levels is really the concern. When building a structural slab if you have erosion between the five foot area and the seawall cap we don't really mind because we are building a structural slab that will never erode and therefore you eliminate the strong slope that you would have from your pool to the seawall cap. The structural issue is allowing for erosion that will occur over time between the seawall cap and the five foot area. I have pictures from 4230 that show a similar solution. It has been a solution that people have used over time. Member Clark asked how the seawall will be fortified. Architect Miklos said a seawall is embedded to the derm with a certain structure. It's only fixed on one end, so when you roll over or take the structural slab and go over the cap of it, now it's pinned, fixed at the bottom and fixed at the top. Any structural movement you would get on the seawall cap becomes almost inconsequential because you're dealing with the thickness of a seawall panel. When you see older seawalls with a horizontal line, it is because it's in torsion. We are eliminating that by rolling the structural slab over the top, pinned at the bottom, pinned at the top. We have eliminated any erosion concerns by eliminating the slope. Older seawalls sometimes have a big hole on the landward side of it which occurs because you're losing dirt from the t-bracing and you're eroding right through it. This is such a strong fix that you're never having a problem with the seawall. Member Clark asked if there was any vibration that would affect the seawall from use of the deck in any way. Architect Miklos responded no. Concrete is such a perfect material in that it is so dumb and heavy it takes out all of the vibration out of it. It has the benefit of mass and weight to it. Vice Chair Mendelson asked if it will be done the same as all the others. Architect Miklos responded yes. Chair Stern asked if there were any further questions; none were received. Chair Stern asked if the applicant had any rebuttal; none was received. Chair Stern asked if there were any comments from the public; none were received. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 8, 2015 Pau 4 of 30 MOTION: Member Clark moved to approve the plan as submitted. Member Shane seconded the motion. Board Discussion: None. ROLL CALL: Member Clark - Yes Member Shane - Yes Member Svenstrup - Yes Member Mart - Yes Vice Chair Mendelson - Yes Member Golding - Yes Chair Stern - Yes Motion carried 7/0. B) Application No. 37703—4426 Tranquility Drive; Tranquility Development CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION A TWO STORY, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE OF APPROXIMATELY 7,816 SQUARE FEET IN THE RS (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONING DISTRICT. APPLICANT: Richard Jones Architecture Chair Stern read the application title into the record. The board members were asked to disclose any ex parte communication(s). None were disclosed. Staffs Presentation: Building Official Mike Desorcy — The second item on the agenda for your consideration is approval for construction of a single family residence at 4426 Tranquility Drive in the residential single family zoning district. It's a two story single family at approximately 7,800 square feet total, 2,000 square feet unconditioned, almost 5,700 square feet air conditioned and 1,200 square feet of entry and loggia. The building department has reviewed the construction documents submitted to the Town and found that the plans are in compliance with the Town's Zoning Code of Ordinances. Chair Stern asked if it was a corner property. B.O. Desorcy—No, it is in the middle. It's a squared lot. It is between two other houses. Chair Stern said when she went to look she could not find the address. Member Shane — There is a number discrepancy as the numbers don't line up right somehow. B.O. Desorcy — It is at the south end of Tranquility. When you go around the corner headed west it is the first vacant lot on the left. Chair Stern asked if there were any further questions; none were received. Chair Stern asked if the applicant had any rebuttal; none was received. Chair Stern asked if there were any comments from the public; none were received. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 8,2015 Paae 5 of 30 MOTION: Member Clark moved to approve the plan as submitted. Member Mart seconded the motion. Board Discussion: None. ROLL CALL: Member Clark - Yes Member Shane - Yes Member Svenstrup - Yes Member Mart - Yes Vice Chair Mendelson - Yes Member Golding - Yes Chair Stern - Yes Motion carried 7/0. C) Application No. 37877—3833 S. Ocean Blvd.; Andrew Robins CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE OF APPROXIMATELY 11,978 SQUARE FEET IN THE RS (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONING DISTRICT. APPLICANT: Al Giachetti Chair Stern read the application title into the record. The board members were asked to disclose any ex parte communication(s). None were disclosed. Staffs Presentation: Building Official Mike Desorcy— The third item on the agenda for your consideration is an application to construct a four story single family residence which includes a basement or the unusable section of the building. Three stories are for living, approximately 12,000 square feet total, unconditioned floor space is 3,500 square feet. Almost 8,500 square feet is under air. The town has reviewed the plans and found that the plans are in compliance with the Town of Highland Beach Code of Ordinances. The only thing that we are waiting for is the notice to proceed from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). The town has sent a no objection letter to the state and we are just waiting for a response. Chair Stern asked if there were any questions. Vice Chair Mendelson asked if the garage was underground or above ground and if it was usable space. B.O. Desorcy—It's below the dune. Vice Chair Mendelson—So I won't see it if I drive by it when it's built? B.O. Desorcy — You'll see it. If you look at the front elevation page it shows the elevation at zero finished floor slab and it shows the dune. You can't see it on the left but you can see it on the right there is a solid line; it's second to the last page. Vice Chair Mendelson — Second to the last page, yes. B.O. Desorcy - Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 8,2015 Page 6 of 30 You can see it at the right elevation left elevation front elevation. You can see where the top of the dune is. Vice Chair Mendelson—Yes. B.O. Desorcv—The garage is most of it I'd say 80% of it is below that level, the dune level. Chair Stern— Below the dune. B.O. Desorcv— Well the whole area on the beach is a dune you have a high point excuse me a low point on the ocean side landward side by AIA you have a low point and then you have the dune. Vice Chair Mendelson — Does that comply with the code that it's below ground? B.O. Desorcv— Yes. Vice Chair Mendelson—Okay. Because you said most of it is below the dune. Does the code require for it all to be? B.O. Desorcv—Well if you look at the illustration, 80% of the garage is below the finished grade top of the dune. Vice Chair Mendelson—My question is does the code require a 100% of it to be. B.O. Desorcv — No. Vice Chair Mendelson — Okay. Because I was reading the code and couldn't see any percentages. B.O. Desorcv — No there are no percentages, nothing is specifically required; the garage or the unusable space be it a specific depth below the finished grade or dune. It's not specific in the code. Vice Chair Mendelson — So the height restriction can start when the garage on top of the garage even if the garage is above ground because that would add to the height of the building, yes?B.O. Desorcv—The FDEP establishes a benchmark. The state will tell the property owner, the building department, contractor and architects what the finished floor benchmark level will be and it will be in numbers. This one here is referenced zero. That's what the FDEP establishes you can't live below that level. For coastal construction requirements, you can build below that but you can't live in there. Vice Chair Mendelson — Can I ask the attorney is that how you read our code? Town Attorney — Before the meeting, the Building Official showed me the section of the code that he's referring to. The ground elevation appears to be set by FDEP and that's what our code provides for. If we have that elevation from FDEP and if he's taking the measurement from that elevation then I think we are in compliance with our code. But that was just me glancing at it five minutes before the meeting started. Vice Chair Mendelson—Do we have the measurements from FDEP so that we know where to start? B.O. Desorcv— It's not 100% certain at this point because we don't have a letter to proceed or a notice to proceed from FDEP, but I don't believe that it's going to be any different than what the coastal engineer and the architects have sent to the state. Vice Chair Mendelson—Okay. Except that our code says that we have to know exactly what it is so we measure the height. How can we approve it until they get that letter so that we can have the means to measure it? B.O. Desorcv—You can stipulate in your vote that we have to adhere to the state's requirement that the house be built at that specific level. Town Attorney Shutt— I think that we would definitely at the minimum have a condition on there that you know we would have to obtain all of the approvals and letters that we are waiting from other governmental entities and that no building permits be issued until we obtain those letters if you want to do that. Chair Stern—You're saying that there can be no living space down there, that it can just be a garage. Is that what I thought I heard you say? B.O. Desorcv— Yeah it's not considered usable space. Chair Stern— You can't put a bedroom down there? B.O. Desorcv — It's not living space. It's not inhabitable space. You can park a car down there. You can put a laundry room down there. You can put a gym down there or storage. Chair Stern — But it cannot be a bedroom? B.O. Desorcv—No living space, you can't eat down there, can't sleep down there. Chair Stern — No kitchen, okay. Vice Chair Mendelson — I'm reading the code I think that you're speaking about this code section that talks about east of SR AIA. B.O. Desorcv — That's correct. In code section 30-68 (u)(3) east of AIA, for all parcels east of state road AIA, finished floor elevation shall be at least the design breaking wave crest or wave approach Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 8,2015 Page 7 of 30 as superimposed on the storm surge with dynamic wave setup of a 100-year storm elevation as determined by FDEP. It then refers you to the figure 30-5 which shows you FDEP established permanent structural elevations which we are waiting for that will be in the notice to proceed and then it shows you where the usable area is in the building at finished floor and then the height varies. There is little note here that the height varies depending on the dune. Vice Chair Mendelson— It says the finished floor elevation shall not exceed the average height of the dune on which the structure is to be located, so when you said 80% of it wasn't, I guess you'd have to calculate if the average height was consistent with the shall not exceed the average height so you'd have to look for the average height of that dune and see if the whole thing didn't exceed that as I read this. B.O. Desorcv — Right. Vice Chair Mendelson — And then the next part of the equation seems to be that the garage can only be 9 feet high. I couldn't see a height elevation on the plan for the garage. B.O. Desorcv— That's correct. The finished ceiling height in the garage from the floor of the garage to the ceiling is 9 feet. Vice Chair Mendelson —And is that 9 feet because I couldn't see on these plans? B.O. Desorcv —No. It doesn't show that because there's space between the ceiling