HomeMy Public PortalAbout01 22 15 Agenda w/backupCHAIRMAN:
VICE CHAIRMAN:
BOARD MEMBER:
ALTERNATE MEMBER:
Paul Lyons, Jr.
Thomas Smith
Robert Dockerty
Amanda Jones
Malcolm Murphy
Hewlett Kent
S. Curtiss Roach
January 16, 2015
REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING BEING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON
THURSDAY, JANUARY 22, 2015 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF
THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA.
ArP..NDA
I. Call to Order.
II. Roll Call.
III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing 1- 22 -15.
IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items.
V. Announcements.
A. Meeting Dates
1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
a. February 26, 2015 @ 8:30 A.M.
b. March 26, 2015 @ 8:30 A.M.
c. April 23, 2015 @ 8:30 A.M.
d. May 28, 2015 @ 8:30 A.M.
e. June 25, 2015 @ 8:30 A.M.
f. July 23, 2015 @ 8:30 A.M.
VI. PUBLIC HEARING.
A. Application for Re- Platting Approval
1. An application submitted by Paul Engle, O'Brien, Suiter &
O'Brien, Inc. as Agent for Mr. & Mrs. James A. Cacioppo,
the owners of property located at 3140 and 3180 Polo
Drive, Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described as
Lots 5, 6 & 7 Gulf Stream Cove Subdivision.
a. LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL /SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the
re- platting of Lots 5,6 & 7 in Gulf Stream Cove
Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 24, Page 185,
Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, a total
of 45,827 square feet or 1.05 acres more or less, into
two lots, 3180 Polo Drive being Lot 1, a total of
16,509 square feet and 3140 Polo Drive being Lot 2 a
total of 29,318 square feet.
VII. Continued from Meeting of 12- 18 -14.
A. Incentive floor area ratio -Sec. 70 -71(c)
1. Step back on the 2nd floor
2. Amount of 2nd floor square footage as % of 1st floor
VIII. Items by Staff.
IX. Items by Board Members.
X. Public.
XI. Adjournment.
SHOULD ANY INTERESTED PARTY SEEK TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER
CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, SAID PARTY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE, MAY NEED TO INSURE THAT A VERBATIM
RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY
AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 286.0105, F.S.S.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF
STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 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
Absent:
Also Present and
Participating:
Paul A. Lyons, Jr
Thomas Smith
Robert Dockerty
Amanda Jones
Hewlett Kent
Malcolm Murphy
S. Curtiss Roach
William Thrasher
John Randolph
Mark Marsh
Chairman
Vice Chairman
Board Member
Board Member
Alternate Member
Board Member
Alternate Member
Town Manager
Town Attorney
Architect
III. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda
items.
The Town Clerk asked to add item IV.B. Minutes of the Special
Meeting of December 8, 2014 and there were no objections.
IV. Minutes.
A. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing 11 -20 -14
Vice Chairman Smith moved to approve the minutes of November 20,
2014 and Mr. Kent seconded the motion with all voting AYE at
roll call.
B. Special Meeting of 12 -8 -14
Chairman Lyons asked to take out "what will unlikely be
approved" from page 3, second paragraph from the bottom.
Vice Chairman Smith moved to approve the minutes of December 8,
2014 with the change requested by Chairman Lyons and Mr.
Dockerty seconded the motion with all voting AYE at roll call.
V. Announcements.
A. Meeting Dates
1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
a. January 22, 2015 @ 8:30 A.M.
b. February 26, 2015 @ 8:30 A.M.
C. March 26, 2015 @ 8:30 A.M.
d. April 23, 2015 @ 8:30 A.M.
Architectural Review & Planning Board
Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
December 18, 2014
All of the members present advised they would be able to attend
the January Meeting.
Town Clerk swore in Mark Marsh of Bridges, Marsh and Associates
who intended to speak.
Chairman Lyons called for any ex -parte communications. There
were none.
VI. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Applications for Development Approval
1. An application submitted by Mark Marsh, Bridges,
Marsh and Associates as Agent for Mr. & Mrs. J.R.
Davis, the owners of property located at 455 Old
School Road, Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally
described as Lot 3, H.V. Pope Subdivision.
a. LEVEL 2 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit
the addition of a 638 sq. ft. covered loggia on
the north side and the enclosure of an open space
on the east side consisting of 315 sq. ft., a
total addition of 953 sq. ft. to the existing
Casa Mediterranean style, one story, single
family dwelling.
Mark Marsh advised that he was present to represent Mr. & Mrs.
J.R. Davis. He stated that most would be familiar with this
house on Old School Road. He explained that his firm had
actually designed the house in the late 89's or early 90's for
Charlie and Ann Velie and it had been very much tailored around
their lifestyle. They were retired and basically empty nesters.
The Davis' bought the house recently. He stated that the house
is basically what he called Casa Mediterranean, a very simple
style. Mizner did this in Boca, very simple, thicker walls,
clay tile roof. This was the original intent. He pointed out
that the house is wrapped around a U shaped courtyard pool, with
a garage wing, kitchen and guest bedroom on the west side with a
great room linking the master suite on the northeast corner. In
addition, there is a detached, two bedroom guest suite with a
covered colonnade on the southeast corner. So the Davis', with
a young family, have obviously identified some of the shortfalls
on the current house. He said what they were here to request
approval to enclose the open area on the east side to connect
the two detached bedrooms that the children will occupy to the
rest of the house. He pointed out that this complies fully with
everything without having to request any variances or special
exceptions.
2
Architectural Review & Planning Board
Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
December 18, 2014
Mr. Marsh called attention to the north side of the structure
and explained that they are proposing a new covered patio for
this area that will overlook the golf course and the piers will
have the retractable screen that will retract into the head.
