Loading...
2013.12.10_BAA_Minutes_Special $16 o 44 TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH f = • %; MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING Tuesday, December 10, 2013 9:30 AM Members Present: Vice Chair Ruth Samuels, Board Member Barry Axelrod, Board Member Barry Donaldson, Board Member Evelyn Weiss, Board Member Bryan Perilman and Board Member Peter Rodis. Also Attending: Town Attorney Len Rubin, Building Official Michael Desorcy, Mayor Featherman, Commissioner Stern, Commissioner Sheridan, Town Manager Kathleen Weiser, Administrative Assistant Rosalie DeMartino and members of the public. CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair Ruth Samuels called the Special Meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. Roll call was taken by the Administrative Assistant followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. INSPECTION: The Board of Adjustment and Appeals, as part of the public meeting, conducted a site inspection of the property located at 3715 S. Ocean Blvd., Highland Beach. All members of the public and interested parties were invited to attend the site inspection. Site Visit Discussion: David Levine, 3740 S. Ocean Blvd. — What is the difference between the original elevation and the new elevation, height wise? Tom Benedict, Architect — The difference is four feet. We have extended the allowable four feet parapet wall to eight feet. There is an element within the code that allows the elevator tower to go to ten feet. We are two feet under the allocation that is within the code that states you can take an elevator up to ten feet. The allowable elevator tower measurement is 6 x 6 x 10 ft. We chose not to bring the elevator up to the ten feet. David Willens, Owner of 3715 S. Ocean Blvd. — The reason we did not take the elevator to the top is because it would have pushed this wall even higher, which would have been a box sticking out of the roof and did not feel it would look nice for anybody. We would prefer to have the elevator go to the roof but elected not to. Member Rodis — Is there any issue about raising the roof? Tom Benedict, Architect — There is no issue related to the roof. We are at code. David Willens — Some of the homes along Al A are much higher because of the elevation, have pitched roofs and parapet towers as well. We elected to do a flat roof which brought the overall structural height down. We are very sensitive to the neighbors. This lot is very unique. We went through tremendous challenges, including the DEP and the zoning process because the lot rises very steeply from AIA. Board of Adjustment & Appeals Special Meeting Minutes Tuesday, December 10, 2013 Page 2 of 9 Member Donaldson — Can you walk us to about the center line where that parapet is located on the side? Tom Benedict — The parapet is pretty much centered in the building Simon Calle, 3740 S. Ocean Blvd. — I am questioning the 35 feet. Tom Benedict — As Dave the owner pointed out, many of the homes are four stories and put the garage at the first level. There is a little bit of flexibility as the first level relates to grade. However, we had to hold this one very close to grade. We chose a flat roof which brings us to the 35 feet permitted; a pitched roof is measured to the mid point of the pitch. Had we chosen a pitched roof which is not consistent with the style we are looking for, we would have gained another four or five feet just by the choice of the roof. David Willens — We actually reduced the height of the dunes. Simon Calle was questioning the lot in comparison to the lot next to this one. Town Attorney Rubin — Unless anyone has any questions related to what we are viewing here, we can discuss any questions related to the application back at the meeting. Joel Leinson, 3740 S. Ocean Blvd. — Why do you need the extra four feet if you are not going that distance with the elevator? Tom Benedict — It was an aesthetic consideration. David Willens — The additional four feet screens the exterior staircase so you will not be looking down into the stairwell. RECONVENE MEETING: Vice Chair Samuels reconvened the meeting and called on the Administrative Assistant for a roll call. Members Present: Vice Chair Ruth Samuels, Board Member Barry Axelrod, Board Member Barry Donaldson, Board Member Evelyn Weiss, Board Member Bryan Perilman and Board Member Peter Rodis. Also Present: Town Attomey Len Rubin, Building Official Michael Desorcy, Commissioner Stem, Commissioner Sheridan, Town Manager Weiser, Mayor Featherman and Administrative Assistant DeMartino and members of the public. ADDITIONS, DELETIONS OR ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Vice Chair Samuels called for any additions or deletions to the agenda, hearing none, called for a motion to accept the agenda as presented. MOTION: Member Weiss moved to accept the agenda as presented. Member Rodis seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND REQUESTS: No public comments or requests. PRESENTATIONS: No presentations. Vice Chair Samuels welcomed Peter Rodis as the newest board member. Board of Adjustment & Appeals Special Meeting Minutes Tuesday, December 10, 2013 Page 3 of 9 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: • May 15, 2013 — Regular Meeting Vice Chair Samuels called for a motion to approve the minutes from the May 15, 2013, Regular Meeting. MOTION: Member Weiss moved to approve the minutes from the May 15, 2013 Regular Meeting. Member Axelrod seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: No old business. NEW BUSINESS: Vice Chair Samuels asked that the regular meeting be closed at 10:06 a.m. By consensus, the Board agreed to close the regular meeting. • Variance Request: 3715 South Ocean Blvd. — Public Hearing Application No. 30270 — RELIEF FROM HIGHLAND BEACH CODE OF ORDINANCES SECTION 30 -64, TABLE 30-2, THAT REQUIRES SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS BE CONSTRUCTED TO A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED 35 VERTICAL FEET (MEAN ROOF HEIGHT) FROM FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION. THE PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT DESIGN DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE HIGHLAND BEACH ORDINANCE 30- 68(u)(4)(b) & (c)(3). Vice Chair Samuels called for a motion to open the public hearing. MOTION: Member Perilman moved to open the public hearing. Member Donaldson seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Vice Chair Samuels called for board members to disclose any ex parte communication, hearing none, called on the Town Attomey to administer the oath to all those who would testify. Staff Presentation: Building Official Michael Desorcy presented the variance petition. He stated that the petitioner is asking for an exception of the height of an architectural feature to exceed four feet above the point of the flat roof as determined by the building height. The original application was approved by the Planning Board for the four foot architectural feature of a parapet wall extending upward of the 35 foot flat roof. Member Rodis — Do we know how high the pitched roof was on the original building that was removed in relation to this building? Was it higher or lower? Building Official Board of Adjustment & Appeals Special Meeting Minutes Tuesday, December 10, 2013 Page 4 of 9 Desorcv – It would have been lower since it was only a two story home. The building has been demolished. Member Axelrod – Is the flat roof 35 feet over the dune height? Building Official Desorcy – The habitable space, the finished floor of the structure; the finished roof height is exactly 35 feet. The four feet originally asked for is allowed by code. Member Axelrdod – What is behind that wall? Building Official Desorcv – There is a stairwell that goes down to the floor below. It is access to the roof. Member Perilman – Is the wall just one side? Building Official Desorcv – The architect tells me there are three sides to this architectural feature. Member Weiss – How wide is the wall? Building Official Desorcy – It is sixteen feet. Petitioner's Presentation: Tom Benedict, Architect – This residence is a contemporary style home and was chosen in its styling to always have a flat roof. It is designed to fit within the code requirement of a thirty -five foot height. In addition, the code allows from that flat roof, a four foot parapet. The contemporary architectural design has a glazed window strip in it. The code allows for an elevator to exceed the roof height by ten feet. We tried to get the elevator to access up to the roof but the size of the elevator cab was restricted by the allowable 6 x 6 x 10 ft. height. We allowed the elevator only to go to the top floor and not access the roof. In order to access the roof we provided a staircase. Mr. Benedict described the drainage system necessary from the roof indicating that putting a cap on top — of the stairwell would have the residents of Toscana looking at this cap instead of the stairwell. Therefore, they created a three sided wall which captures the stairwell and is opened on the east side. Vice Chair Samuels – Is there going to be both an elevator and a staircase? Tom Benedict – The elevator will not go to the roof because we cannot fit that within the 6 x 6 dimensions allowed in the code. The elevator stops and the lid on that elevator is within the code requirements. It does not go to the upper level. In its place there is a stair to access the roof Member Axelrod – Is there any other use planned for this roof other than just maintenance? Tom Benedict – We have mechanical equipment such as air conditioners located there and will be behind screened walls within the allowable parapet height. There is a small roof deck with a glass rail on the east side. David Willens, Owner – The code provides that you can have a limited roof deck, 225 sq. feet, and this will provide access to enjoy that space. We will have some type of wood decking to make it aesthetically pleasing. Member Axelrod – The only reason for this extra four feet is aesthetics? David Willens – It is for aesthetics and to provide a privacy screen for the mid level of units at Toscana. Because the variance application