and the slab. The finished floor slab above for mechanical equipment. Vice Chair Mendelson — Right but that shows that here too that's 30 inches so if you look at the little picture the garage itself to the ceiling is not supposed to be more than 9 feet and then there is 30 inches max for that other stuff. B.O. Desorcv — For the mechanical equipment. Vice Chair Mendelson— So I want to know if those plans comply with that. B.O. Desorcv — Yes. Vice Chair Mendelson — They do? B.O. Desorcv—Yes. Vice Chair Mendelson—Because I didn't see that on the plans. Member Mart asked if the parapet on the roof exceeds the limit. B.O. Desorcv — No. It says four feet. Member Clark — I'm not sure if this is a house or an auto dealership. Do we have restrictions on garage doors, I notice these are all glass? B.O. Desorcv—The town used to have an architectural review board and an aesthetics committee that was eliminated years ago so we can't require that the residents or the builders use a specific color on their buildings paint or roofing materials as long as the garage door complies with the impact. It's not in the purview of the building department to determine if it's beautiful or not. Vice Chair Mendelson— On that plan where the garage doors are, in the front elevation, I can't see any height there, I see to the finished floor slab and then I see elevation 10 feet, is that the elevation to the finished floor slab? B.O. Desorcv — It's minus 10 feet so they're not exceeding it. Vice Chair Mendelson — If it's 9 feet then how are they not exceeding it? B.O. Desorcv — Okay, from zero, I'm looking at the front elevation, well there's a couple different numbers here, from finished floor is zero, finished floor below in the garage area is 10 feet so it's minus 10 feet, so it will be at least 9 feet high. Vice Chair Mendelson— But I thought the maximum was 9 feet. B.O. Desorcv — Maximum 9 feet. Vice Chair Mendelson—In the picture it was 9 feet on the rule. B.O. Desorcv—He's allowed up to 30 inches for mechanicals. He does not have to utilize the whole 30 inches. He could use one foot. Vice Chair Mendelson — Okay. So are you saying it's 10 feet to the next floor or 10 feet to the top of the garage, because then there would be 30 more inches, and I don't see the numbers there on this plan. B.O. Desorcv — Yeah. I have to refer to the big plans. Member Shane — You're asking if the gross distance between the finished floor slab to the garage and the finished floor slab for the first floor is 10 feet or Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 8,2015 Page 8 of 30 10 feet plus 30 inches? Vice Chair Mendelson— Well I'm asking, it could be 10 feet, the rule was 9 feet to the ceiling of the garage and then another 30 inches to the bottom of the first floor. And I can't read the numbers here to figure if that has been satisfied. Member Shane—I'm with you. At this time, B.O. Desorcv reviewed the large plans. Chair Stern asked if Mr. Giachetti could help answer some of the questions. B.O. Desorcv — Maybe Mr. Giachetti can answer the question about the design. I'm showing 10 feet from the garage slab to the finished floor. So at 9 foot you have a foot between where the ceiling and the next floor. Applicant Al Giachetti- I'm a resident here in Highland Beach, 1118 Bel Air Drive. I'm a general contractor. I've been building in this town for about 25 years. I've built several houses on the ocean. To answer your question, the 10 foot shows from floor to the next floor. I'm allowed up to 30 inches for mechanicals, so, technically that garage ceiling might only be 7 1/2 feet if I can't fit all my mechanicals within the one foot. You have to realize that I still have to frame the floor systems. It's going to be poured concrete and then I have to leave enough room to do my mechanicals, my ductwork and my plumbing from up above. Vice Chair Mendelson—My only question is the way I read the code it's 9 feet and then 30 inches. You can have all that you're entitled to but it can't be 9 % feet and then 12 inches, it doesn't work that way. Mr. Giachetti — That's the code. You're approving the plans and the plans show that it's 10 feet from the garage elevation to the next floor elevation. Vice Chair Mendelson—Right. Except that doesn't then tell me that it definitely fits into the code. Mr. Giachetti—Well no, if you go by your code and you're saying you're allowed 30 inches and I'm stating that I am building a house that is 10 foot floor to floor then I am accepting the fact that my garage might be only 7 1/2 feet. I'm bound by the plan not just to say I'm now going to make it 11 feet when the plan shows 10 feet. You're approving the plans, you're approving to what I'm building to. Vice Chair Mendelson — Right. Except that right now it just says 10 feet and it doesn't show that the top to the ceiling of the garage is only 9 feet. It doesn't show that. So what I'm saying is that the plan should show 9 feet to the top of the garage and then you can use your 36 inches so that's all I'm saying is that the plans should be revised to show that plus I think we also need and I'm going to make a motion soon to say that we need to have that letter from the FDEP so that we can make the proper calculations. Mr. Giachetti — Of course. If I may, just explain the procedure, because building on the ocean is obviously very complicated. We are bound by a few things, we are bound by what FDEP says, as the Building Official was saying, they have their 100-year storm and the maximum wave height and that's how they give us the finished floor elevation. We are also bound by cut and fill, we are not allowed to remove one grain of sand from the lot so all of these things come into determination to how we figure the height of where the garage would be and the dune would be. We use a whole team of civil engineers and environmental engineers, some of them used to work for FDEP and know the procedure. Normally we have that permit before we even attempt to come to the town, but this owner is a little anxious and he waited originally for some approvals, so we expect to get the FDEP approval on July 27th. We expect it to match exactly what the plans are so I would recommend if you vote for this and you vote to approve it that you vote saying the final plans when submitted after the FDEP approval permit will reflect the 9 foot to be a maximum and that we verify that the plans match the FDEP approval. Which of course we will be willing to accept those conditions. Vice Chair Mendelson — I hear your Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 8,2015 Paze 9 of 30 suggestion, but that probably won't be my motion but okay. Mr. Giachetti — Okay. Are there any other questions? Chair Stern asked if there were any further questions. Member Shane — I have a question for the building department. We have nothing in our code that refers to the garage doors being opaque or clear or anything of the like? B.O. Desorcv —No sir. Member Shane — We all know how garages tend to start out beautiful and neat and clean and end up looking less than that from the street. B.O. Desorcv — If they are not maintained. Member Shane — We have nothing to prevent us from looking into a garage that has boxes or storage or who knows what it could be. B.O. Desorcv — That's not something that the building department would address. That would be something that the Commission would have to address via the Planning Board if you wanted to place restrictions on building materials or building products to be used in the construction of these houses and these other buildings. The Building Department looks at it from a structural point of view if it withstands the lateral loads of Category 4 hurricanes. We are not really restricted to the types of materials that are used to achieve those design loads. Chapter 17 of the Town's code it's the nuisance code. If it tends to annoy the residents, then it could be considered a nuisance violation and then we would have to address that. Member Shane — Why does that not fit this issue exactly? B.O. Desorcv—You are just one voice. Member Shane—Well I'm throwing it out there for my committee. Vice Chair Mendelson— So you are saying that we have the ability to say no to a building plan at this department that we feel could create a nuisance to the neighbors, is that what you are saying? B.O. Desorcv— I don't think that the code talks about that. I think that it has to be a nuisance. Vice Chair Mendelson — Okay. So you're saying first you have to paint it polka dot and someone has to complain. B.O. Desorcv — Correct. Vice Chair Mendelson—And then the building department can tell you to repaint it. B.O. Desorcv—If we take them to the Board. Vice Chair Mendelson—And we decided it was actually a nuisance then the building department would issue a corrective action of taking away the polka dots. That's the procedure? B.O. Desorcv — That's the procedure. Vice Chair Mendelson— So in this case you're saying they get to build it with the garage doors the way they are and if someone complains that it's messy and they don't like it and it's a nuisance then you'd come back to this Board, we would say yes it's a nuisance and you would correct it by saying put different doors up. B.O. Desorcv — It doesn't' come back to this Board. Vice Chair Mendelson — Where does it come back to? Chair Stern — The Commission. B.O. Desorcv — If it was considered a nuisance then like the gentleman suggested if the resident piled stuff up against the glass of his garage doors, it never opened, he was using it for storage instead of showing everyone in town that he as a Rolls Royce, a Bentley, or a Ferrari if all of this stuff was stacked up against the door and you could see it from the street that would be considered a nuisance. Then the Code Enforcement Department would take the appropriate action. Vice Chair Mendelson — So it's Code Enforcement. B.O. Desorcv — It's a code enforcement action. It would be a nuisance violation. At 10:17 a.m., Chair Stern announced that the Board would take a five minutes break. Town Clerk Oakes reminded the Board that there will be no discussions during the break regarding any of the agenda items. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 8,2015 Pate 10 of 30 The meeting reconvened at 10:19 a.m. Member Shane — Does it present a traffic hazard driving down AIA? B.O. Desorcv — I really can't answer that. Member Shane — Does it potentially present a traffic hazard? B.O. Desorcv — I, it's something that I can't answer. I don't know if will be. Member Shane— I'm trying to find a way to change it. You know that right? B.O. Desorcv—That would have to be done through a process to get the ordinance changed. Member Shane — Just looking to see if there was a way prior to that time. Town Attorney Shutt — I would advise that Mr. Desorcy can't opine on whether it would create a traffic hazard or not and I would advise him not to opine on that. Chair Stern — So what would our step be? Vice Chair Mendelson — I'd like to make a motion. Town Attorney Shutt—Beforehand, if the Board is finished with their discussion, open it for public hearing and then you can make your motion. Chair Stern asked if there was anyone from the public that would like to make a comment. There were none. Mr. Giachetti — Specifically to address your concerns because you are a little sensitive to the situation. It's not a speck home. I am building it for a single man who does have a car collection and happens to be just immaculate. It's no different than if you had a glass door, you have no guarantee that somebody's not going to put something in front of their windows. It's just like anything else. Member Shane—I am a classic car enthusiast. I will probably love his collection. I just simply don't think it's appropriate to show it to the passers-by through the glass garage doors. Mr. Giachetti — If it's a perfect garage then what's the difference if he parks the cars inside the garage or if he parks them in the