Mr. Kent stated that he thought the house always needed this
because it looked very strange with having that blank wall and
the three doors and the window, but that he just had a question.
He stated, you have the beam supported by the columns with the
exposed rafter tails coming out. Was it solid surface?
Mr. Marsh advised that it was all open rafters all the way back
to the house. He said that predominately, if you've been there,
big timbers have been used in all the outside space, pergola
coming into the porch on the south side.
Mr. Dockerty asked if that lounge would be a playroom, he didn't
know the age of the children. Mr. Marsh advised that it would
actually be a work space for the kids' computers.
Mr. Kent asked about the roof plan A3.1 and said it was fine
whichever way it comes out, but it did show barrel tile covering
the...
Mr. Marsh advised that the surface of the roof was barrel tile,
Alhambra, and underneath were the open timbers.
Mr. Dockerty asked if the barrel tile could be matched at that
age and Mr. Marsh advised it can because it's what they call
Alhambra, which is a handmade tile and they can accelerate
aging, it just takes buttermilk.
Mr. Dockerty asked if it was the original roof.
Mr. Marsh advised that it was. That it was in good shape and
was aged the way they wanted it.
Mr. Lyons asked if there were any other questions.
Mr. Kent advised that he thought it was very attractive.
Mr. Marsh advised that the color will be Bali White, OC9, and
asked Rita to write it down. He said they have actually started
to repaint as it is currently pink, not a true Mediterranean
color.
C]
Architectural Review & Planning Board
Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
December 18, 2014
Mr. Dockerty stated that it was more of the Boca Raton, Mizner
hotel color.
Mr. Marsh advised that it wasn't an orange or a cream, it was
pink.
Mr. Dockerty made a motion to approve the LEVEL 2 ARCHITECTURAL
SITE PLAN based on a finding that the proposed addition of a 638
sq. ft. covered loggia on the north side and the enclosure of an
open space on the east side consisting of 315 sq. ft., a total
addition of 953 sq. ft. to the existing Casa Mediterranean
style, one story, single family dwelling meet the minimum intent
of the design manual and applicable review standards, Mr. Smith
seconded the motion and all voted AYE at roll call.
Mr. Marsh advised the Chair that he had an emergency and had to
leave in eight minutes. He asked if he could speak briefly of
the entablature. He stated that obviously he wasn't present when
this matter was discussed, but he had his architect Hollis
attend the last workshop meeting and he observed the new
definition of entablature and in reference to height
determination. He said he didn't want to repeat what he said
when he presented the last time. He felt it to be unfair to
include the top of the entablature with the frieze or whatever
as part of the highest point of proof. The eave is supported at
the highest point of the support point of the vertical wall. So
to just use the analogy on the standard construction where they
have the masonry with pored columns and a tie beam, this is no
different except that this is much more classic and ornamental.
He stated that an entablature is a support beam, not a
decoration. It is a functional element, no different than a tie
beam, just simplifying it in a home. So he personally thinks
it's a little bit dangerous to try to mandate or use that the
top of the entablature and its decorated elements as the top of
the roof or the eave, whatever you want to call it here. He
said, as we all know, it's hard to mandate architecture. It's
all in the eyes of the beholder. But, he thought that if there
was a waiver option to apply to an element or entablature that
may not exactly comply with the height regulations, provided the
element is proportionate, it would be a good architectural
solution. He thinks it's wrong to just mandate and inhibit good
design. He believed when dealing with design, there needs to be
a little more flexibility. He said he is not promoting two story
entablatures or columns, but he just fears that it's another
reference point to be misused and could create some ambiguity.
He also believed that the illustrations quite clearly show that
the entablature is a support beam.
4
Architectural Review & Planning Board
Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
December 18, 2014
He pleaded for some respect to the fact that architecture,
depending on how it is presented, should not be penalized if
appropriate.
Mr. Lyons responded to Mr. Marsh's comments by stating that he
appreciated his comments and he'll ask the rest of the Board if
they agree with this comment and that the way you outlined the
intention of what you expect from the Board with how it's going
to operate, it will operate with this guideline on the height,
but in the event that the homeowner wants to do something
different from that standard, they have the perfect right to use
the waiver. He pointed out that the waiver was the mechanism to
allow for that flexibility and that's how he's viewing the
waiver option. He believed the incremental fee was
inconsequential to the total cost of the project and it didn't
necessarily mean it's going to take any more time.
Mr. Randolph asked what fee was discussed at the last meeting.
Mr. Thrasher advised that he knew that he said that it should be
a lower price, but that he was holding off on discussions
because he thinks that is critical to the concept. He could
foresee that an applicant who had a variance application as may
be determined by staff, let's say that we'd give them option to
file for a variance then we'd have to tell them well you could
file for a waiver. To me the two fees, and he thinks that the
fee for a variance is $1,000 or $1,500, to him the waiver
concept should be close to the variance so there's not automatic
encouragement to go to a lower fee waiver. He didn't know if he
made sense there at all. In other words, $1,500 for a variance
or $200 for a waiver, he'd go for a waiver.
Mr. Randolph stated that there was a significant difference
between a variance application and a waiver. He said that a
person will know when they come in whether they are applying for
a waiver or a variance. It's not going to be discretionary on
their part as to whether they're going to file for a variance or
a waiver because we've defined waiver specifically. So if he
comes in and has an entablature, he's not going to apply for a
variance for that, he's going to apply for a waiver. He asked
if the amount of work associated for applying for a waiver was
the same, and what you have to determine from an administrative
standpoint, because the costs are just supposed to defer the
costs of dealing with this.