only included the building elevations, Mr. Benedict passed the floor plans around to the members of the Board to clarify certain features of the roof deck, stairway and elevator. Public Statements: Howard Caston, 3740 S. Ocean Blvd. – It seems clear to me that the reason for this four `- feet is aesthetics and more pleasing for the mid level units at Toscana. I am not a mid level unit owner; but a lower level unit owner directly facing this. I feel the additional Board of Adjustment & Appeals Special Meeting Minutes Tuesday, December 10, 2013 Page 5 of 9 four feet would be obtrusive and block my view much more substantially than the four feet; especially since it is sixteen feet wide and eighteen feet deep. Building Official Desorcy - To clarify the overall dimensions of this screening architectural feature, it is 18 feet 4 inches on the two short sides and 19 feet on the long side. There is a pane of fixed glass that would be included in the 19 feet. If you include the glass, then it would be 16 feet. The overall length of the wall is eight feet high and would be 16 feet. Simon Calle, 3740 S. Ocean Blvd. - The Architect and the owner passed the plans around to the Board Members to clarify certain points. We were not able to see them. I am asking if we could have the same explanation so we are informed. (Mr. Benedict explained the plans showing the front wall; the pane of glass incorporated in that wall; the side walls measuring 18 feet; the staircase leading to the entertainment area on the roof and the air conditioning units which are screened by adjacent walls.) Simon Calle - I do not have any problem with the original plans, but I am not in favor of extending the wall. Sandra Meyer, 3700 S. Ocean Blvd. - There are many buildings in Highland Beach that meet the 35 foot height code, have flat roofs and deal with the water coming down. People in Toscana purchased their condominiums on the integrity of Highland Beach's building code. Those that bought on the lower floors knew that whatever views they had were safe because Highland Beach said it was. If a variance is granted, there will be more buildings because there is more property available and can ask for more variances as well. This not only affects their view but the value of their property. David Willens, Owner - The objective here was to request the minimum exception that we collectively thought was in the overall best interest of the structure from the architectural perspective, the screening perspective, massing and design of the property. It was with sensitivity that we did not bring the elevator all the way to the top. By entitlement, we actually could modify the plan and have an elevator that would be ten feet tall with a 6 x 6 box. We elected not to do that for all the reasons stated including the aesthetic adversity that it would cause. As a matter of law, there are no legal rights to a view; it is very well established but we have been sensitive to that. The entire Toscana is the subject of a height variance, and if it weren't for that variance granted, none of you would live in that property. The homeowners that live on the beach side lost their entire westerly exposure to the sunsets and so forth. I am asking that you be sensitive to that. Howard Caston, 3740 S. Ocean Blvd. - There is a lot next to this one and a house will be built on it pretty quickly. What's to prevent them from asking for a variance because you just granted this one? There is a precedence set here. Town Attorney Rubin - In response to that, each variance is considered on its own merits. If one property gets a variance it does not necessarily impact another property. Member Rodis - Mr. Willens is absolutely correct. If it weren't for the Federal Government demanding construction of the Toscana Towers, Toscana would not have been built. We are here to provide the opportunity for each owner to present their point of view and rule on it. To say this sets precedence, our Attorney is correct; we take Board of Adjustment & Appeals Special Meeting Minutes Tuesday, December 10, 2013 Page 6 of 9 every application on its merits. I believe Mr. Willens showed a certain amount of regard and respect for the community. Member Perilman — Mr. Benedict, did you take into account, at all, what the impact to the view would be to the lower floors? Tom Benedict — We recognize that the additional four feet was going to be an issue but based on all the things that could be, it could have been ten feet which is in the code. What is the impact of ten versus eight? We gave up a lot by not having the elevator go to the top. Ann Madarazzo, Toscana — You said you can go ten feet for the elevator but wouldn't that be 6 x 6 feet instead of the 18 x 16 feet. Tom Benedict — It is an issue of proportion and mass to us. If you would see a flat roof and coming off this roof a 6 x 6 x 10 vertical cube unprotected, it would be very unattractive. Petitioner's Closing Statement: There was no closing statement by the petitioner. Board Discussion: Member Rodis — I think the presentation was very nicely made and am perfectly