HomeMy Public PortalAboutARPB 10 23 2014 w/ backupCHAIRMAN:
VICE CHAIRMAN:
BOARD MEMBER:
ALTERNATE MEMBER:
Paul Lyons, Jr.
Thomas Smith
Robert Dockerty
Amanda Jones
Malcolm Murphy
Hewlett Kent
S. Curtiss Roach
October 17, 2014
REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING BEING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2014 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF
THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA.
AGENDA
I. Call to Order.
II. Roll Call.
III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing 9- 18 -14.
IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items.
V. Announcements.
A. Meeting Dates
1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
a. November 20, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M.
b. December 18, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M.
c. January 22, 2015 @ 8:30 A.M.
d. February 26, 2015 @ 8:30 A.M.
e. March 26, 2015 @ 8:30 A.M.
f. April 23, 2015 @ 8:30 A.M.
VI. Items by Staff.
A. Discussion deferred from 9 -18 -14
1. Should paver brick be counted as hardscape Sec. 70 -80,
Sec. 70- 148(1)
2. Should undivided windows over 3' wide or more than 16 sq.
ft. visible from waterway be prohibited Sec. 70- 101(d)(5)
3. Should 3 -stall or larger garages be prohibited from facing
the street Sec.70- 105(3)
B. Proposed amended language related to "roof color ", Section
70- 238(a) -Marty Minor, Urban Design Kilday
C. Recommended Code Changes
1. Add "metal" under Prohibited - Sections 70- 218(d) and
70- 238(d)
2. Change Code to reflect FEMA elevation designations from
NAVD to NGVD
3. Code clarification
a. Entry Feature Height
(1). Section 70 -100
b. Color
(1). Section 70- 106(b) Principal building
(2). Section 70- 106(c) Trim
(3). Section 70- 106(d) Accent
VII. Items by Board Members.
VIII. Public.
IX. Adjournment.
SHOULD ANY INTERESTED PARTY SEEK TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER
CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, SAID PARTY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE, MAY NEED TO INSURE THAT A VERBATIM
RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY
AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 286.0105, F.S.S.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM,
FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE COMMISSION
CHAMBERS OF THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA.
I. Call to Order.
Chairman Lyons called the meeting to order at 8:30 A.M.
II. Roll Call.
Present and
Participating:
Absent with
Notice:
Also Present and
Participating:
Paul A. Lyons, Jr.
Thomas A. Smith
Robert J. Dockerty
S. Curtiss Roach
Hewlett Kent(arrived
Malcom Murphy
Amanda Jones
John Randolph
William Thrasher
Rita L. Taylor
Richard Jones
Mark Marsh
Tom Laudani
Christopher O'Hare
Martin O'Boyle
Marty Minor
Chairman
Vice Chairman
Board Member
Alternate Member
9am)Alternate Member
Board Member
Board Member
Town Attorney
Town Manager
Town Clerk
Agent:3140 Polo Dr.LLC
Agent: Jay Crompton
Owner: Seaside Bldrs.
Town Resident
Town Resident
Consultant
III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing 7- 24 -14.
Vice Chairman Smith moved to approve the Minutes of July 24, 2014 as
presented and Mr. Roach seconded the motion with all voting AYE at roll
call.
IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items.
There were none.
V. Announcements.
A. Meeting Dates
1. Regular Meeting
a. October 23,
b. November 20,
C. December 18,
d. January 22,
e. February 26,
Mr. Smith asked if there would
there would be.
& Public Hearing
2014 @ 8:30 A.M.
2014 @ 8:30 A.M.
2014 @ 8:30 A.M.
2015 @ 8:30 A.M.
2015 @ 8:30 A.M.
be an October meeting
and was advised
Chairman Lyons asked if the November 20th and December 18th dates will
work for everyone and all were in agreement with them. Chairman Lyons
officially confirmed those dates.