Mr. Thrasher advised that in his opinion they are very similar
and asked the Town Clerk if she would agree.
j
Architectural Review & Planning Board
Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
December 18, 2014
Town Clerk stated that she would assume that advertising would
be required for a waiver as well as a variance, that's where a
lot of the expense is.
Mr. Thrasher stated that it's got to go up to the Commission,
it's not at an ARPB level and also you have a full blown
application and advertisement.
Mr. Lyons stated that he did think that in prior discussions
that the concept of a waiver was to facilitate further
discussion on some of the architectural features of a building
that we can't quantify precisely in the context of the total
building. He thought it was an option that wasn't necessary
attached to it, a penalty for pursuing that option. He said
because now we've essentially created a penalty by the fee and
he, frankly, did not understand it that way.
Mr. Marsh asked if this would fall into a special exception
category.
Mr. Kent advised that he thought a special exception was when
you had an existing non - conformity. He felt they are
discouraging good architecture by mandating a lot of heights and
things like this and the cost of a waiver application should not
be so high as to discourage an opportunity for good
architecture.
The Town Clerk advised that $200 was too low. She said she
would put more work into it than what $200 would cover.
Mr. Lyons stated that maybe what we thought was an artful
solution wasn't the right one in hindsight. Because as a
practical matter, a waiver does put this incremental burden on
staff and the applicant, then we have to look at it differently.
We thought that the waiver was going to facilitate more
flexibility in terms of the architectural, at least he thought
it would.
Mr. Marsh advised that in Palm Beach currently right now we have
7 - B variances per month at least, and to be honest for most of
those variances you had to show a hardship and it is very
difficult if not impossible. He said you have, what I think is
great, a special exception where you have some uniqueness by
which you can make a case. So I think you've already set a
standard, but the fact that you had the foresight to allow that
special ability through special exception, has allowed to have
P
Architectural Review & Planning Board
Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
December 18, 2014
things preserved and embellished and done in good taste. He
thought the waiver is another good move on the Towns' part. He
thinks it's going to allow for good solutions so keep it up.
Mr. Lyons asked Mr. Marsh if the definition of entablature the
Board is considering incorrect.
Mr. Marsh replied no, it meets all the written definitions of
entablature, but he said that he just didn't want it to be
distorted because it is a post and beam construction. It is a
support point for a roof whether it's decorative or functional
or flat or pitched it's still a bearing point, that's all.
Mr. Marsh had to leave the meeting for a family emergency.
Town Clerk advised that when they were talking.about a variance
and a waiver, she didn't see that that was a problem because
with the variance you have to prove hardship on eight points. So
you would never apply for a variance because of the'
architectural appearance''because you would have no hardship with
that, so the waiver would give you that difference.
Mr. Randolph stated that we've been very specific about the
sections in the code for which a waiver applies so you're only
going to be applying for a waiver in those specific instances.
He doesn't necessarily think that advertising requirements are
going to be the same for a waiver that they would be for a
variance. This could just be part of the notice that goes to the
public that usually goes out in regard to the meetings which
would say, this applicant has applied for a waiver from the
entry requirements or something like that.
The Town Clerk stated that she would assume that the Town could
set whatever criteria for notification if they wanted to. But
with we're very strong about letting the neighbors know exactly
what was going on,so I would think that they would advise the
neighbors the same way you would for a variance.
Mr. Thrasher stated that in hindsight, looking at this last
application, as it was presented to us, or my understanding of
an entablature, that that application should have never advanced
because as it was, it was a variance in height, in my
understanding. And so the point of that is that indeed where you
have that situation of a variance and it can't advance, it could
advance with the waiver system. So, in essence you provide them
with the opportunity and the flexibility for the application to
advance. Based on our recommendation on sections of the code,
7
Architectural Review & Planning Board
Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
December 18, 2014
that would be looked at for a
included in those sections, s
heights and such is in that a
recommendation is included in
waiver. Section 70 -100 was
this particular discussion on
ea as presented and for
the area for waiver options.
Mr. Dockerty asked how long the fee had been $200 and the Town
Clerk stated that we didn't have a fee established.
Mr. Thrasher advised that that might be a whole new discussion
where we could actually go through and analyze what we think the
times are at the time that we get to the Commission. He doesn't
know that we have to talk about fees here, he could be wrong,
but the concept of trying to be close or lower or whatever, he
thinks that the staff really has to look at it more
quantitatively as to what is involved in time, work and effort
to present a waiver to both the ARPB and to the Commission.
Mr. Randolph reminded that Chairman Lyons stated at the last
meeting and said it again today, that in respect to the overall
cost of the house, a $1,000 application fee is not really
significant. But on the other hand that he would hate to see the
same kind of fee for a variance for hardship and a simple waiver
where an architect could just come in and say it fits in with
the overall house. It seems to me there should be some
difference whether the fee is $500 as opposed to $1,200.
Mr. Kent observed that it could be someone not building an
entire house, only an addition or a modification of the house
where it did become a significant portion of the value of the
house.
Mr. Thrasher advised that both a variance and a waiver had to go
to a leval 3 review process so the number of copies and
distribution deliveries and so is altered whether it is a level
2 or not.
Mr. Kent stated that this project today was a level 2 to which
Mr. Thrasher answered yes.
Mr. Randolph asked if the fees for special exceptions are the
same as variances and the Town Clerk advised they are a few
hundred dollars less.
Mr. Thrasher stated that he thought it would be appropriate to
quantitatively look at this so that we justify our cost because,
as we pointed out, this is not a revenue producer, this is a
reimbursement of our cost.