driveway? Are we going to have a code that says you have to park your cars in the garage because it's a nuisance if there is an exotic car? Member Shane — We have window treatments that are required because we don't want to look into people's houses and I don't want to look into his garage. Mr. Giachetti — You have to understand. This guy spends $100,000 in taxes if that's the way he wants to live, it's America. I think he should be able to live that way. Member Shane—If that's the code then he'll be able to. Chair Stern asked if the public had any comments; none were received. MOTION: Vice Chair Mendelson moved that we don't take any action on this today and that we wait until the FDEP calculations come in so we can see exactly how high it should be from the code calculation. If it's really coming on July twenty whatever you said the next meeting will be like 10 days later so it shouldn't be too much of a delay and at that time I'd like to also make the motion that the garage be reflected to show the 9 feet and then the extra 30 inches. Town Attorney Shutt— I guess if I could clarify this, you would like to postpone this to a date certain? Do you know what that date is? Vice Chair Mendelson— The next meeting is the second Wednesday in August. Town Attorney Shutt — So you would like to postpone to a date certain of August 12th at 9:30 a.m. and have this come back and have Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 8,2015 Paye 11 of 30 the applicant provide the appropriate approvals from FDEP and also the clarification on the drawings to show that the maximum height on the garage from finished floor to finished ceiling does not exceed 9 feet. Vice Chair Mendelson—Correct. Board Discussion: Member Shane seconded the motion. Chair Stern opened the item for discussion. Member Mart — Do the drawings right now reflect the finished floor to the finished ceiling on the garage level? Mr. Giachetti — It shows it in a very specific way sir because it shows finished floor to finished floor is 10 feet, I have a 10 inch hollow coil with a 4 inch topping, so if you do the math it's 8'8" now. Member Mart— I understand that but you are not specifically showing a dimension on the finished floor to finished ceiling in the garage level. Mr. Giachetti — It shows you have a floor system that is 14 inches. Member Mart — I understand that but sometimes you need clarification by the architect that will show the finished floor to finished ceiling on an architectural plan. Mr. Giachetti— If you give me a moment, I can check that. B.O. Desorcy—It's not there. Member Svenstrun — I was wondering if this Board is concerned with the interior of the home or the interior of the building itself. I don't know whether we are approving a site plan itself or are we approving individual ceiling to floor dimensions? I would like clarification. Mr. Giachetti—Right. Vice Chair Mendelson — I wanted to make sure that we are exactly following the code with respect to these underground garages for the total height of the building. I think that it will continue to come up in this town and I want to make sure that we are following the code so that we don't have any bad precedents. Member Mart—The FDEP could say that they don't give them enough height to build that first floor with the understanding of mechanical which could come in at 7'6" because of FDEP so that's the problem, we don't have the FDEP number and you could be restricted. Member Mart — It won't happen. Mr. Giachetti — The Building Official is going to make sure that it applies to the code. What I'm asking for is not another delay for my client, make it conditional so the Building Official will make sure that the final permit has your concerns represented and it does match FDEP. It will show 9 foot ceiling height in the garage because it takes about a year for a permit to get to this point. This gentleman pays 50, 60 thousand dollars on a year, a hundred thousand dollars for a FDEP permit, he's anxious to get started and the delay is two weeks. I've had a lot of times in the summer that you don't have a quorum to vote and that puts it off for another month so if you would, I would like to accept your conditions and that the Building Official makes sure that it matches the codes and you put your approval as per the final FDEP approval, which we all have to go by anyhow. That would be appreciated. And I'm sure my client will appreciate it also. Vice Chair Mendelson—Here's my problem with that and that. If it comes back exactly as you think it might and I'm sure that is a possibility, that's not a problem. However, if it comes back differently, I think that this Commission or this Board has the right and the obligation to look at what those differences are and see how it's going to effect the whole thing. So that's why I want it to come back so that we can see if it is exactly how it came back as you submitted it. Mr. Giachetti — But you have a building official to make sure that it does. If it doesn't he'd say I can't approve it because it's not per the approval and it has Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 8,2015 Pate 12 of 30 to go back to the Board. Member Clark - Yeah, it has to come back if it doesn't meet it. Mr. Giachetti — You're right. You're asking somebody to spend another month of taxes and everything else. Vice Chair Mendelson — It's ten days. Mr. Giachetti — It's not 10 days because the Building Official can start looking at the plans right now. Vice Chair Mendelson — If the letter comes back on the 27th (which you don't know if it's going to come back on the 27th) and we meet on the 9th or the 12th or whatever it is the same thing. Mr. Giachetti — If it comes back on the 10th, my client has to wait another month for you to review again. Member Clark—I fully agree with putting a condition on this that says it has to meet it if it doesn't meet it then it has to come back to the board. The Building Official has the responsibility to bring it back. So if it meets it then I don't see any purpose in delaying the action on here with regard to the 10 foot. The 10 foot is on the plan that's the space from floor the bottom of the floor going up; the code is 9 foot on the ceiling it doesn't have to be on the plan that ceiling could end up being 7 feet okay depending on what he had to do in construction. In terms of inspection and like it's the building official's responsibility to make sure that that ceiling is no more than 9 feet in the process. The allowance of 9 foot plus 30 inches is more than the 10 feet that is already on the plan. Okay so you have a 10 foot space but he can only have a 9 foot ceiling max. That ceiling could be 8 '/2, could be 8 foot, or whatever it is when you're in the building process. He doesn't know what he's going to have put up there yet at the top of the ceiling in order to reduce it. It's the Building Official's responsibility to make sure that it's no more than 9 feet in the inspection process and in the building process. So 10 foot on the plan is perfectly fine. Vice Chair Mendelson — Aren't we approving a plan right now? Member Clark— Yes. Vice Chair Mendelson— I mean isn't that part of what we are approving? Member Clark — No it's not. What you are approving is the space from floor to the bottom of the floor. How it comes out in the construction process that could change I mean you could make it say 9 foot but what are you going to want them to do when he has to come back and say I could only use 8 foot of the 9 foot. There's no exception to it that's the way it's done in building. Vice Chair Mendelson — I think that they can show that it's not more than 9 foot. Mr. Giachetti—It will show that on the final drawing, that is no problem, I accept that as a condition. Vice Chair Mendelson — Okay well let's put it in as a condition. I would be willing to put that in as a condition for the final plan because we are approving something that has that in it. AMENDED MOTION: Chair Stern — How do you want to make this motion? Vice Chair Mendelson — Okay I will amend my motion to provide that the 10 feet that it shows right now in the garage has to be no more than 9 foot in the final plan as approved by the building department. My motion still is to wait until we get the FDEP letter. Chair Stern — So you want to approve this motion with conditions for the FDEP to come back? Vice Chair Mendelson — Okay my motion is that I want to wait and not approve it until the letter comes back. Town Clerk Oakes — So you're not amending your motion, you're keeping the same motion that you originally stated? Vice Chair Mendelson— Right, except for the 10 feet, I'm amending that part of the motion. I would say that once the letter comes back they can leave the 10 foot on the plan as long as Mike makes sure that it's no more than 9 foot on the final building plans. Town Clerk Oakes—Okay but you still want to postpone final approval until the August 12th meeting? Vice Chair Mendelson — Yes. And you know if we don't approve that I get it that's the motion. Chair Stern — Do we have a second? Town Clerk Oakes — Member Shane do you want to second her amendment? Member Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 8, 2015 Page 13 of 30 Shane — I think there is confusion here. I think you failed to clarify what you want is 9 feet maximum from the finished floor of the garage to the finished ceiling of the garage not to the underside of the next deck and you didn't clarify that. Vice Chair Mendelson— Right, you're correct that's right that's what the code says. Member Shane — Now the motion reads, correct me if I'm wrong, subject to the approval you don't want to approve anything at this meeting and with the approval of the FDEP however the plan at such time must reflect no more than 9 feet from the finished garage floor to the finished garage ceiling. Vice Chair Mendelson — That's correct. Member Shane — That should be the corrected motion. Correct? Vice Chair Mendelson — That's my corrected motion. Town Clerk Oakes — Is there any further discussion before I take a roll call vote? Town Attorney Shutt — And you have seconded it as well, you second that motion? Member Shane—I haven't. I clarified it for the Board. Town Attorney Shutt—Then we will need a second. Chair Stern—Anybody like to second that motion? Motion died due to the lack of a second. MOTION: Member Svenstrup moved to accept the plans as presented with the addition of acceptance of the governmental organization letter to be received and that it only, at that time, be approved that Mike Desorcy can then issue permits. Town Attorney Shutt — So your motion is to go ahead and approve it subject to Mike receiving the other appropriate governmental letters or approvals and also the clarification that it meets the code on the 9 foot finished floor garage to finished floor ceiling? Member SvengnW—Yes that's it. Member Golding seconded the motion. Board Discussion: None. ROLL CALL: Member Svenstrup - Yes Member Golding - Yes Member Shane - Yes Member Mart - Yes Member Clark - Yes Vice Chair Mendelson -No Chair Stern - Yes Motion carried 6/1. Member Shane — At what point do we make a motion to request that the Town Commission review the issue of transparent garage doors? Town Clerk Oakes —You can discuss that at the end of all of our agenda items. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 8,2015 Page 14 of 30 D) Application No. 37702—3621 S. Ocean Blvd.; 3621 South Ocean Blvd.,LLC CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN COMMISSION FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF TWO, THREE UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDINGS, FOUR STORIES IN HEIGHT, CONSISTING OF SIX NEW TOWNHOUSE RESIDENCES IN THE RML (RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY) ZONING DISTRICT. APPLICANT: Richard Jones Architecture Chair Stern read the application title into the record. The board members were asked to disclose any ex parte communication(s). None were disclosed. Staffs Presentation: Building Official Mike Desorcv — For your consideration today is the proposed construction of two four story townhouse buildings, three units a piece. The total floor calculations are approximately 6,200 square feet usable for each unit unconditioned floor space 1,100 square feet at 5,100 square feet under air. The plans show that each unit having a plunge pool at the second floor level and a 225 square foot terrace at the roof level which is allowed by the code. The architect had to come back after making several changes to his initial design the observation decks and terraces on the roof are now in compliance. The roof over the terraces have disappeared because it is not allowed. Again the buildings have usable space with unusable space below at the garage level storage level. He had to make some changes to the parapet walls as they were five feet high and had to be reduced to four feet. The finished floor to roof slab is within the acceptable limits of the code requirement. Also, we are still waiting for the FDEP approval so any decision made by the board is subject to a notice to proceed from the State. Board's Questions: Vice Chair Mendelson — I'll start with the same questions and move on. This garage or whatever level, it was 11 feet instead of 10 feet so I have the same issue that I had on the previous agenda item. B.O. Desorcv—The maximum ceiling height is 9 feet so they have that usable space between the ceiling height and the next floor level. Vice Chair Mendelson — Again, I would say that it has to be defined and I couldn't see on the plan. This plan is so tiny and I kept looking at the big one but I couldn't see if it even went to the top of the roof of the garage. I could not see the crawl space at all so. B.O. Desorcv— This one was superseded. The architect has made some changes. Ground level at the garage level slab we have minus 10'4" so it is 10 feet below the usable space slab, 10'4" below so it doesn't show the ceiling in the garage. All it shows is like the other plans it shows the garage level to the next floor at 10'4". The last plans showed 10 so this is a little bit more. They have a little bit more space to put in their mechanicals or whatever they need to put in the ceiling, garage door motors and framing and things like that. Vice Chair Mendelson— So that would be the same issue that you would that you could assure that it was no more than 9 feet when their final plans came in. B.O. Desorcv — I check that at the framing inspection, when they call for framing, if it's not correct, then they need to make the correction. It doesn't show this is not the finished set of drawings this is for the planning board which is charged with site plan approval. We look at the board looks at elevations and site plans we really don't get into the nuts and bolts of the Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Julv 8,2015 Page 15 of 30 construction, the different types of materials that are used and you know the minutia, the board is not charged with looking at that, that's something that I check when I make inspections. Chair Stern—But it's in our packet. Vice Chair Mendelson—When they give you the finished plans it will show that it was 9 feet? B.O. Desorcv— I'll check it in plan review. When they bring me the construction set of drawings or the permanent set of drawings. This is not the permanent set. This is just for site plan approval. Vice Chair Mendelson — We are waiting for the FDEP letter because the rendering showed the garage almost completely above ground. I know it's a rendering so again I think it's very relevant to where it's starting to where you measure 35 feet from because to me it looks like that whole thing is above ground and then goes up another 35 feet. B.O. Desorcv—If you look at this plan, this is sheet A3.1, the first floor living, first floor usable, is it 23.5 North American Vertical Datum (NAVD). That superseded the geodetic vertical datum that the old surveyors used. It shows the garage below grade this is your grade here this is finished grade and the garage is below that so the usable space is from the ground up but it's not these are straight lines it does not show the contour of the dunes you know the landscaping and everything else. It is showing a straight line. Vice Chair Mendelson — And the code said it was the average height of the dune so somebody has to calculate that. B.O. Descorcy — Yeah, the state does that. And then they give the contractor elevations, cut and fill requirements and they give them directions. Member Shane— Our overall concern on the oceanfront is height, total building height. The FDEP sets this point as your zero point (referenced the drawing)? B.O. Desorcv — Correct. Member Shane—And from there to the top of the building it can be no more than? B.O. Desorcv— Than to the top of the roof slab as defined in the code. Member Shane — The top of the roof slab and then there's provisions for it to go above the roof slab for mechanicals. B.O. Desorcv—Exceptions to the building height. Member Shane—Okay so the distance from the zero point set by FDEP to the top of the roof slab is what? B.O. Desorcv — 35 feet. Member Shane — Okay. Vice Chair Mendelson — And when we get that calculation you'll be able to calculate that. Someone will be able to calculate that where the zero is? B.O. Desorcv—Right. It'll show on the state paperwork when it comes back in the notice to proceed it will be very specific. Vice Chair Mendelson— Okay. Member Shane — Is it unusual to have 10 feet above that for mechanical? Vice Chair Mendelson — It's 9. B.O. Desorcv—Not necessarily. Some contractors or designers use that space for mechanicals, some don't. And they come in from a different direction, they could go vertical instead of horizontal. Member Shane—We've got 10 feet on this plan above the 35 for mechanicals. Vice Chair Mendelson — It's about 9. Member Clark — It's 11 feet. Member Shane — 11 feet above? Vice Chair Mendelson — It's about 9, I think it goes to 44. Member Shane — The roof slab is at 35 feet and you've got the top elevation at 45'10", you've got almost 11 feet. B.O. Desorcv — Well elevators are allowed. Member Shane — I understand. I'm just asking is that typical that we go above the 35 feet as much as 10 feet for mechanical facilities? B.O. Desorcv — Yeah, all of this equipment that's up on the roof needs to be behind the parapet wall and the parapet wall it can't be more than 4 feet. Initially it was 5, they changed the plan to four that hides all of the mechanical equipment, the air conditioning equipment. Member Shane — Let me go one step at a time. I've got a roof slab that tops out at 35 feet. B.O. Desorcv—That's correct. Member Shane—I understand a 4 foot parapet wall hides the compressor and the like. If I build an elevator room, I'm allowed to go above that parapet wall? B.O. Desorcv— That's correct. Member Shane — Can I go 6 feet or 8 feet or as much as I like and is it subject to variance? B.O. Desorcv— 10 feet. Member Shane — I can go up to 10 feet above the finished roof slab within the Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 8,2015 Paze 16 of 30 existing code? B.O. Desorcv —That's correct. Chair Stern— For mechanicals. Vice Chair Mendelson— But isn't there a thing in the code that it can't that what you're building up there can't be more than four by four by four? B.O. Desorcv — Ah, six by six by ten and that's just the elevator. Vice Chair Mendelson — Wait I just read 4x4x4 in the code and I'm looking at that (referencing plans) take that first page where the rendering is on the top, where that thing with the windows in it, does that remain, is that still there? B.O. Desorcv—That's a conceptual drawing. Like I said before the architect had to come back after he made some changes and what you're seeing up there is the elevator lobby to protect the elevator and the residents from the rain and to protect the equipment from the rain. Vice Chair Mendelson— The only reason to go up there is for the equipment, right? B.O. Desorcv — No, there is an observation deck up there. Vice Chair Mendelson — If there is an observation deck up there, then it is not only for equipment. B.O. Desorcv — The parapet wall is for equipment, to screen the equipment. Vice Chair Mendelson— But the observation deck goes higher than the 35 feet. B.O. Desorcv — No, the observation deck is at roof level. Vice Chair Mendelson— It doesn't look like that on the plan. Those little windows are above the 35 foot line. (At this time, she went to the side of the dais to look at the plans). B.O. Desorcv — The little windows are in the elevator lobby, that's a conceptual. Member Shane—I know what you're saying. Vice Chair Mendelson—These things here. B.O. Desorcv — Yes. This is the elevator and the stairs. Vice Chair Mendelson— I know but what are these things here. B.O. Desorcv— That's in the lobby. Vice Chair Mendelson— Which lobby? Town Clerk Oakes — The conversation needs to be on record. B.O. Desorcv — Sorry, those windows are for the elevator lobby, the housing. Vice Chair Mendelson — Right, I know but why does elevator housing need windows? B. O. Desorcv — That's the way it was designed. It does not have to have windows. Vice Chair Mendelson— I understand that. Do people go up there and look out if there is elevator lobbies? Is it possible for people to go up there and look out the windows, is there other observation? B.O. Desorcv — The architect can answer that. I don't know if their higher than eye level. Member Shane—On the record, this is now this without the windows, this is totally outside on the roof deck, so people coming up to this level with the elevator walk out here and go to the roof deck and this extends up 10 feet because the elevator cab that you're getting out of obviously extends up above you and the equipment. Vice Chair Mendelson— Right, but. Member Shane — This is this. I agree with you there appears to be no reason for there to be windows inside of here. This is out in the open so it requires no more than a four foot parapet. Vice Chair Mendelson — Right, so I am just wondering the purpose. I mean it just seems to me that why it's done that way is someone takes the elevator to the top. B.O. Desorcv — It's just a design feature. Vice Chair Mendelson — And look out the window and that it's really an extra view area. B.O. Desorcv —It's just a design feature, it could be a solid wall. The elevator lobby could be completely enclosed with glass, it's a design feature. Member Mart — Mike, our concern is that it meets all the height restrictions, all the code requirements, that's our goal here. So it meets the heights? B.O. Desorcv — Yes. And elevators are allowed as an exception to the building height. Vice Chair Mendelson — But I have one more question. So if when we had a variance for the house that had the equipment on the roof that's being built now, they went for a variance for five feet or whatever it was to make a wall around the equipment. What was the variance for? B.O. Desorcv —No, that was another architectural feature that was to not enclose because it doesn't go 360 degrees it was to protect the stairs that extended to the roof, there is no elevator, well there is an elevator in that building but the top of the elevator equipment only comes up Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 8,2015 Page 17 of 30 four feet from the roof slab, that extension was to protect, it was an architectural feature to protect the stairs that are accessing the roof. Vice Chair Mendelson— Okay. And there is no difference between that the need for that variance and this particular situation? Chair Stern—Ilyne, Maybe we could have the architect explain. Vice Chair Mendelson— I was just asking Mike if there was a difference in the need for the variance in that house and this particular situation. B.O. Desorcv— The elevator shaft does not need a variance. The parapet wall extension an additional four feet did. That was