VI. PUBLIC HEARING.
The Town Clerk requested that those who wish to speak during the Public
Hearing please stand and be sworn. The Clerk administered the Oath to
ARPB Public Hearing
And Regular Meeting
September 18, 2014
Mark Marsh, Richard Jones, Dave Bodker, Christopher O'Hare, Martin
O'Boyle, Marty Minor.
There was no ex -parte communication declared.
A. Applications for Development Approval
1. An application submitted by Richard Jones as Agent for
3140 Polo LLC, owner of property located at 3140 Polo
Drive, Gulf Stream, Florida 33483, legally described as Lt
7 Gulf Stream Cove.
Mr. Jones called attention to the rendering of the proposed structure
on the screen and a colored landscape plan. He explained that while this
is a modest size lot, it has a wonderful open view down the canal and
into the Intracoastal Waterway. He pointed out the increased setbacks on
the sides with substantial offsets in the house from the front and a
very large back yard setback off the Intracoastal and pool deck.
Mr. Jones stated they are requesting the Special Exception in the rear
and have met the standards for such as set out in the Code. He further
noted that the standards have also been met to allow an additional 99
sq. ft. of covered, unenclosed area that exceeds the maximum allowed
FAR. Mr. Jones explained this proposed structure is a partial two story
Bermuda style home with a courtyard in the front and a two car garage.
The interior has a great room and a master suite on the ground floor, he
said. He called attention to the parapet on one side of the entry and
then echoed in the wing walls that project off the house.
Dave Bodker presented the landscape design. He pointed to numerous
verities of Palm trees in the front with abundant ground cover and vines
on the railing around the courtyard. The existing hedge on the sides
will be kept in place and verity of various height trees will be planted
between the hedge and the house and in between the palms. He called
special attention to an existing avocado tree on the south that will
remain and a number of different types of palm trees that will be
planted in the back yard.
Chairman Lyons asked if there has been any comment from the neighbors to
which the Town Clerk replied that there had been none.
a. Demolition Permit to remove existing structures.
Vice Chairman Smith moved to recommend approval of the Demolition Permit
and the motion was seconded by Mr. Roach and all voted AYE at roll Call.
b. Land Clearing Permit to clear property for new const.
Vice Chairman Smith moved to recommend that the Land Clearing Permit be
approved and Mr. Dockerty seconded the motion and all voted AYE at roll
call.
c. Special Exception #1 to permit the reduction of the
rear waterfront setback to 3712 ".
Vice Chairman Smith moved to recommend the approval of Special Exception
#1 and Mr. Dockerty seconded the motion with all voting AYE at Roll
Call.
2
ARPB Public Hearing
And Regular Meeting
September 18, 2014
d. Special Exception #2 to permit 99 sq. ft. of covered,
unenclosed area that exceeds the maximum floor area
ratio.
Vice Chairman Smith moved to recommend that Special Exception #2 be
approved with the condition that prior to the issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy, the owner of the property shall prepare and record a deed
restriction which shall provide that 99 sq. ft. of open unenclosed roof
projection areas, as shown on drawing SP1 dated 8/15/14 and provided at
the 9/18/14 ARPB meeting, shall remain so for as long as the structure
is in existence or exceeds the maximum permissible FAR. Mr. Dockerty
seconded the recommendation.
Tom Laudani, representing Seaside Builders, was recognized and the Town
Clerk administered the Oath. Mr. Laudani objected to the deed
restriction calling attention that would place'a cloud on the title and
would restrict future owners who may want to make enclosures.
Mr. Jones, the architect, advised that there was enough left to work
with after the 99 sq. ft. was restricted.
Mr. Thrasher confirmed that this type of restriction has been placed on
approvals many times in the past and added that the restriction is one
of the specific standards of approval for this requested Special
Exception which could not be granted without the deed restriction.
Mr. Laudani stated he had no objection as long as the restriction stated
that it is the 99 sq. ft. that is restricted. He then asked if this can
be done administratively and was advised it cannot be administratively.