Er
Architectural Review & Planning Board
Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
December 18, 2014
Mr. Lyons stated that to him the art is to balance the
administrative costs of a waiver against the burden on the
homeowner to pursue the path of a waiver because we have a
somewhat tight set of parameters that forces the homeowner to
deal with this. He mentioned that the parameters could be
broadened but there could be some outcomes that we might not
like. He remarked that there is a context on which this design
manual was built and it's clear that it has to be harmonious, an
appropriate architectural style, etc., etc. He said he did
appreciate if it takes more time to process applications related
to non - conforming structures we should get reimbursed
financially. On the other hand, we're really sending a message
to the homeowner that if you don't want to follow these
standards, then you have another path that's maybe going to cost
you some dollars that may be viewed as punitive. He didn't know
what others thought on this subject, but he thinks you have to
look at the balance of the two, you can't just look at the
administrative costs and say I agree with their conclusion on
administrative but now that has an implication to the4hole
waiver system as he was viewing from the outset.
Mr. Kent seconded what Chairman Lyons said in that it's a two
way street and we're in a very delicate position here and as we
have said 1,000 times, you can't legislate good taste. And
that's the problem and I am just wondering if,based on what
level the project is, whether we send out to all the homeowners
within 200 feet of the property, etc. or perhaps we could fit
the waiver process in so that there isn't any additional
paperwork generated other than what's placed on the application.
Mr. Randolph stated that obviously you won't be able to
determine that today without staff getting back to the Board or
the Commission with fees. And it seemed to him that they could
come up with a conceptual recommendation today as a Board to the
Commission advising if this is what you believe and you believe
there should be some significant differentiation between
applications for variances and applications for waivers. And
that way Bill and Rita could report back to the Commission,
unless the Board wants that specific item to come back to them
before they make that recommendation. But conceptually he
believes that it might discourage people from applying for a
waiver if there is the same kind of a fee as they would have for
a variance. He thought the Board could make a recommendation
that there be a difference in fees between the two that makes it
significant enough to not discourage the applicant for a waiver.
0
Architectural Review & Planning Board
Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
December 18, 2014
Mr. Smith stated that it was his impression that it wasn't going
to be the same fee, he thinks we were caught a little off guard
by that. He was thinking maybe $200 isn't enough but that there
should be a discrete difference between the two, maybe half or
something like that. He believed the justification for the
difference in fees may be arrived at after staff has had an
opportunity to determine how much time and energy is needed for
each process for a comparison. But he said he was always
thinking that a waiver was going to be something lesser in cost
than a variance, and he didn't mean $100.
Mr. Dockerty stated that perhaps the variance fee needs to go
up. He stated that he was new to the thing, but that some of
the architectural fees alone could be up to half a million
dollars, a million dollars.
;,:
Mr. Smith stated what if they were just building an entrance to
their house and that's the only thing they're doing to their
house and they run into this. If it's going to be $1,500 in
addition to any other costs, he thinks it could be too much.
Mr. Dockerty said he made an excellent point.
Mr. Smith said he doesn't think it should be a sliding scale, he
just thinks that it should be fair to the Town and more
reasonable to the applicant.
Mr. Randolph stated that he thought the argument could be made,
falling in line with what was said about discretion, Mr.
Chairman, that there would not be a lot of work on the staff in
looking at this because it's going to be your job, using your
discretion, to determine whether or not it fits in with the
style of the house. I don't think Bill needs to sit down and
make a determination whether he believes it fits in with the
style of the house. I think it would be a simple waiver and it
would come directly to you to make that determination without a
great deal of overview by staff.
Chairman Lyons said he agreed with that, and when he used the
word discretion, he meant discretion in the context of the
manual. Mrs. Jones said she is in agreement with Chairman Lyons.
Mr. Smith asked the Board if they felt this matter should come
back with more info from the staff or forward our comments at
this point to the Commission, adding that he thought the staff
was going to tell the Board what fits the code and then someone
is going to tell us what the difference is for the waiver and
10
Architectural Review & Planning Board
Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
December 18, 2014
that on the spot we're going to decide if this is something we
like enough to upstream to the Town Council or not. He didn't
see a lot of work by staff because they're going to do the same
work, they're going to tell us it's not conforming but I don't
think they're going to do added work.
Mr. Thrasher stated that he believed that there is more work
than they think. Just talking and doing the staff report as to
what he thinks is not all that's involved exclusively. And in
regards to how this is to be advanced, ideally we will conclude
your review of codes today if you could make recommendations on
these three items. He thought it made a lot of sense to advance
all of this to the next stage and he asked the Town Clerk if she
agreed with this.
Town Clerk Taylor agreed.
Mr. Thrasher continued and that Mr. Randolph has offered what he
thought is a good idea as to how this could advance. You could
recommend a good discrete difference between the fees`of a
variance and a waiver and let it go from there to the commission
level which then gives staff more time. He stated that he
doesn't want to start working on analysis of costs right now in
the next 30 to 60 days, but that he could do it in the next six
months. He thought that it may take that long to get through
the code review at the commission level.
Mr. Kent stated Marty Minor was in here for the application for
the house south of the golf course to go over the entablature
bit. He didn't-- -know at what point the decision is made to have
Urban Design assist, and he was not aware if the Urban Design
Studio was under a contract or if they billed hourly. He
questioned involving Urban Design in this matter, which he
looked at as an architectural decision rather than development
planning. He noted they've rendered opinion on various
architectural elements, but he looked at Urban Design Studios
more as recommendation for overall building footprints, layout
of streets, all that sort of thing. He asked at what point are
they brought in and where is the decision made to bring them in,
which he thought would be a fairly great expense, charges upward
of $100 per hour for his work, and then being here.