satisfied. Member Axelrod — Our job is to protect the ordinances of the Town and the people of the Town. Mike, if we knock this down, could they go ahead and put in the elevator shaft? Building Official Desorcy — That would be up to the owner and architect to carry out that option. If they wanted to, they could take the elevator all the way to the roof. They are limited in the size of the mass of that structure around the elevator to 6 x 6 x 10 ft. high. Member Axelrod — There is no hardship in this. Town Attorney Rubin — That is the Board's decision based on the facts. David Willens — If the Board was to approve this variance, we would agree in writing that we would not later seek to extend the elevator run on top of that. The cost of bringing the elevator to the roof is incidental. We elected to not do it for everything that has been shared today. Member Axerlrod — If we don't give you this variance, you can change your mind and then put up the elevator. David Willens — Yes, we can. Member Weiss had no further questions. Member Donaldson — My question is for the Attorney. Are we allowed to place certain conditions on this? Town Attorney Rubin — Yes, you may. If the Board were inclined to grant the variance you could condition upon the elevator shaft not being constructed. Member Perilman — At the end of the day this is an aesthetic decision to take it up an additional four feet. Vice Chair Samuels — I have listened to the public, the members and the petitioner and I understand what you are asking. Vice Chair Samuels called for a motion to approve /deny the variance request at 3715 S. Ocean Blvd., Highland Beach. Board of Adjustment & Appeals Special Meeting Minutes Tuesday, December 10, 2013 Page 7 of 9 MOTION: Member Rodis moved to approve the request for variance at 3715 South Ocean Blvd., Highland Beach conditioned upon the elevator shaft not to be constructed above the four feet already granted. Member Axelrod seconded the motion. Roll Call: Member Rodis - Yes Member Axelrod - Yes Member Weiss - Yes Member Perilman - No Member Donaldson - Yes Vice Chair Samuels - Yes Motion carried 5/1. Vice Chair Samuels called for a motion to close the public hearing at 10:57 a.m. MOTION: Member Weiss moved to close the public hearing 10:57 AM. Member Donaldson seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Vice Chair Samuels called for a motion to open the regular meeting at 10:57 AM. MOTION: Member Rodis moved to open the public meeting at 10:57 AM. Member Axelrod seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: • Review and Approve the 2014 Meeting Schedule 3 Tuesday Monthly at 9:30 AM in the Town Commission Chambers Only As Needed Per Code of Ordinances Section 20 -48 MOTION: Member Weiss moved to approve the 2014 meeting schedule. Member Perilman seconded the motion which passed unanimously. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: A. Chair Vice Chair Samuels opened the floor to nominations for the position of Chair of the Board. Before nominations were called, she stated that she preferred not to be nominated since she will be moving from Highland Beach. Member Weiss thanked Vice Chair Samuels for her time and hard work when she served on the Beaches and Shores Advisory Board as well as her service on the Board of Adjustment. MOTION: Member Weiss moved to elect Barry Donaldson as Chair. Member Rodis seconded the motion. Board of Adjustment & Appeals Special Meeting Minutes Tuesday, December 10, 2013 Page 8 of 9 ROLL CALL: Member Weiss Yes Member Rodis Yes Member Donaldson Yes Member Axelrod Yes Member Perilman Yes Vice Chair Samuels Yes Motion carried 6 to 0. B. Vice Chair Vice Chair Samuels opened the floor to nominations for the position of Vice Chair of the Board. MOTION: Member Weiss moved to elect Barry Axelrod as Vice Chair. Member Donaldson seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Member Weiss Yes Member Donaldson Yes Member Rodis Yes Member Perilman Yes Member Axelrod Yes Vice Chair Samuels Yes Motion carried 6 to 0. C. Board Secretary Vice Chair Samuels opened the floor to nominations for the position of Secretary of the Board. Town Attorney Rubin stated that the Secretary must be a member of the Board. MOTION: Member Donaldson moved to elect Evelyn Weiss as Board Secretary. Member Axelrod seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Member Donaldson Yes Member Axelrod Yes Member Rodis Yes Member Perilman Yes Member Weiss Yes Vice Chair Samuels Yes Motion carried 6 to 0. Board of Adjustment & Appeals Special Meeting Minutes Tuesday, December 10, 2013 Page 9 of 9 ADJOURNMENT: Being no further business, Vice Chair Samuels called for a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:03 AM. MOTION: Member Weiss moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:03 AM. Vice Chair Samuels seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. APPROVED: Ruth Samuels, Vice Chair Ai_ Barry Axelrod, ' .. . M .. ber TOWN SEAL i11* , Barry Donaldson, Board Member I B :.ard bar A 11ESTED: Pe . Rodis, Board 7 'm . I - Rosalie DeMartino Administrative Assistant ember Date: Vacancy