Chairman Lyons then called for a vote on the motion and all voted AYE at
roll call.
e. Level 3 Architectural/ Site Plan Review to permit
construction of a 2 story single family Gulf Stream
Bermuda style dwelling with attached 2 car garage,
consisting of 4,540 square feet, and a swimming pool.
Christopher O'Hare asked to speak prior to the vote being taken. He read
the names of the plants that are planned for the landscaping of this
property. He stated that approximately 1 year previously both Mr. Marty
Minor and Mr. Thrasher had said that if a plant is not in Section 71 -50
of the Code, it is not allowed in town. He said none that are listed
appear in Sec. 71 -50 and the Commission has taken no action to direct
Mr. Thrasher to rule any other way. He asked if a variance is required
since these plants are not on the town's planting list.
Mr. Thrasher advised that Mr. O'Hare has made this complaint previously
and it has been addressed on previous applications. Mr. Thrasher stated
that Mr. O'Hare is referring to a Special Magistrates Hearing at which
that was the town's position. The Special Magistrate did not rule in
favor of the town because of the language of the code which speaks of
3
ARPB Public Hearing
And Regular Meeting
September 18, 2014
other materials that could be used to locate or be used for identifying
materials that can be placed on a property. He repeated that is
language in our Code and consequently these materials, which are all
non - native, are found in present publications and therefore no variances
are required as these materials are acceptable and allowed.
Mr. O'Hare stated he had no idea what the deed restriction is all about
but it appeared to him that the Board is attempting to tie the hands of
any future boards. He felt clever gentlemen like this board should be
able to find a way to give Mr. Laudani what he wants without putting
something in that the title company will charge him another thousand
dollars to try to rectify and convenience an owner it's not something
that's going to hurt them down the line. He had no further comment.
Martin O'Boyle was recognized and asked if this is the area where the
boat was. Chairman Lyons asked what boat he was referring to. Vice
Chairman Smith said this property faces the canal and is not on the
Cove.
Mr. O'Boyle said he was just curious.
In addressing the matter of a deed restriction, Mr. O'Boyle believed
this deed restriction to be a bad thing and he encouraged the Board to
rescind it. Chairman Lyons commented that the use of deed restrictions
assists in controlling overbuilding on the lots and protecting the
character of the neighborhoods.
Mr. Thrasher explained that if any changes were to be made, the
possibility would be reviewed by staff, by this board (ARPB) and by the
Commission with legal assistance in all cases. He further explained that
the 99 sq. ft. referred to in this application could be applied to any
unenclosed 99 sq. ft. area on the structure.
Vice Chairman Smith observed that if the structure had been 99 sq. ft.
smaller, this would not have to be addressed at all. He realized the
developer does not want to do that.
Mr. Laudani advised that he would just have his attorney contact
Attorney Randolph just to be sure it is clear and not making a title
problem.
Vice Chairman Smith moved to recommend approval of the Level 3
Architectural /Site Plan Review and Mr. Dockerty seconded the motion with
all voting AYE at roll call.
2. An application submitted by Mark Marsh of Bridges, Marsh &
Associates, as agent for Mr. & Mrs. Jay Crompton, owners
of property located at 3500 Polo Drive, Gulf Stream,
Florida 33483, legally described as Lot 5, Block 3, Plat
No. 1, Polo Fields Subdivision.
F11
ARPB Public Hearing
And Regular Meeting
September 18, 2014
Mr. Marsh displayed drawings of the structure, explaining it is a French
Chateau style dwelling that the Crompton's purchased approximately 4
years previously. He stated that the 1,060 sq. ft. they are proposing to
add complies with all of the Floor Area Ratio requirements. He pointed
out that the expansions are on the east elevation. These additions
requested are extensions to the Northeast wing and the Southeast wing, a
utility room on the side of the garage, a small breakfast area and a new
Portico entry on the east elevation where there are two wings coming out
about 19 feet. He further pointed out that on the south side there is an
area between the garage and the kitchen where they want to provide a new
utility room, in that there is none in the home at this time. In
addition, they will be enclosing a breezeway and making it into a small
breakfast area which is currently on the roof. In addition to these
improvements he reported they would like to install new impact windows
throughout the building. Mr. Marsh added that they would also be adding
a new entry portico as there is no cover at the present time. He said
the color will be the same as it is with the dark green shutters. They
will also attempt to re -roof the house with Vermont Slate, replacing the
asphalt shingles. He said if this doesn't work out, he will be back
with an alternative.