Mr. Thrasher stated that he made that decision as he felt he
needed a second opinion so. Mr. Thrasher reminded that the Town
has a great deal of history in code review and Marty has been
here to assist both at the ARPB and Commission during that
process, so this was not a new thing. Particularly in a code
11
Architectural Review & Planning Board
Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
December 18, 2014
review he thought it important to get different perspectives,
pointing out that Mr. Minor usually has a wider range of
reviews, different cities, different towns, to bring in. For
example, he pointed to the documentation from him on paver
bricks and hardscape, noting that he looked at approximately six
or eight communities and brought that data back to us. So it's
nothing new and he has a great deal of history with our code as
well as do other members of the firm. They do assist him when
he needs assistance.
Mr. Kent stated that for that sort of thing, code review is
integral to the entire process, but he questioned if this should
be done for an individual project.
Mr. Thrasher replied that he did that often.
Mr. Kent was of the opinion that architectural matters should be
brought to the ARPB and outside assistance only be sought at the
direction of the ARPB if a decision cannot be made at that
point, resulting in a monetary savings.
Mr. Thrasher stated that there were times when you discuss
architectural matters with an applicant or their agent and it
becomes clear that they are set in their desires that this is
what they want. So as a tool for arbitration, mitigation,
whatever, he has developed a technique of calling for a second
opinion and that second opinion can be Urban Design Studios or
Mr. Randolph, depending on what it is. He noted that once those
experts give an opinion, sometimes they agree with him and
sometimes they do not agree with him, that obviously if it's
from Mr. Randolph he does exactly what he says and that he gives
them Mr. Minor's written report to the applicant and the Boards,
and it can be contrary to his recommendation. So it is, he
thinks, his decision to call in help. When he was hired he said
he was given that privilege and it was made clear at his
interview that there would be those times. He said he realized
that was many years ago and that could change, the foresight
was, let's get it right and let's try to minimize the real
argument, disputes and heated discussions. Even with those
techniques, there sometimes are heated discussions, he said.
Mr. Lyons stated that we need to move on and suggested we go to
Items By Staff.
Mr. Randolph asked if we could report that there was a consensus
with regard to how to approach this as far as your
recommendation to the Commission.
12
Architectural Review & Planning Board
Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
December 18, 2014
Chairman Lyons replied yes, thank you, and we need to convey to
the Town Commission our prospective on the fees on waivers. I
think there's consensus that the ARPB would like to see a
significant material difference between fees of variances and
waivers so that the applicant did not feel that there was a
punitive fee for going beyond the use of waiver systems.
However, that needs to be articulated.
Mr. Randolph replied that he felt it was ai&iculated well and
asked for him to determine if it was the,sensus of the Board.
The Board Members were all in agreeme
Mr. Kent asked if it was a motion;` do Nwe just make a
recommendation.
Mr. Randolph said he was fine with a consensus if Rita was and
she stated she was.
VII. Items by Staff.
A. Proposed language for previously recommended code
changes
1. Sec. 70 -80; Landscaped open space
2. Sec. 66 -1; Definitions - Entablature & Hardscape
3. Sec. 70 -100; Roof & eave heights
Mr. Lyons stated these code changes were addressed at the
special meeting.
Mr. Thrasher advised that Mr. Minor had provided us with a
report of recommended code language changes as Section 70 -80;
Section 66 -1; and Section, 70 -100 and he concurred with Mr.
Minor in recommending approval of these language changes.
Mr. Lyons asked if there were any questions or comments.
Mr. Kent stated that he was fine with landscaped open space,
hardscapes and roof heights. He thinks entablature is defined
correctly, however, the way that Mr. Randolph presented it as
basically an entablature is a beam supported by columns whether
it has a filled in wall in between or whatever, but just as a
piece on top. He commented that the Board could pass it as it is
in 66 -1 with reference to entablatures, but he wondered if some
piece of good design is being restricted. He added that the
Board could pass this as proposed and let the waiver process
address the design.
13
Architectural Review & Planning Board
Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
December 18, 2014
Mr. Dockerty stated it would be a waiver and the waiver was
less restrictive than a variance and is less expensive than the
variance.
Mr. Randolph explained that the requirements to get a variance
are greater than to get a waiver. He said with the waiver the
Board will just look at it and make a determination as a group
whether you think it fits in with the overall scheme of the
house and the neighborhood.
Mr. Kent believed that with the one -story portion of the two -
story structure the entablature would have to fit into using the
definition that Mr. Marsh brought today, that the entablature
would have to fit within the one -story portion of the two -story
house. But if the entablature is supporting a wall that goes up
two stories, that might be different, he said. Mr. Kent thought
the waiver process will take care of anything to do with that.
Mr. Smith stated Mark seemed to be describing something
different than what we've seen in this graphic sketch. But, this
clearly, unless this is from some wrong manual, describes the
entablature as something to the very top of whatever the
architectural feature was and he was more addressing the lower
beam or something.
Mr. Thrasher advised that in Marks presentation and that of his
assistant, they were talking about cornices and these other
elements that were above the beam, so he believed there to be a
conflict.
Mr. Smith believed this no longer conflicts and Mr. Thrasher was
in agreement.
Chairman Lyons reminded that he had asked Mr. Marsh before he
left if the definition is correct and he said that Mr. Minor had
it technically correct.
Mr. Kent said he agreed, it's just whether this is supporting
rafters or a two story wall that's supporting the second story.
Chairman Lyons asked Mr. Kent if he is okay with the way it is
and Mr. Kent stated he was fine with the definition.
Chairman Lyons asked if there was any other discussion. There
being none, he asked for a motion.
14
Architectural Review & Planning Board
Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
December 18, 2014
Mr. Smith moved to approve the revised recommendations or
amendments to the code as presented in the memorandum from Mr.