considered an extension to the parapet wall, there is no other function other than to hide or protect or enclose the access stairs to the roof, that's all it was for, but the elevators are permitted by code. And the equipment that, you don't need a variance for an elevator, but for the parapet extension, yes it was required. Chair Stern— Well maybe Richard Jones could explain this better to Ilyne. Member Clark — There is nothing to explain. Member Svenstrup — Before you go Mike, I was wondering if you could tell me what is the size of the extension on top for the elevator. Here it looks like two of them are joined together, but as singularly what is the size of the extension going through? B.O. Desorcv — There is a stairwell included, there is a stair, a wraparound stair that goes to the roof and the elevator shaft. Member SvengnM — But just the building or the portion that is above the four foot permitted, what is the size of that building going to be the structure going to be? B.O. Desorcv—I'd have to scale it out. I don't have those figures. Vice Chair Mendelson —Okay, because the one other thing that I was seeing in (u) that section that we spoke of before, that (u), and now I'm in little number 4C, the size of each architectural height exception unless otherwise provided herein shall be limited to a total of 4x4x4 and a maximum volume of 64 cubic feet. So I wanted to know if those elevators are/or things at the top are allowed are limited by the 4x4x4 and the cubic feet. B.O. Desorcv — I believe that would be referenced to the exceptions over in 4a which would be the architectural features as a chimney, a cupola, a tower, a dormer, parapet walls, domes, spires. Mechanical features are considered exceptions including heating ventilation, air conditioning equipment, flag poles, radio and TV antennas. That's the 4x4x4. Vice Chair Mendelson—Right and so and you're saying that it doesn't include elevators. Chair Stern —No it doesn't. B.O. Desorcv —No, you have to read further down into subset d, it talks about elevator housings. And then the exterior measurements of the housings or elevator structures shall not exceed 6x6x10. Vice Chair Mendelson — Okay, and one externally visible elevator housing per single family residential structure is allowed and it doesn't say anything about if it's more than a single family, right? B.O. Desorcv— That's what it says single family, these are townhouses, they are attached at common walls. Vice Chair Mendelson — So is there one externally visible housing per or didn't I see. B.O. Desorcv —Per unit. Each townhouse dwelling has an elevator so there is going to be six elevators. Vice Chair Mendelson — But aren't there two units, three units in each building. B.O. Desorcv — There are three units per building, so there are 3 elevators on the roof of each building. Vice Chair Mendelson — And that's for a single family structure. This isn't a single family structure because it's multi-family, right? Each structure has 3 townhouses in it. So I don't see I mean I don't see anything in here for that, but I don't think that one applies because it's meant for like a single family house, right? B.O. Desorcv — I'm going to let the architect address that question. Vice Chair Mendelson—Okay. I'd like the lawyer to address it too. Chair Stern—Mr. Jones, thank you. Please state your name and. Richard Jones, Architect — Richard Jones, Richard Jones Architecture, Delray Beach. Didn't I say something earlier today about it being so good not to have any questions? Vice Chair Mendelson — That's why I said to you I knew you were coming back. Mr. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 8,2015 Paae 18 of 30 Jones — Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. Again I understand some of the questions and some of the concerns. I also understand looking at this project and comparing to other projects here in the town as you just did so earlier regarding the variance. But in doing so it is important not to overlook the similarities of this project with other projects that you have approved that have the same conditions and the same design features. As Mike had stated we had updated the plans quite a few times and that was to bring the plans completely within the conformance of your zoning code and we were happy to do so. We understand the ramifications of waivers and variances and we'd certainly like to design a project that conforms to the letter of your zoning code. If you look at two other instances of multi-family projects here in Highland Beach that have been approved there is a six unit townhouse project at 4211 South Ocean that was built under this very same code not too long ago. I believe that it was built about 7 or 8 years ago. I believe that it was built by the developer that presented the project prior to ours. Two three unit townhouse buildings, roof top terraces at 35 feet above the first habitable floor and stairs and a private elevator, one for each individual fee simple townhouse that went to the roof. And again the minimal amount of structure to accommodate a stair and an elevator to come to the roof. I was also involved with 3511 South Ocean which Mr. Desorcy himself granted a certificate of occupancy about four or five years ago. That also had a similar condition where we had stairs and an elevator extend up above the 35 foot and we took very careful attention to detail to make sure that there were no observation areas or even air conditioning in these areas because they were only supposed to be for access to the roof to get access to the roof to get access to the 225 square foot roof terrace, maximum that's allowed under your code. And so these are projects that we can rightfully look at as examples of projects that are similar to this one that you are reviewing today that have been approved under in the past and built and CO'd under your zoning code. The elevator and stair that you are referring to are one per fee simple town house unit. This is not considered a condo building. It's not going to have condo ownership. It's a fee simple townhouse ownership with two hour fire walls between units. So what we do have is in some towns it's considered an impertinence. I'm not sure what the term is here in Highland Beach but it does go up above the 35 feet. We took great care to minimize it. It does have a glass door and a couple of high transom windows as part of the design element to allow light in because it is a stair and allows access to the roof terrace. But when you come out of the elevator and get to the top of the stair it is such a minimal landing that if you will before going out the door, it's not an area at all that one is going to congregate or put furniture or be able to use in any way because we are not even going to put air conditioning up there. So some of the other, I know my answer is just related to your particular question Ms. Mendelson. But this project does have some of the very same similarities as the last project. Yes we have I1 feet from floor to floor. I have confirmed with our structural engineer that the structural slab is 9 inches of that floor so now we are at 10 foot 3 clear and of course we need air conditioning, we need high hat lights, we need all the mechanicals. I'm happy to put a note on the plan today that the finished ceiling will not exceed 9 feet. One of the other items that was discussed was the glass garage doors, and I'll be so kind to show you the opaque glass that's in the garage door that we would rather not have individuals looking into the glass garage doors. These are Miami-Dade impact approved. (He showed the Board members and image on his Blackberry). Chair Stern — And they're opaque? Mr. Jones — They are an opaque surface. Town Clerk Oakes — Mr. Jones, all of your comments are not being recorded unless you are speaking into the mic. Mr. Jones—These Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 8,2015 Paae 19 of 30 are Miami-Dade impact approved glass garage doors. Let the record show I am holding up a photo of the particular glass garage door that we are proposing. It has an opaque glass surface, translucent if you will, it'll let light in but you will not be able to look in or look out. And so again it's mostly a design aesthetic that goes along with this contemporary style of the building. So I am happy to answer any other questions that you might have or clarifications you might have with regards to my answer. Member Shane — I have a question. So, just to recap so that I understand, we have created a roof top enclosure here, it's 10 feet, it provides for the elevator cab itself and some equipment on top, it provides for an enclosure that also includes the stairwell and something to step out into, a small elevator landing, and that's all that is enclosed there. Mr. Jones — That's correct. Member Shane — I understand stepping out into a dark dank space is not preferable so I understand what you are trying to do with the windows, that's a wonderful idea. Would you frost those windows so that we don't have a concern that that's a viewing area? Mr. Jones — At the roof top level? Member Shane — Yeah. Mr. Jones — Absolutely. Member Shane—Then you get the light and you don't have to worry that it's a viewing area. Member Clark — They are too high anyway. Member Shane — Yeah I know that but it would put Ms. Mendelson at peace on that one. Other than that I think it makes a whole lot of sense. Mr. Jones — Great, thank you. Member Shane — I love your design by the way. The predecessor's drawing showed the cars through the clear window. Vice Chair Mendelson— Okay now I have a new question from what you just said. You plan on being fee simple houses. Mr. Jones — Fee simple, these are townhouses. Vice Chair Mendelson — So it's not fee simple. Mr. Jones — Well townhouses by nature, the legal terminology, I believe Mr. Shutt can answer us, the legal terminology on townhouses is they are considered fee simple if you will because you own the land underneath your townhouse as opposed to a condominium ownership where you only own your actual unit itself and all the land under the building is in joint ownership. Vice Chair Mendelson—And Mr. Shutt can you tell me how you can own the land underneath your particular house if two three things are have the same house, which part does each person have because you haven't subdivided the land. Town Attorney Shutt — If I can I think your question you're trying to get to the issue of do we classify this as a single family dwelling? Vice Chair Mendelson — Right. Town Attorney Shutt — Okay, could I ask the Board to take a minor recess because I need to confer with Mr. Desorcy? Chair Stern—Yes,please take a break. The meeting recessed at 11:05 a.m. and reconvened at 11:27 a.m. Town Attorney Shutt—Yes, okay, let me see, I have discussed the code with Mr. Desorcy and first of all the code does provide Mr. Desorcy as the interpreter of the code. So no matter what I say he is the interpreter of your code. When he's testifying that's who you should listen to. I think we are all aware of the section of the code that talks about elevator housings for single family dwellings and as far as that goes I think that applies to single family dwellings that does not apply in this particular case, however if you look under subsection (e) on observation decks and widow walks and at that point I think I'll allow Mr. Desorcy to explain, Mike do you have that section of the code there in front of you?B.O. Desorcy—Yes I do. Town Attorney Shutt—Okay, so Mike can explain. I think he can further answer the question or explain why he believes that this meets the code. B.O. Desorcy— 30-68 in the Highland Beach Code of Ordinances, (u)(4)(e)(6), access to observation decks and widow walks, observation decks and widow walks shall be Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 8,2015 Paae 20 of 30 permitted subject to the standards listed below, and then they list all the standards which is 225 square