Mr. Marsh pointed out that the property is heavily landscaped and they
will be relocating a few trees and adding some ground cover.
Attention was directed to a letter
stating that he had no objection to
vehicles not be parked on Banyan as
access his driveway.
from a neighbor, James Walton,
this project but he requested that
it makes it impossible for him to
Mr. Marsh called attention to the large parking area on the property and
stated they would be making every effort to keep all vehicles on the
site. He added that this is not a large project and they would be
staging the construction so the workers involved will not all be there
at the same time. Mr. Thrasher added that there will be a Traffic
Management Plan prepared by the police department when the Building
Permit is issued.
a. Level 2 Architectural /Site Plan Review to permit
additions to the existing two -story single family
French Chateau style dwelling, a total of 1,060 square
feet. These additions requested are extensions to the
Northeast wing and the Southeast wing, a utility room
on the side of the garage, a small breakfast area and
a new Portico entry on the east elevation.
Mr. Dockerty moved to recommend approval of the Level 2
Architectural /Site Plan Review as stated herein and Vice Chairman Smith
seconded the motion with all voting AYE at roll call.
VII. Items by Staff.
Report from Place Au Soleil Association, Inc. -Code Changes
5
ARPB Public Hearing
And Regular Meeting
September 18, 2014
Town Manager Thrasher called attention to two documents received from
the Place Au Soleil Homeowners Association with the results of the straw
ballot that was recently taken as requested by the Ad Hoc Committee and
the ARPB. He reminded that the request was for input from Place Au
Soleil regarding proposed changes to the Code that are of importance to
Place Au Soleil. He advised that copies of these documents have been
distributed and been made available to the public and asked if anyone
wanted them read.
The Board members advised they had reviewed the reports and Chairman
Lyons did not feel it necessary to read them since they are on record.
Chairman Lyons believed this has been a successful process originating
with the Ad Hoc Committee to this point of receiving feedback directly
from those in Place Au Soleil.
Christopher O'Hare was recognize and stated he had received one of the
straw ballots and felt it was a loaded question and there were many
emails back and forth and some were irritated, wanted to have an ad hoc
committee formed to come up with a consensus, the general feeling being
that it wasn't taken into account what the people really wanted or the
character of the neighborhood. He sighted, under open front lawns, that
Mr. Thrasher had defined that as being able to see the front door from
the street. He said that 30 of the 90 homes in Place Au Soleil the
front doors were not visible. He further stated that he understands that
the Association wants to keep the open front lawns as part of the
character of the neighborhood. He believed this reference was much too
vague to be enforced and the Commission should request that it be
clarified. He felt this means that you have a broad vista when driving
down the road, which may be true on Avenue Au Soleil but not when
driving down the side streets. Mr. O'Hare believed this comes close to a
constitutional taking of property. He said if the property owner is told
he has to sacrifice the use and pleasure of gardening in this area so
the rest of the town could benefit visually, esthetically, that it might
require compensation. He felt it unfair to tie up people for eternity
who would like to explore the landscape potentials of their property.
He closed by suggesting the matter of open front lawns be considered
more closely.
Chairman Lyons commented that he felt the definition to be quite clear.
Mr. Thrasher read the proposed definition.
Mr. O'Hare then inquired if this was a new definition and was advised
that it is the one that has been recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee and
is now being considered by the ARPB for recommendation. Mr. O'Hare
stated he was not aware of that and assumed it would be decided by the
Town Commission.