Minor dated December 12, 2014 and the motion was seconded by
Mrs. Jones with all voting AYE at roll call.
VIII. Assignments from Town Commission
A. Review & recommend amendments or elimination of Sec.
70 -71 (c); Incentive floor area ratio
Chairman Lyons asked Mr. Thrasher to give some context to this
matter, adding that Mr. Thrasher had mentioned this previously
along with his opinion that the 5% incentive was not working as
was intended.
Mr. Thrasher said that the language that we have today allows
for potential abuse of the FAR and the question is whether this
incentive could be reworded to achieve the intended purposes or
whether the incentive section that was added should be deleted.
He said it's his recommendation that it be deleted.
Mr. Randolph asked Mr. Thrasher to explain why it was not
working.
Mr. Thrasher said he would give an example. The whole center of
his thoughts was in the last word of the second section sentence
of(c)(1), the word "any ". He stated that there is a house under
construction presently that has utilized the incentive which had
given them 5% additional FAR. He said that the first 20,000
square feet of the effective lot area allows a person to build
33% of that in square footage, or 6,600 SF. Above the 20,000, as
an example, with a lot that's 30,000 square foot, there is
10,000 SF above the first 20,000 SF and the code will allow
square footage of 20% of that which is above 20,000 SF or 20,000
SF. If the provisions for this incentive are met, it would allow
for an additional 5% or 25% of anything over 20,000 SF. In order
to qualify for this additional 5 %, a minimum 10 foot setback
must be provided on any multi -story portion of the structure. As
an example, he explained that the step back had been
accomplished through structurally connecting the garage to the
main structure with the garage being set inward from the front
lot line and beyond the front face of the main structure. It was
argued that indeed there was a portion of the second story that
was set back but it was entirely in the garage. And thus, the
main structure from side view, or perhaps front view, looked
more like a block formation than anything else. The
articulation wasn't in the main structure and that was where you
particularly want it. He commented that this had happened twice
15
Architectural Review & Planning Board
Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
December 18, 2014
and both homes have received unfavorable comments from
residents. He believed, with this information, that this
incentive language is actually defeating the purpose of its
creation.
Mr. Randolph asked if Marty Minor thought this offered a better
design.
Mr. Thrasher said yes, that it was discussed at the ARPB and the
Commission level and everybody thought that this was good
language and would provide step backs and articulation to
discourage the blockhouse appearance when the structure is
viewed from a side street or possibly also from the front.
Mr. Smith said that it was believed at the time that the second
story on the front of the two story structure would be set back
which would be a nice look.
Mr. Smith asked if more than one resident had made unfavorable
comments and felt changes were necessary, and if the objections
were related to the flat face or to the second story being over
the garage.
Mr. Thrasher advised that several have commented and that they
were objecting to the flat face of the main structure and then
others stated that by offering incentives such as 5% additional
FAR there's always somebody creative out there that could abuse
the situation. He said that the houses that we're talking about
went through the entire review. They were the Level 3, they
went from ARPB to the Commission and met the code.
Mr. Dockerty asked if it was the same architect by chance to
which Mr. Thrasher replied that it was.
Chairman Lyons suggested that we may want to look at the subject
in a bifurcated way whether the concept of the incentives were
in the first place a good idea. In the context of this
experience it has not been a good idea at all, we still get
block buildings with more FAR and in hindsight he wondered why
more FAR was granted. He stated he was generally biased towards
repealing it, specifically as it related to the incentive. But
that we did need to have more thoughtful language on set back or
step back, whatever is a better term on the second floor so it's
not block like. So he doesn't know whether we want to decide
whether we want to appeal this or repeal it, what's the correct
language.
16
Architectural Review & Planning Board
Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
December 18, 2014
Mr. Randolph said modify it.
Mr. Smith stated that it said it may take on the form of a porch
or a balcony but must be located on the front side of the
structure. So it says on the front side of the structure that's
where we're having the problem. We all figured it would be the
body of the home and apparently it's not always being assumed
that way.
Mr. Thrasher advised that it said any multistory portion. He
said he means that could be one articulation.
Mr. Lyons advised that there was some public comment from one
home owner on Polo Drive, who had'been a practicing attorney,
who said that anybody creative would figure out a way to wiggle
through this and get their 5% and it's hard to write the right
language to stop someone from doing something. And - .again he said
he is inclined to think this 5% incentive might have been
pushing it in the wrong direction.
Mr. Smith asked if it has worked successfully on some others and
that were only talking about the ones who are negative.
Mr. Thrasher advised no, this was created not too long ago, he
thought July 13, 2012, but all he knew was it hadn't worked
successfully.
Mr. Dockerty said, and the community is speaking out.
Mr. Thrasher said I've heard comments and I think you've heard
comments on these homes. At least you've expressed them to me.
Mr. Smith said that they were on a corner too, which made it
more difficult because you could see the side so much better.
Mr. Dockerty asked if they should scrap it or did we alter the
language to make it-,be more...
Mr. Randolph advised that Zoning in Progress was declared by the
Commission, meaning that while this was under study and no one
could make an application under this particular provision.
Mr. Smith asked, so it's on hold no matter what?
Mr. Randolph advised right, there wouldn't be any other mistakes
made under this Commission.
17
Architectural Review & Planning Board
Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
December 18, 2014
Mr. Lyons stated, so there's no urgency that would necessarily
repeal it so it needs some more discussion. So should be put it
on the agenda for the next meeting and what preparation should
be done for that meeting?
Mr. Smith advised that maybe they could be pointed out as he
wouldn't mind looking at the houses. Is that breaking protocol?