feet, they should be open air features, not walled roof or otherwise enclosed, no electricity, no water, no services, the decks cannot exceed the overall building height, access down here in six, access to a deck or walk may be provided by an elevator or an unenclosed stairway with such secondary access as to be as may be required by the building official. That's why there is an elevator up on these townhouse units. Vice Chair Mendelson— So the reason we're discussing this is we're discussing the height restriction. B.O. Desorcy — Exceptions to the building height. Vice Chair Mendelson — Exceptions to the building height. We have 10 feet above the building height that we are talking about, is that right, there's 10 feet above the top of the 35 feet? B.O. Desorcv—The elevator housing. Vice Chair Mendelson—And the exception that we were looking to was in 4(a), we were looking to exceptions to the building height such as chimneys, dormers and parapet walls etc. and those things couldn't be more than 4x4x4. When I said that you directed me to (d), and then (d) you said could be 6x6x10 but (d) doesn't apply anymore because it's not a single-family house. Now we've gone to (e) and the exception we are now looking at is the observation deck, but the observation deck has a lot of requirements for it and it looks to me like there's not supposed to be walled or roofed and these are enclosed elevator lobbies. If it doesn't comply as an observation deck in the first place because it's enclosed how are you we using that as the exception? B.O. Desorcy — The observation deck is not enclosed. No that was the elevator landing, the elevator lobby, not the observation deck, the observation deck is a different section on the roof. Vice Chair Mendelson— Okay but then the elevator lobby, those little buildings that we were saying were more than 4x4x4 or you said they could be 6x6x10, what is the exception for those things, those little structures on the top? That's what I'm missing. I think that we are mixing and matching the exceptions here. Like one from column(a) and one from column(b) because (d) did not work. Member Shane—Let me try to clarify that what we found is that it wasn't 4x4x6 that didn't apply to elevators and we clearly did find something that said you could have an elevator. B.O. Desorcy — Correct. Member Shane — And certainly we would like to know that elevator extends 10 feet above the deck are enclosed with something so that from the street we don't see them but that's not provided for there. And what Vice Chair Mendelson is saying is that we don't quite fit (a) and we don't quite fit (b) and we don't quite fit (c). We don't seem to have a provision that deals with enclosing an elevator facility on the roof of a townhouse, it doesn't exist. Vice Chair Mendelson—Right. B.O. Desorcv—It's not specific. Member Shane—It's not there at all. Vice Chair Mendelson—It exists for single family houses of which this is not. Member Shane — It does not apply to this structure. We have no way of approving, what we're saying is, correct me if I'm wrong, we have no way of approving something that isn't in the code and there is nothing in the code that provides for a 10 foot high enclosure around an elevator in a townhouse, correct me if I'm wrong. B.O. Desorcy—All the code says is an elevator is permitted. Member Shane — It does but it doesn't provide for an enclosure. Town Attorney — Well in response to your question, I mean that's kind of the same discussion that I had with Mr. Desorcy and once again I'm kind of falling back on Mr. Desorcy as the interpreter of the code, not me, so it's your decision to make. I can't, you know I can't really say anything more. Chair Stern — I have a question, and maybe this is off the wall, in an apartment building they do have elevator lobbies at the top, I mean the equipment has to go somewhere and the mechanics have to be somewhere, does that apply to this? B.O. Desorcy — No, typically in a condominium building or an apartment building or an office building, the elevator terminates at the last Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 8, 2015 Pase 21 of 30 floor, at the penthouse floor if you will and then there is a set of stairs that goes to the roof, typically on a commercial building the elevator does not go all the way to the roof. It's very rare, but that's to protect the elevator equipment, the pulleys, the electronics, the circuit boards, everything that goes with an elevator is enclosed in a shaft, an elevator shaft and in this particular case the elevator goes all the way to the roof so to protect the door and the equipment and the electronics, you have to put something in front of it to keep it from the weather, hurricanes, rain, wind, anything, so that's why there is this enclosure. Chair Stern —Why is it going to the roof when the other ones don't go to the roof? Vice Chair Mendelson—Because it wants the extra height. B.O. Desorcv—No, it's to go to the observation deck. Member Shane — The last thing I want to see is you in a box here, I don't want to see you in a position that's unattainable, that's not the intent. I happen to think that these enclosures are perfectly in scale and scope, they're not too big for the roof, they enclose exactly what you need, a stairwell, an elevator, and a step out area, I like them, put some light into them, I think obviously there are all the issues of a dank, dark space, you avoided them, I happen to like them. The issue is that I say to you under what existing code can you approve a 10 foot high enclosure on the roof of these six townhouses and I don't think you have that in the code, correct me if I'm wrong. B.O. Desorcv — It's the interpretation of the elevator enclosure, you can go 6x6x10. Member Shane — Read that to me please. B.O. Desorcv — This is in a different section, this is in the single family but elevators are elevators, whether it's a commercial. Member Shane — And single families are single families. B.O. Desorcv — Right they should have moved that to the other section of the code, so the elevator needs to be enclosed. Member Shane — Can it be done by variance? B.O. Desorcv — That's a possibility. Member Shane — I would support it, I just don't think that we have the mechanism to do it here, that's all I'm saying. I support it. I support it in design. I support it in concept. I just don't think we have the mechanisms here at the Planning Board to do that. Member Clark—We do. Vice Chair Mendelson— Right, and my problem is I tend to agree with Mr. Shane, but I don't want to start approving things that aren't found exactly in the code because the next person's going to say well it wasn't exactly in the code for them and it's not exactly in the code for me and all of a sudden we have a situation where everybody's coming in offering you know not exact interpretations of the code that benefit them and I think that's a bad idea, so is there a way to get the code clarified? Chair Stern— Does this go the Commission? B.O. Desorcv — That would have to be something the Commission would have to. Member Mart — What about the Florida building code, would that take precedent? Mr. Jones — If I could just answer, I know there's discussion about others interpretations of the code, I think that it's very important to understand that as Mr. Shutt has pointed out there's only one person here in the room that can interpret this code and that's the building official, Mr. Desorcy. I'm not saying you're not correct and that it's not clearly spelled out but in the one individual's interpretation of this code he's looking to observation decks at 225 square feet and what's allowed to get access to that observation deck and it does point out that you can have an elevator to get access to that observation deck, where it doesn't specifically say elevators are allowed you know beyond single family, he's using the access to the observation deck for an elevator and then going back and seeing other sections of the code which restrict the height and the scale and the mass of the elevator to determine that this particular proposal is in keeping with the intent of the building code according to his interpretation who is the only individual in this room that can interpret that legally. Although we don't want to use those as examples to two recent projects at 3511 South Ocean and 4211 South Ocean, one Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 8,2015 Paye 22 of 30 project of which we were involved with that have an elevator and a stair and a little vestibule for the elevator that empty out onto an observation deck according to the section in the code here and are of the same scale and mass as this project. So again, I am just deferring to legally what Mr. Shutt has bought up and with regards to how possibly Mr. Desorcy has come to this conclusion and again because of the maybe not specifically spelled out, maybe that is an item that can be addressed for possible future changes and clarifications to the code but according to this application today, this is his interpretation. Member Shane—Ilyne, see if this works, we have a code that gives Mr. Desorcy the right to interpret and he's our trusted person to do that, we have an application in front of us that aesthetically I find quite acceptable. We are concerned very much about some specific and non-specific things going forward, should we set a dangerous precedent in not sticking to the letter of the law. I think the best option we have, I think, I'm willing to listen to another, is to approve this based on Mr. Desorcy's interpretation and urge him to be very careful with those interpretations as I know he will going forward because we anticipate parallel situations that may not be equal, they may be somewhat parallel, we're going to look to your judgement on those, we're worried about those and that's the whole purpose for this in depth conversation. That's the only solution I see. I defer to you. Vice Chair Mendelson— I see another solution. My understanding of what we are being asked to do here today is to recommend this subdivision building, whatever you call it, to the Commission, is that how I read the agenda? Chair Stern— Yes. Vice Chair Mendelson — Okay. Well I would recommend it to the Commission with the following provisos that they clarify the building code, which is in their purview, so that there is a specific section that then allows that number one, and also my recommendation would be to send it to the Commission making it clear that these are condominiums because they can be nothing else, because you have stated for the record that they were not condominiums. Mr. Jones — Let me just confer with my client on that and then real quick I want to answer is it Mr. Mart's question, the Florida building code requires accessibility for service to a rooftop for equipment, so there is no other way to get to this roof, we can't have a, I'm sure the City of Highland Beach would not want to see a 35 foot long ladder suspended along the side of the building, so the fact that we need to follow the building code as well to put the equipment on the roof and again all the buildings that you see that have all their air conditioning condensers on the roof shielded by the four foot parapets because nobody wants to see them and nobody wants to hear them all have stairs that go to the roof for service according to the Florida Building Code. But I'll answer your question about the condos. Chair Stern — I don't think they're condos. Vice Chair Mendelson — They are condos. They have to be condos. Mr. Jones — And why would we need to be condos? Vice Chair Mendelson— Because they, you would have to subdivide the land in order to make them single family houses and you can't subdivide this land. Mr. Jones — I don't believe we are saying that these are single family houses. Vice Chair Mendelson — But they, if they are not single family houses then they have a shared ownership of the land because the land is not