N
ARPB Public Hearing
And Regular Meeting
September 18, 2014
Mr. Dockerty moved to recommend that the following definition be added
in Section 66 -1: Open Front Lawns herein referred to as view vista and
applicable to front yards within the North /South and Place Au Soleil
Districts. A view vista is the measurement distance of the front
property line. Open front lawns, view vista, shall be a minimum of 75%
of the front property line and without landscape planting exceeding a
mature height of 31. The landscaped vista view, plantings over 3', shall
be no more than 25% of the front property line. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Kent and all voted AYE at roll call.
Fences in Place Au Soleil (Deferred from 7- 24 -14)
Chairman Lyons reminded that this item had been deferred in order for
the Place Au Soleil Association to have time to obtain input from their
members. He advised that the members are in agreement with the
recommendation of the Ad Hoc Committee and asked if there are any
questions or any discussion on this matter and there was none.
Mr. Dockerty then moved that it be recommended that Section 70 -187;
Table of District Standards, 6; Fences -Place Au Soleil- Front, provide
language that would allow 6 ft. open aluminum rail fences with a minimum
2 ft. high base of landscape material planted in front (road side) of
the rail fence which shall be maintained at a minimum 3 ft. height and
such fencing not to extend beyond the outer face of the structure. The
motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Smith and all voted AYE at roll
call.
B. Housekeeping Code Change
1. Change FEMA minimum finished floor elevation to 6' NAVD
Mr. Thrasher explained that FEMA is in the process of changing the floor
elevations from the NVGD designations to NAVD and the min. finished
floor elevation in Gulf Stream will be established at 6' NAVD. He
recommended that this change be made at this time along with all the
others.
6.
Vice Chairman Smith moved that the current code, in all areas that are
applicable, be amended to read the minimum finished floor shall be 6'
NAVD and the motion was seconded by Mr. Dockerty with all voting AYE at
the roll call.
2. Extend N. Ocean Blvd. Overlay Dist.to include annexed area
Mr. Dockerty moved to recommend that the North Ocean Boulevard Overlay
District be extended northerly to include all of the recently annexed
area and the motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Smith with all voting
AYE in the roll call.
3. Include Chapter 58 in Special Magistrate jurisdiction
Mr. Kent moved to recommend that Chapter 58 of the Code be included in
the jurisdiction of the Special Magistrate. Vice Chairman Smith seconded
the motion with all voting AYE at roll call.
4. Change (except doors) to (except front entrance doors) in
para. (d)(2) Definition on pg. CD70:63
7
ARPB Public Hearing
And Regular Meeting
September 18, 2014
Mr. Kent moved to recommend that in paragraph (d)(2) Definition found on
page CD70:63, the phrase "except doors" be amended to read "except front
entrance doors" and Mr. Dockerty seconded the motion. All voted AYE at
roll call.
C. Discussion
Vice Chairman Smith moved that the following three items be deferred to
the next meeting on October 23, 2014 and the motion was seconded by Mr.
Dockerty with all voting AYE at roll call.
1. Should paver brick be counted as hardscape Sec.70 -80, Sec.
70- 148(1)
2. Should undivided windows over 3' wide or more than 16 SF
visible from waterway be prohibited Sec. 70- 101(d)(5)
3. Should 3 -stall or larger garages be prohibited from facing
the street Sec.70- 105(3)
VIII. Items by Board Members.
A. Reconsideration of previous recommendation to not add "Or
other dark colored tiles" to Section 70- 238(a).
Considerable discussion was held and it was determined that language was
needed to put a burden on the applicant to show what they are asking for
is proper for the architectural style and the character of the District.
The Town Manager asked Mr. Marty Minor if he could prepare something for
consideration at the next meeting and Mr. Minor stated he would be happy
to do that from the direction he had heard at this meeting.
IX. Public.
There was no comment from the public.
X. Adjournment.
Chairman Lyons adjourned the meeting at approximately 10:15 A.M.