Mr. Randolph advised no, not if you individually do it and don't
discuss it with each other. You come back here to discuss it.
Mr. Smith moved that we table our discussion to the next meeting
but in the interim it could be helpful if we were provided with
two or more examples.
Mr. Thrasher advised that it's a maximum of two.
Mr. Dockerty seconded the motion with all voting AYE at roll
call.
Mr. Kent asked if he could make a recommendation which was that
all look at the parts of the code which are more descriptive of
the neighborhood and how houses should be built as far as two -
story structures with massing central to the lots and things
like that. He commented that there's a lot of language in the
book already but he don't know if it needs to be adopted as far
as and /or discouraged recommended prohibited type of structure,
but we already have the language that addressed the issues
regarding how the massing of a two -story building and how it
should be centered on lots which would take it off the corners.
He realized this is already in the book describing the community
but he didn't if it can be applied for an applicant coming in
for approval of a two -story house.
Mr. Randolph advised no, if he understands the question,
the description of the community would not be the regulation.
If you wanted a regulation which could talk about the house
being centered on the lot, if that's what you're talking about,
I would have to look at that.
Mr. Kent advised yes, the two - story.
Mr. Randolph stated that he was not sure where he was going.
Mr. Kent advised that just the issue that he saw in the
description of the community and the desire of minimizing the
18
0
Architectural Review & Planning Board
Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
December 18, 2014
impact of a two -story structure that the second story be
confined more to the central parts of the lot. In other words,
not out to one side or the other or on a corner and he thought
that would really go a long way as to addressing some of the
concerns of the houses that had been built in particular.
Mr. Randolph advised that he would have to work that into his
regulations as opposed to the description of the community. He
would have to have something specific to advise the architect
how he would want the house to sit on the property.
Mr. Thrasher advised that there were some sections of the code
that dealt with the percentage of the footage on the second
story.
Committee stated yes, but it's limited, the second story could
move left or right. They can move out to the corners at the end
of the lot.
_1
Mr. Lyons asked Mr. Thrasher if he thought it would be-good to
embellish those sections.
Mr. Thrasher replied that he's often thought
of second story is too high and that a minor
see what the effect is over time might be a
didn't know how to prove that so, therefore,
But he thinks that in his opinion that might
percentage.was changed.
that the percentage
adjustment just to
Dossibility. He
wouldn't try to.
help if that
Mr. Lyons stated that he thought that at the next meeting they
would discuss this further and they'll address two items. It
will be the step back on the second floor and the amount of
square footage as a percentage of the first floor. He would look
at both of those because it was a two dimensional issue, and any
other considerations. Most of the building should be central to
the lot.
Mr. Kent stated, so_:as to the two story massing, we just have to
have language that restricts the two story portion and this was
on the agenda maybe 15 years ago where we discussed this for
some of the areas of the Town but of course not on the
oceanfront or the district in the south where you have large
lots.
Mr. Randolph stated that usually our setbacks take care of that.
You have greater setbacks for the second story then you would
for the first story. He's never seen in any community that he
19
Architectural Review & Planning Board
Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
December 18, 2014
represented, any language which says that the major portion of
the house shall be centered on the lot. It always deals with
the required setbacks.
Mr. Randolph stated that then you're starting to deal with
design again I think.
Mr. Kent stated yes, but it's just to get the two -story house
where all the massing is on the corner lot, there's no step
backs, it just goes straight up.
Mr. Lyons stated so let's discuss this further as per Vice
Chairman's motion.
IX. Items by Board Members.
Mr. Lyons asked if there were any items by Board Members.
There were no items by Board Members.
X. Public
There were no public comments.
XI. Adjournment
Mr. Smith moved to adjourn at 9:45 A.M. and Mr. Dockerty
seconded the motion with all voting AYE.
Carole Vitale
Recording Secretary
20
TOWN OF GULF STREAM
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING REPORT
Application #: 014-13
Address: 3140 & 3180 Polo Drive
Proposed Improvement:
Approvals Requested:
Level III Architectural/Site Plan:
Zoning District: RS-C
Considered During Review:
Section 70 -67. Effective lot area.
Owner: James & Jennifer Cacioppo
Agent: Paul Engle, O'Brien Suiter & O'Brien, Inc.
Re -plat
To permit the re- platting of Lots 5, 6 and 7 Gulf Stream
Cove Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 24, Page 185,
Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, a total of
45,827 SF or 1.05 acres more or less, into two lots, 3180
Polo Drive being Lot 1, a total of 16,509 SF and 3140 Polo
Drive being lot 2, a total of 29,318 SF.
Section 70 -68. Lot size and dimensional requirements.
Section 70 -69. Unity of title.
Recommendations:
Motion to recommend approval of Level III Architectural /Site Plan based on a finding that the
proposed re- platting of Lots 5, 6 and 7 Gulf Stream Cove Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book
24, Page 185, Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, a total of 45,827 SF or 1.05 acres
more or less, into two lots, 3180 Polo Drive being Lot 1, a total of 16,509 SF and 3140 Polo Drive
being lot 2, a total of 29,318 SF meet the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable
review standards.
ARPB Date: January 22, 2015
Action:
Level 3 Architectural /Site Plan Review:
Town Commission Date: February 13, 2015
Action:
Level 3 Architectural/ Site Plan Review:
of Gulf Stream
TOWN OF GULF STREAM
► RECEIVED -4
DEC 24 2014
Town of Guifstream, FL
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
This form is to be used for all development review applications to be heard by the Town of Gulf Stream
Architectural Review and Planning Board, Board of Adjustment, and /or Town Commission. To complete the
form properly, please review the accompanying Town of Gulf Stream instruction Manual for Application for
Development Review Form. Failure to complete this form properly will delay its consideration.
ARPB File # — 13
To be completed by all applicants. PART II. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Project information
I.A.1. Project/Owner Name: James A. Cacioppo and Jennifer B. Cacioppo
I.A.2. Project Address: 3140 Polo Drive Gulf Stream, FL
I.A.3. Project Properly Legal Description: Lots 5, 6 & 7, Gulf Stream Cove according to the Plat thereof
recorded in BK 24, OG 185 of the public records of Palm Beach County FL
I.A.4. Project Description (describe in detail, including # of stories, etc.) create 2 lots with
a Two story sing family residence on each lot
I.A.5. Square Footage of New Structure or Addition: (3140) 8300 at/ (3180) 5425sq
Architectural Style: N/A
1.A.6. Check all that apply: a Architectural/Site Plan Review ❑ Land Clearing O North Ocean Boulevard
Overlay (complete section B) ❑ Demolition of Structures D Non - residential uses ❑ Variance
(complete section G) ❑ Special Exception (complete section E)
1.A.7. (a) Proposed F.F.E.:
B. Owner Information
I.B.I. Owner Address: 225 NE
I.B.2. Owner Phone Number:
I.B.3. Owner
N/A
Type of Foundation:
N/A
Suite 720, Boca Raton, FL 33432
C. Agent Inrormatio
I.C.I. Agent N me and Firm Name: O'Brien Suitor & O'Brien
I.C.2. Agent Address: 955 NW 171h Ave. Delray Beach FL
I.C.3. Agent Phone Number: (o) 561 - 276 -4501
1.C.4.
Pre -App Date:
App Date:
Corn Dale:
Decision:
Official Use Only
ARPB Dale:
Recommendation: _
TC Dale:
Fax
Application for Development Approval Form ADA.2000
revised 6/13100 Page 2
Town of Gulf
PART III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION
To be completed by all applicants after pre- application conference with Town Staff. Please be concise but
brief. Attach additional sheets only when necessary and be sure to include the
question number for each response. appropriate and complete
A. Project Description and Justification
III.A.1. In what zoning district is the project site located? Gulf Strea Core District
III.A.2. Is the project compatible with the intent of the zoning district? ffYes ❑ No
III.A.3. Is the project consistent with the Future Land Use Map and goals, objectives and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan? 0 Yes ❑ No
Explain.
III.A.4. How are Ingress and egress to the property to be
On lot 3140 ingress /egress will be off of Polo Drive and at lot 3180
off of Palm Way and Polo Drive
III.X5. How are the following utilities to be provided to the property?
a. SlormwaterDralnege NIA
b. Sanitary Sewer
c. Potable Water
d. Irrigation Water
e. Electricity
f. Telephone
g. Gas
h. Cable Televisinn
III.A.6. If the project involves the erection of one or more structures, please describe how the structures are
consistent with the criteria In Section 66 -144 of the Town of Gulf Stream Code additional
sheet If necessary.)
NIA
PART IV. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Section A is to be completed by all applicants after pre - application conference with Town staff. Answering
"Yes "to any question in Section A requires the completion of additional Sections as indicated.
A. Additional Approvals /Requirements
IV.A.1. Does the project involve land area within fifty feel (50') of the A1A (North Ocean Boulevard) right -of-
way? ❑ Yes PI No (If "Yes ", section B of this part must be completed.)
IV.A.2. Does the project involve the demolition of one or more structures? 13 Yes ❑ No
(If "Yes ", section C of this part must be completed.)
IV.A.3. Does the project involve the clearing or filling of any portion of an existing vacant lot or more than
fifty percent (50 %) of the landscaped area of a developed lot? ❑ Yes ❑ No
(If "Yes ", section D of this part must be completed.)
IV.A.5. Does the project require approval of a Special Exception?
❑ Yes ® No (If "Yes ", section E of this part must be completed.)
IV.A.6. Is the project at variance with any regulations contained in the Zoning Code?
❑ Yes UNo (If "Yes ", section G of this part must be completed.)
Application for Development Approval Form ADA.32000
Page 3
A A
8� a Mw � y
2 �S�p� E f�j�gtl �ay0�0 p0� >�Ip� Q~y2vGAq {��
n17'nl $� p>y�y =l LUtn y�4y �y!��N� 4e�E
€fiM[ I N S J��qG�, �p�ifiaB�G+C�1� $N X514
P �O wrSncu,
O SIB 1 , agZ� RM
aYQ Ti jd
0
�o
a
� w
S-
ggqq figgq} o� �
o w
Lo
Eno
� O
a
Nil q ,
1����. va
zli
gip �s aa" ilk N
PRO 011
PAMIR
v
o
rn
C y My A�p�
CD l� rn
� SW'
T
M Rgip q 11A 11100, H, 5 . .
f = IN
q 1A ` 1
3�V
r� Ord
9 107 ray
� im � niwns j1�
mld ca rt e°�°s O Trj
(m[�lOi MSS n
Nr
£ _ xc� �v
W
RYd LSJ \ -•
SIi�O � ^:ii'JJ 6S �YEY )NYNO
Z 1 0 7 "� Q O
��
o-Qu zl� O
cn
i I l 1 0 7
m. �
� � -- �iiamr3uun msm a(� mrdia �f'��
uH. Wdl 11'L1 X10•; • J
CD
z
a
g
0
Q it ���
��C
M
n
N O R T H C O V E
y j
w m o m a r g A
4 . 4 n r r r A C [ y r u u n u v
e u r [ x r A V r r x r v m e ��u r u o s
9
���� E E
e f l r
R H H H
r
r u r �� O
1 S T O R Y R E S E E M Y S A i "