subdivided. Mr. Jones — There is going to be a shared legal ownership whether that's fee simple townhouse or condo, again I'm not exactly sure, I may have mentioned, I know I mentioned fee simple townhouse earlier in this discussion as far as legal ownership I can call the owner up. Vice Chair Mendelson — We had, we did, you looked to other issues before we had the same issue before and we determined it had to be a condo because it's one piece of land that wasn't subdivided. Chair Stern—We made it a condo. Mr. Jones—I'm perfectly fine, I think my client is perfectly happy with Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 8, 2015 Paze 23 of 30 it being a condo. Vice Chair Mendelson — Okay. It's a hard legal concept. Mr. Jones — That's fine. Chair Stern — Does anyone in the audience have any comments to make? Should we make a motion? Vice Chair Mendelson — I would make a motion that we approve this subject to the following: (1) receiving the FDEP official designation; (2) the basement would be shown correctly on the plans that you see for getting that done; and (3) the Commission amend the building code or clarify the building code to provide that this is allowed in the elevator section, so the 6x6x10 section where you first went to look for this would be clarified to say for a single family house and for this multi-family type townhouse thing. B.O. Desorcy— It's not the building code, it's the zoning code. Vice Chair Mendelson— The zoning code, right. So that would be my motion. Mr. Shutt —And if I may Madam Chair, point of clarification on that motion, now is it your intent to try to have them amend that prior to approval or no that's your recommendation that they make this change so that way in the future we don't have this issue?Vice Chair Mendelson—No, so that they make the change now so that this thing can be approved under it. Mr. Shutt — Okay. Mr. Jones — So they have to change the code? Member Clark— You can't tell the Commission what to do. Vice Chair Mendelson — What we are being asked to do is recommend this project to the Commission. Chair Stern — Right. Member Clark — I understand. Vice Chair Mendelson — I'm recommending it subject to those conditions. Mr. Jones — Subject to the Commission changing the code? Vice Chair Mendelson — Yeah, clarifying the code so that this is allowed under that. Mr. Jones — Well how about, provided the Commission is consistent with Mr. Desorcy's interpretation of the code because that's really what you are asking them to do, you can't ask them to change the zoning code. Member Shane — That's what she's trying to do. She's trying to get the code clarified. Vice Chair Mendelson— Well I can. Mr. Jones—Well I know you can ask them to. Member Shane — With the condition of this approval that's what she's trying to do. Vice Chair Mendelson — Yeah. Member Clark — We recommend this to the Commission, I hear what you're saying, but we cannot tell the Commission what to do. Chair Stern — That's exactly right. Member Clark — They can approve it once it's recommended to them, whether they decide to make a change to the zoning thing or not, that's up to them, you want to recommend that, that's a recommendation, that's fine, but you can't hold their feet to the fire and say if you don't do this it can `t be approved. They can approve, the Commission is the Commission, that's what they're all about. Vice Chair Mendelson — But we certainly could, first of all when we recommend it to the Commission my understanding is they don't have to take our recommendation in the first place. Member Clark — That's correct. Vice Chair Mendelson — So we could say I recommend it with no conditions and they could still do something else or we could say we don't recommend it and they could still do something else, is that right? Member Clark — That's correct. Vice Chair Mendelson — So I want to put on there for their information that this Board thinks there is a problem with the code that needs clarifying so that they should clarify the code at the same time they are approving it and they can agree or not agree but I'd like that on the record. Member Clark— It can be, but you can't hold them to it. Vice Chair Mendelson — I can't hold to any of it because they could do anything they wanted anyway. Member Clark — That's right, that's what I'm trying to say. Member Svens!W — Just as a point of clarification, are we, I thought we were Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 8,2015 Page 24 of 30 making the, we had the final say on it as far as approving it. Chair Stern -No, this goes to the Commission. Member Svenstrup — Is this being recommended to the Commission? Vice Chair Mendelson — Yeah. This is not our final say. Chair Stern — We can make a motion to recommend this to the Town Commission with approval, with a motion of conditions, or we can deny the request. So we are sending this to the Commission with conditions, approval of conditions and. Vice Chair Mendelson— Right and then they can ignore our recommendations if they want. Mr. Jones — Before there is a second, there could be an alternate motion that you approve this with a condition that the City Commissioners have the ability to review and see if Mr. Desorcy's interpretation of the code is consistent with the LDRs or the zoning code, you're going to have, the Commission's going to have the decision anyway. Member Clark — They have that decision, that's theirs. Vice Chair Mendelson — But that is not my motion. Because I think that the code as written even when listening to Mr. Desorcy's interpretation, he is trying to cobble together something that I don't think is clear in the code and so I the Commission should be on notice that we believe that it should be clarified so that going forward everybody who looks to the code has a clear understanding of what our code says. Mr. Jones — So you're asking for the Commission's interpretation of the code. Member Shane—Can I call for a second on the motion? Member Clark—You can second it. Member Shane—Nobody's asked for that yet. Town Clerk Oakes— I just want the Board to also be mindful of the fact that if you do go through with this motion, you are essentially holding up this project for at least anywhere between two to three months because that's the timeframe it takes to adopt an ordinance to change the code. Mr. Jones — What is the motion again? Member Shane — I disagree, the Commission has the authority to do whatever they want. They can ignore our condition. Town Clerk Oakes — I understand that, I'm just making you aware that if they take your recommendation to change the code it takes at least 2 months. I'm just making you aware. Member Shane—Or they could decide to approve it and take up the issue later on changing the code, but we're going on the record as saying we feel that the need is there, they can handle it in whatever order they want, so they can approve you and then go on the process of changing the code if they so choose. Mr. Jones — Yeah, but what's the motion, the motion that you're asking for? Member Shane — The motion is that we were asked to recommend this matter to the Commission, we're doing so, our condition in that approval which they can ignore, they can ignore our approval, they have the power to do that, but we are going on record as saying we approve it subject to a change, whether they make the change later or ignore the request or never make the changes, it's they're business, we don't have the authority. Mr. Jones— You're saying you're going to approve it subject to. Town Attorney Shutt—Mr. Jones, I'm sorry Madam Chair, I mean there has been a motion, I don't know if you want to call for a second so or if you want to allow dialogue to. Mr. Jones — We are trying to understand what the motion is because we don't understand the motion. Chair Stern — I think the dialogue has, I think we have made our motion, now we are sending this to the Commission with approval of the conditions that we have asked for. Mr. Jones — But what are those, we don't understand them. Vice Chair Mendelson — I said the three conditions, I'll repeat my motion okay so that you understand. My motion is that it's we the Planning Board sends our approval to the Commission with three provisos, one is that we get the FDEP letter that makes Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 8, 2015 Page 25 of 30 everything clear, two you've already confirmed that it's a condo, so I don't think that we need to do that, okay two is that Mr. Desorcy confirms when you've given your actual detailed building plans that your garage is no higher than 9 feet and three is that our building code is clarified at the discretion of the Commission, I'll put that in, at the discretion of the Commission that the elevator enclosure is acceptable under the. Chair Stem — You have to change the code. Vice Chair Mendelson — The section of the Highland Beach Zoning Code. Mr. Jones — You're just clarifying the existing code, you're not changing the code. Vice Chair Mendelson — No, it needs clarification or an amendment that the townhouse building that you're building is also available as an exception so long as it's not bigger than 6x6x10, so what I'm asking, what I would recommend that the Commission does is somehow and I'll leave it at their discretion, add to (d) number one that the exterior measurements of the housing or elevator structure shall not exceed 6x6x 10 in a single family house and a whatever, Mike what do you call this, a townhouse? Member Clark—Multi-family. B.O. Desorcv—Townhouses. Member Shane — It's much bigger than 6x6x 10. Vice Chair Mendelson— It's bigger than 6x6x 10, I thought he said it wasn't. Mr. Jones — Well the elevator itself is not bigger than that. Member Shane — The enclosure's got to be 15 feet squared, isn't it. Vice Chair Mendelson— So the enclosure is also bigger than 6x6x 10? Mr. Jones—Well you have the landing. B.O. Desorcv — It includes the stairwell. Mr. Jones — The stairwell should be allowed to go to the roof for service and observation. Member Shane—Not the issue,just a question, is your thing not approximately 15x15?Mr. Jones—It is, the overall mass of it is roughly 15x15. Vice Chair Mendelson— When we first started talking about it and you pointed to (d) and said it wasn't 4x4x4, it was 6x6x 10, it's not even 6x6x 10, and it's bigger than that. Chair Stern — That's enough. Can we have a motion now to do this? Vice Chair Mendelson— Hold on, I have to figure this out for my motion. The enclosure would have violated that in any event, is what you're saying? Mr. Jones — It's one of those gray areas. Member Clark — Can we end the discussion please? Vice Chair Mendelson — No. Chair Stern — I think we need to have a motion now. Vice Chair Mendelson—Wait, I think I need to have him answer this question. Member Clark—No, I call for an end of discussion. Member Golding —Call for the question. Member Clark— Call the question. Member Golding — Call for the question. Chair Stern — What is the question? Go ahead. Member Clark — You guys keep going on, adding, adding, adding. B.O. Desorcv — Would you like for me to continue? Vice Chair Mendelson — Yes. B.O. Desorcv—Okay. Member Clark—No, Madam Chair, please. Chair Stern— This has been going on now for over an hour and a half. Can we have a motion? I think they get the point. Vice Chair Mendelson — I don't know how I want to clarify it because I didn't get the answer to the question. Chair Stern— I think you want the code changed or amended. Member Clark — You said it perfectly clear what you wanted. Chair Stern — You're adding so much to it. Vice Chair Mendelson — But that was when I thought it was 6x6x10. Member Clark — Leave the dimensions out of it. Chair Stern — You don't need the dimensions. Vice Chair Mendelson— The code says 6x6x 10. Member Clark — That's for the elevator. Member Golding — We don't have to do that. Chair Stern — We don't need to do that. Member Golding — Can I say something? Chair Stern — Yes, please. Member Golding— I