Rita L. Taylor
Town Clerk
I
Sec. 70 -238. - Roofs.
Required. Flat, white thru and thru, smooth, un- coated tile and gray slate tile may be permitted on homes that are predominately
Georgian or British Colonial with Bermuda influences. Flat, gray thru and thru, un- coated tile, eFslate -like tile or tiles of similar
colors may be permitted at the discretion of architectural review and planning board and town commission through the Level III
review process, subject to the architectural review and planning board and the town commission making a determination that such
alternatives are appropriate for the neighborhood.
Marty R.A. Minor, AICP
Urban Design Kilday Studios
The Offices at City Place North
477 South Rosemary Avenue, Suite 225
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 -5758
561- 366 -1100
urban
kd gn
STUDIOS
The Offices at CifyPloce North
477 S. Rosemary Avenue, Suite 225
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
ph. (561) 366.1100
f. (561) 366.1 1 1 1
www.udksfudios.coni
Urban Planning and Design I Landscape Architecture) Communication Graphics
'B •
memorandum
TO: William Thrasher
Town Manager
FROM: Marty R.A. Minor, AICP
DATE: October 16, 2014
RE: "CLEAN UP" CODE TEXT AMENDMENT
k I da
STUDIOS
Urban Planning and Design
Landscape Architecture
Communication Graphics
Pursuant to your request, the recommended text amendments to the Town's Code of Ordinances are
proposed to update drainage standards language to the current elevation scale. Another text
amendment is proposed to clarify the entry feature heights for single - family homes.
Drainage Standards
Over the past several years, national, state and local agencies have been updating their drainage,
water management, and flood prevention standards to reflect the North American Vertical Datum
(NAVD) measurement scale for determining ground elevations. Previously, the scale was the National
Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD).
Within the Town's Code of Ordinances, there are several sections which reference the NGVD standard.
The proposed amendment reflects the conversion of the two standards. The difference between the
two standards is approximately -1.5 in Gulf Stream. For example, a 5.0 NGVD is equal to a 3.5 NAVD.
The follow recommended code amendments reflect this conversion in Town's standards. New
language is provided in bold underline and eliminated portions will be„f.
Sec. 66 -258. - Maximum finished first floor elevation.
(a) The maximum finished first floor elevation for all undeveloped non - oceanfront lots located
within the outdoor recreational district shall be the greater of the following:
(1) . °msseet NGVD; +7.0 NAVD;
(2) 1.5 feet above the crown of adjacent roads; or
(3) 0.5 feet above the average existing grade of the buildable area of the lot.
(b) For non - oceanfront lots previously developed, the maximum finished first floor elevation shall
be the greater of the following:
(1) 4.8-5 feet NGVD; +7.0 NAVD;
(2) 1.5 feet above the crown of adjacent roads; or
(3) The elevation of the previous structure or the average elevations of adjacent structures,
whichever is less.
(c) For lots fronting on the Atlantic Ocean, the maximum finished first floor elevation shall be the
greater of the following:
(1) 1.5 feet above the crown of adjacent roads;
(2) 0.5 feet above the average existing grade of the buildable area of the lot;
(3) 3.0 feet above the average crest of the dune located on the parcel, if present; or
SiC, r
(4) "'. ^z, ^.b; ^�. +15.5 NAVD.
Sec. 70 -77. - First floor elevation.
(a) Undeveloped non - oceanfront lots. The maximum finished first floor elevation for all
undeveloped non - oceanfront lots shall be the greater of the following:
(1) ; 9i eec^.�D-,,-+7.0 NAVD•
(2) 1.5 feet above the crown of the lowest adjacent road; or
(3) 0.5 feet above the average existing grade of the buildable area of the lot.
(b) Previously developed non - oceanfront lots. For non - oceanfront lots previously developed, the
maximum finished first floor elevation shall be the greater of the following:
(1) .1-8-5 feet NGVD7 +7.0 NAVD:
(2) 1.5 feet above the crown of the lowest adjacent road; or
(3) The elevation of the previous structure or the average of elevations of adjacent
structures.
(c) Lots fronting the Atlantic Ocean. For lots fronting on the Atlantic Ocean, the maximum finished
first floor elevation shall be the greater of the following:
(1) 2.0 feet above the average existing grade of the buildable area of the lot;
(2) 117.0 ,feet ^ —D; +15.5 NAVD: or
(3) The average elevation of adjacent structures.
Sec. 70 -78. - Seawall height.
The maximum height of a new or replacement seawall abutting waters connected to the Intracoastal
Waterway shall be no greater than 3.5 NAVD. r'�, feet NGVD.
(PLEASE NOTE: The proposed change to the seawall height only reflects the conversion to NAVD. We
are currently reviewing the appropriateness of this seawall height standard, as several residents have
sought to increase the height of their seawall.)
In addition, Chapter 42, Buildings and Building Standards, refers to the drainage standards which are
internally inconsistent and not compatible to current requirements. It is recommended that the
existing standards be replace to a reference to the South Florida Water Management District ( SFWMD)
standards. A SFWMD permit is required for development activities in the Town.
Sec. 42 -94. - Design criteria.
The following basic design criteria shall be used in the development of all drainage plans. The design
computation shall be shown on or attached to and made a part of the drainage plan submitted with
the application for a building permit.
(1) Total proposed impervious and pervious lot areas will be indicated.
(2) Runoff coefficients from pervious and impervious areas are to be used to determine
total runoff to hP PORt- ,:,,,,a r.,.... the . ORCh. . r_n a the equivalent of a 24
,., 4thF a .,eaF FetUFR .., . event consistent with South Florida Water Management
District standards.
Entry Feature Height Clarification
As requested, we have reviewed the entry feature height regulations and suggest the following
improvements. The proposed amendments are designed to make the code easier to understand and
administer. New language is provided in bold underline and eliminated portions will be struck out.
Sec. 70 -100. Roof and eave heights.
(a) Generally.
(1)The height and number of eave lines and the overall height of a structure play an important
role in establishing visual continuity with other structures on the street and maintaining an
appropriate residential /human scale. Most structures in the town are characterized by simple
roof designs with low to medium eave heights and roof heights. This type of design emphasizes
the horizontal dimension of the structure while minimizing the vertical dimension.
(2)Roof height is measured from the top of the first finished floor to the highest exterior point
on the roof. Eave height is measured from the top of the first finished floor to the top of the
roof beam at the end of the beam (top of flashing). Different eave heights establish different
eave lines. Two or more separate roof areas with the same eave height are considered to have
the same eave line.
(3)Roof features can provide appropriate design articulation to a roof area, but should be used
sparingly to avoid unnecessary and undesirable complexity. Roof features include, but are not
limited to, chimneys, cupolas, decorative towers, dormers, and small cut -outs and extensions.
Two or more dormers are considered to be one roof feature, as are two or more chimneys.
(4)Entry features are the front portion of the structure which indicate and enhance the main
pFevide deeF entrance to the dwelling. The height of the entry feature is measured from the
finish floor elevation to the upper portion of any balcony railings, Dutch gable or other such
architectural elements. Entry features, if used, should provide a sense of arrival, yet should not
overpower them or the remainder of the structure. The scale and proportion of entry features
should be consistent with the rest of the structure, varying just enough to provide a focal point
to the front of the house.
(b) One story homes.
(1) Preferred.
Eave heights: From eight feet to ten feet six inches
Eave lines: Three or less
Roof features: Three or less visible per building side
Roof heights: 20 feet or less (24 feet or less for roof features)
Entry features: From eight feet to 12 feet
(2) Discouraged.
Eave heights: Between ten feet six inches and 12 feet
Eave lines: Four
Roof features: Four visible per building side
Roof heights: Between 20 and 24 feet (between 24 and 28 feet for roof features)
Entry features: Between 12 and 14 feet
(3) Prohibited.
Eave heights: Less than eight feet or greater than 12 feet
Eave lines: Five or more
Roof features: Five or more visible per building side
Roof heights: Greater than 24 feet (greater than 28 feet for roof features)
Entry features: Greater than 14 feet
(c) Two story homes.
(1) Preferred.
Eave heights:
Beachfront and Ocean West Districts —From eight feet to 12 feet for one -story portions
22 feet six inches or less for two -story portions
Entry features: From eight to 14 feet
All other districts —From eight feet to ten feet six inches for one -story portions
21 feet or less for two story portions
Eave lines: Four or less
Roof features: Three or less visible per building side
Roof heights: 22 feet or less for one -story portions
Entry features: From eight to 14 feet
(2) Discouraged.
Eave heights:
Beachfront and Ocean West Districts — Between 12 and 14 feet for one -story portions
Between 22 feet six inches and 24 feet six inches for two -story portions
Entry features: From 14 to 16 feet
All other districts — Between ten feet six inches and 12 feet six inches for one -story
portions
Between 21 feet and 23 feet for two -story portions
Eave lines: Five
Roof features: Four visible per building side
Roof heights: Between 22 feet and 26 feet for one -story portions
Entry features: From 14 to 16 feet
(3) Prohibited.
Buildings with more than two and one -half stories
Eave heights:
Beachfront and Ocean West Districts —Less than eight feet or greater than 14 feet for
one -story portions
Greater than 24 feet six inches for two -story portions.
Entry features: Greater than 16 feet
All other districts —Less than eight feet or greater than 12 feet six inches for one -story
portions
Greater than 23 feet for two -story portions
Eave lines: Six or more
Roof features: Five or more visible per building side
Roof heights:
Greater than 26 feet for one -story portions
Entry features: Greater than 16 feet
For two -story aortions greater than the followine for each znnin¢ distrirt
District
Height in feet
Gulf Stream Core
30 (roof features may extend to 35)
Ocean West
30 (roof features may extend to 35)
Beach Front
35 (including roof features)
North /South 30 (roof features may extend to 35)
(Place Au Sol iel 30 (roof features may extend to 35)"
Should you have any questions regarding these recommended text amendments, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
(b) Principal building. Sec. 70 -106 Color.
"(2) Deflnitian. "Principal building color" shall refer to the
Predon;R,�approved color application to all walls of the principal building and
the associated accessory structures. Principal building colors are subject to
review and must be on the approved color list.
O Reauiremcnts All exterior walls of the principal buildingand tic
associated accessory structures shall be of uniform color across the entire
Principal building or associated accessory structure.. This rcguiruncnt shall not
include trim and accent colors as those ternis are defined in this code. Excludin!�
trim and accent colors. nu exterior wall of a principal biildimur aLL(s sury
structure may contain or display more than one approved color. • nd no exterior
i wall of a prinenal building or accessory structure may contain or display an
a iroy_ed color that differs from and• othercxtcrior wall on the s_�mc princil
huilding_or accessory structure"
(c) 7)•inn.
(1) Considerations. In addition to the prime +pal- building surface, the trim
constitutes an important part of the home. Color selection should differentiate the
trim from the walls, but contrast should be appropriate to the architectural style.
Creating contrast helps to highlight the building articufation, while at the same
time reduces the potential box -like appearance. Care should be exercised in
selecting a color that will not overpower or dominate the home."
(3) D -hn Colors.- All trim colors shall be unifibrin in appearance lie that
portion of the trim clement to which the a roved color is applied. No trim
clement shall contain or display an approved color flat differs from any other
color approved for that trim element.,,
(d) Accent.
(2) Definition. Accent color' shall refer to the color application to any or all
building accents such as shutters, window coverings, doors, and awnings. Accent
colors are not subject to approved colors, but may not include all shades of purple,
primary red (except doors), or fluorescent colors. Accent colors if used shall be
consistent. uniform and uninterrupted."
Jam• C � 3. �.