Loading...
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. �.