think we need two motions. One to approve it and second to bring it up to the Commission that they have to review the code. Okay, simple. Chair Stern — I agree with that. Member Golding — Can I make a motion to approve? Town Attorney Shutt — Well, if I can Madam Chair there is motion on the floor. Member Shane — I'm sorry I have to support Ilyne on that. Give the motion again the way you did the first Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 8,2015 Page 26 of 30 time, Ilyne, but I want to make the motion the approval itself that goes to the Commission subject to those three conditions, please, and that's the way it was presented and then we're on record and then they have the freedom to do what they want. Vice Chair Mendelson— I just need the answer to this one question. Chair Stern— Okay, I just don't think that we need to go into all those dimensions. Member Clark — You don't need the answer. It doesn't matter. At this time, a discussion ensued amongst the board members (Mendelson, Clark, Shane). Shortly thereafter, Chair Stern called for a point of order. Town Attorney Shutt—Well if I may, Madam Chair, there is a motion on the floor, so you may want to call for a second. I don't know if it's been seconded. Member Golding—She has to withdraw it. Vice Chair Mendelson—I am withdrawing my motion. Member Golding—I make a motion we approve the project and I make a second motion. I make a motion we approve the project. Member Mart — I second it. Town Attorney Shutt—That is subject to FDEP permitting, correct? Member Golding— Yes. Chair Stern —It's subject to those conditions and it goes to the Commission. I second that motion, can you please take a roll call? MOTION: Member Golding moved to approve the plan as submitted. Chair Stern seconded the motion. Board Discussion: None. ROLL CALL: Member Golding - Yes Chair Stern - Yes Member Svenstrup - Yes Member Shane -No Member Mart - Yes Member Clark - Yes Vice Chair Mendelson -No Motion carried 5/2. Member Golding — I'd like to make another motion. Chair Stern — You can't make a motion now, it's over. Member Golding—Okay. E)Application No. 37894— 1104 Highland Beach Drive; Ross Bloom CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN COMMISSION FOR THE PROPOSED MAJOR MODIFICATIONS TO CONSTRUCT NEW COVERED FRONT PORCH AREA AND EXTENSION OF 2"D FLOOR BALCONY AT EXISTING TWO STORY MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING IN THE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE (RML) ZONING DISTRICT. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Julv 8,2015 Page 27 of 30 APPLICANT: Anthony Langella Chair Stern read the application title into the record. The board members were asked to disclose any ex parte communication(s). Staffs Presentation: Building Official Mike Desorcy— Site plan approval for consideration of the construction of a balcony extension of 150 square feet, it's a major modification to a multi-family building, there's some structural changes, additions, footings, columns, beams, and some new roofing on the front of the building. Major modifications that alter existing principal or accessory structures including but not limited to the building footprint, number of square feet, building height, number of dwelling parking requirements, change in exterior fagade, change of views, roofline, elevation, exterior walls, balconies, foundation, accessory structures as determined by the building official. It's to be reviewed in the same manner as the original structure or use as required by that chapter of the Code. I reviewed the site plan and the building elevations and they do comply with the code. The reason that you are here looking at it is because it is a major modification. Board's Questions: None were received. Board Discussion: Member Clark—This is a condominium, right? B.O. Desorcv— I'm not sure what legally it's called, it's a 3 unit complex, there's two units upstairs and one unit downstairs. I don't know what the designation is, if it's a condo or a co-op, not sure. Vice Chair Mendelson — It says it's a condo. Chair Stern — It's a condo. Member Clark — So the condo association as a whole has approved this and it's a shared expense by all the owners? B.O. Desorcv — Absolutely, yeah they really didn't want me to bring it to the Board, but I had no choice. Member Clark—Yeah, I know. B.O. Desorcv—My hands are tied. Member Shane — It certainly needs to be done, so we hope to see it soon. Member Clark— Yeah, it's going to make it look it much better, I hope. B.O. Desorcv — Oh, it's going to be gorgeous when it's done. Chair Stern — A lot better than it looks right now. Member Clark — What are the materials they're using? B.O. Desorcv — Good materials, consistent with construction and building standards. Member Clark — Alright. Member Mart—It doesn't impact any of the setbacks, right? Chair Stern—No. B.O. Desorcv—No sir. Chair Stern — They're just adding balconies. B.O. Desorcv- They are adding square footage, they're changing the fagade and the elevations and some roof lines. Member Clark — I think it is well called for. Chair Stern — Any other questions? Does anybody have any questions for the petitioner? Does anybody want to make a motion? Member Shane— I'll make a motion. Town Attorney Shutt—Madam Chair the public. Chair Stern —I'm sorry, does anybody in the public have any questions or public comments? Public Comments: Carl Gehman — I think it's going to be beautiful because we live on Highland Beach Drive, we know exactly where it is, so I think it's going to be awesome. MOTION: Member Shane moved to approve the plan as submitted. Member Golding seconded the motion. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 8,2015 Paee 28 of 30 ROLL CALL: Member Shane - Yes Member Golding - Yes Member Svenstrup - Yes Member Mart - Yes Member Clark - Yes Vice Chair Mendelson - Yes Chair Stern - Yes Motion carried 7/0. F) PUBLIC HEARING Application No. 37772—3912 South Ocean Blvd; Lauren Simon-Martinez CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF A 14,000 LB. SIDE MOUNT BOATLIFT, ATTACHED TO TWO EXISTING CONCRETE PILINGS AT DOCK #17 AT SUBJECT PROPERTY IN THE RML (RESIDENTIAL MULTI- FAMILY) ZONING DISTRICT. APPLICANT: Admiral Boatlifts Marine Construction Chair Stern read the application title into the record. The board members were asked to disclose any ex parte communication(s). Staffs Presentation: Building Official Mike Desorcy—The last item on the agenda is for your consideration to install a 14,000 pound boatlift on an existing dock behind the Regency Highland at slip number 17. I've checked the plans and the plans do meet the requirements of the code. Chair Stern — Does anyone have any questions? Member Golding — It's my understanding that the Town has no jurisdiction over the intracoastal waterway and this was a previous ruling by the Town Commissioner, I'm sorry the Town Attorney Tom Sliney and the Commission agreed with that. I know this to be a fact because I happened to be the one it affected when they built Ocean Cove and all of those I'll say docks that they don't use. Tom Sliney ruled on this and I don't think it's our jurisdiction. B.O. Desorcy—The code doesn't make any exceptions to an opinion or if there is a resolution that's on the record stating that the Town doesn't have any jurisdiction in the intracoastal, I haven't seen it. Member Golding — Well it should be in the record, okay, because there were numerous meetings that I went to, okay with the Town Commission and that's the way the Town Commission ruled because they took a vote on it. B.O. Desorcy— Okay, I haven't seen that resolution. Member Golding — This is the previous administration, so I think we should check into that before we do anything. B.O. Desorcy — Okay the code book wasn't changed and my interpretations come from the codebook. There was something that I shared with Town Clerk Oakes and the Town Attorney. This was something that came up back in September 2013, I sent a memo to Attorney Rubin talking about this thing, I asked him to take a look at the code section that discusses the Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 8,2015 Paee 29 of 30 boatlift application that came in does it need to go to the Planning Board, does it need to have a public hearing, and there was something that Mr. Stern sent to Tom Sliney about the boatlift at 2540 South Ocean, and Mr. Stern mentioned a meeting on December 91', the application is already received, all the state agency approvals, Mr. Stern didn't see a reason, well his comment was he didn't see a reason to take a recess and visit the property, we should adjust the agenda at the meeting to a regular meeting, review the boatlift application and close the meeting and then Mr. Sliney responded in his email per our conversation, I've reviewed my historical file regarding boatlifts, the issue of boatlifts on the intracoastal is distinguished from boatlifts on the Town's canal was settled in the Ocean Cove development some years ago, the town, code requires a public hearing for boatlifts to be placed on a canal, there is no such requirement that there be a public hearing for boatlifts on the intracoastal waterway, no public hearing is required, state agencies have the jurisdiction here, the Town's role here is for the building department to monitor the construction of the boatlift and then let me know if you have any questions. But reading the code, there's a part in there that talks about putting boatlifts on waterways and canals, they didn't take that part out or change it to reflect you know the jurisdiction of the Army Corps in the intracoastal. Town Attorney Shutt—Yes sir, I know I saw a copy of that email and I think what Mr. Sliney or at least my reading of what he was trying to get at was because there's language in the code that talks about public notice for boatlifts on canals, that to me it seemed like he was getting at the fact that okay maybe you don't have to have public notice, whether it's the 300 feet, 1,000 feet, whatever, if the boatlift is on the intracoastal waterway, because I think he was looking at it like the intracoastal waterway doesn't meet the definition of canal. From reading that it seems to me like that without a doubt I think we have to have the authority to you know if somebody's building something on the intracoastal, you know it's at the back of the yard or something like that, I would think the Town would absolutely want the approval process as far as building wise goes, so that it meets our code, meets our restrictions as far as the term canal goes, there are some other references in your code that talk about the intracoastal canal, so that once again in my opinion it would be I think that the public notice requirements would apply to the intracoastal waterway because even though it's different from a lot of the other canals that you have here, I think there are other references in the code that talk about it being a canal and that's you know therefore I would say that you still have to comply with the public notice requirements as well. Chair Stern — Okay thank you. Anybody have any questions? No. Does the petitioner have anything to say? No. No comments from the public? No. May I have a motion for this project? Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 8,2015 Paae 30 of 30 MOTION: Member Svenstrup moved to approve the plan as submitted. Member Clark seconded the motion. Board Discussion: None. ROLL CALL: Member Svenstrup - Yes Member Clark - Yes Member Shane - Yes Member Mart - Yes Member Golding - Yes Vice Chair Mendelson - Yes Chair Stern - Yes Motion carried 7/0. 8. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, Chair Stern adjourn the meeting at 12:12 p.m. APPROVED: Carol St m, air Ilyne Mendelso , Vice Chair Ronald Clark, Board Member St en GOding, Board Member Hary y Mart, Board Member Charles Shane, Board Member n Williamvenstrup, Board mber TOWN SEAL ATTESTED: Patrice Robinson, CMC, Deputy Town Clerk Date: