Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout02 26 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 February 19, 2015 REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING BEING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2015 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. ArF.NDA I. Call to Order. II. Roll Call. III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 1- 22 -15. IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. V. Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. March 26, 2015 @ 8:30 A.M. b. April 23, 2015 @ 8:30 A.M. c. May 28, 2015 @ 8:30 A.M. d. June 25, 2015 @ 8:30 A.M. e. July 23, 2015 @ 8:30 A.M. VI. Items Related to Previous Approvals. A. Request for Extension of Effective Period of Approved Application -555 Old School Road - Agent, The Marker Group B. Revised Site Plan for 3250 Polo Drive requesting approval to add a second driveway entrance and to revise the previously approved landscape plan - Cudmore Builders VII. Continued from Meeting of 1- 22 -15. A. Incentive floor area ratio -Sec 1. Step back on the 2nd floor 2. Amount of 2nd floor square VIII. Items by Staff. IX. Items by Board Members. X. Public. XI. Adjournment. 70 -71(c) footage as o of 13t floor 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, JANUARY 22, 2015 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: III. Minutes Vice Chairman 2015 and Mrs. roll call. Paul A. Lyons, Jr Thomas Smith Robert Dockerty Amanda Jones Malcolm Murphy Hewlett Kent S. Curtiss Roach William Thrasher John Randolph Richard Jones Peter Klein Chairman Vice Chairman Board Member Board Member Board Member Alternate Member Alternate Member Town Manager Town Attorney Agent for Cacioppo Resident of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing 1 -22 -15 Smith moved to approve the minutes of January 22, Jones seconded the motion with all voting AYE at IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of items. There were none requested. 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. All of the members present advised they would be able to attend the February Meeting with the exception of Mr. Lyons and Mr. Roche. VI. PUBLIC HEARING. Chairman Lyons asked if there were any ex -parte communications to declare and there were none except for the conversation that the Chairman had with Mr. Weiss, the neighbor to the property ARPB Regular Meeting and Public Hearing January 22, 2015 that is under consideration for re- platting. Chairman Lyons said that Mr. Weiss was asking for an explanation regarding this application and he informed him that it would be best if he spoke to the staff. Chairman Lyons added that Mr. Weiss recently advised that he had spoken with someone and that he is fine with the application. A. Applications for Re- Platting Approval 1. An application submitted by Paul Engle, O'Brien, Suiter & O'Brien, Inc. as Agent for Mr. & Mr. 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 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. The Town Clerk administered the Oath to Richard Jones, Architect. Mr. Richard Jones of Richard Jones Architecture, Delray Beach was recognized and stated that he was here with Paul Engle of O'Brien, Suiter & O'Brien, Inc., Surveyors, and he believed that Mr. Ladauni of Seaside Builders would be joining them. He stated that he was present to discuss the application for a re -plat of the two lots at 3140 and 3180 Polo Drive and that 3180 is the larger of the two and is on the corner of Polo Drive and Palm Way. He reminded that lot 3140 had come before them for a custom home that Seaside was planning to build and which was subsequently approved. He explained that since the approval there has been a new buyer of the property and the new buyer's wish is to shift these lots into a different configuration which was shown in an exhibit that flips the larger lot, 3180 and the smaller lot 3140. He explained that 3140 is currently better situated to take advantage of the water access and that by flipping the two, the larger lot will have the water front advantage. Conforming lots of 16,509 and 29,318 square feet are created allowing the new owner of the property to develop the property as two independent lots and two independent houses, he said, adding that Mr. Ladauni is still going to be the builder of these homes. Mr. Jones reported that the owner is currently one of the owners of one of the Harborview lots and that they N ARPB Regular Meeting and Public Hearing January 22, 2015 were currently working with them on the designs of the houses for 3140 and 3180 Polo Drive. He further reported that significant progress had been made and he displayed the floor plans, both first and second floors, adding that the elevations are not finished. He stated that the smaller house, which would be for 3180, has a square footage of about 5,447 under roof and the larger home for 3140 has a square footage of approximately 8,322 under roof. Both lots will utilize the special exception provision in the Code for additional covered area up to 300 square feet. Mr. Jones advised that no significant changes are expected in these proposed plans but important to note is that there is no intention of coming back with one large house on both parcels which had been rumored. He stated -'he is providing these exhibits as examples of what is proposed -on those two lots and they will be back before them probably in two months, likely the March meeting of this Board to review the house.,designs and complete elevations and renderings and the'�rest of landscaping and whatever else is required. He said he would be happy to answer any questions regarding this. Mr. Lyons said he would like to ask him about the site plan, and he knows they're getting slightly ahead of themselves because that's not what this application is about. He asked Mr. Jones if he has a sense of the relationship of the square footage on the second floor to the first floor in the larger home. Mr. Jones said yes he did. He stated that, for the largest house, the second floor living space is 1,995 square feet of the total of 8,300 sq. ft. and that is roughly about 25% of the ground floor footprint and a significant portion of the house is one story. The same is to be said for the smaller house on the corner with even a smaller percentage, he said. He believed this to be a good way to design a house to reduce the massing to the adjacent neighbors and that both houses exhibit that same design with regards to stepping down on either side. Mr. Lyons said that he thought it was a real compliment to Polo Drive. A lot of homes are still single story, obviously in the core district you can build two story but the fact that you didn't put a lot of square footage on the second floor is great, in his opinion. Mr. Lyons indicated that prior to the meeting he did a little homework because he was a little unsure as to what this really meant to the neighbors, etc. He reported that, with the help of 3 ARPB Regular Meeting and Public Hearing January 22, 2015 Mr. Thrasher and Rita, he found that the property immediately to the south, 525 Middle Road, is about 30,000 square feet and the parcel that is proposed to be 3140 Polo Drive is about 29,000 square feet, not so different in terms of uniformity. With regard to the second lot that is planned for the corner location, it is noted that it is approximately 16,000 square feet as opposed to the lot across the street which is 31,461 square feet, but occupied by a single story home. Mr. Kent stated that many years previous a number of property owners had shared a lot between them so that each would have a lot and one half on which to build their houses which explains the different lot sizes in the neighborhood. In answer to a question from Mr. Smith, Mr. Jones advised that the lot at 3140 was a non - conforming lot in that it did not meet the minimum lot size so with the re- platting it is necessary to re- divide 3140 and 3180 to bring the small lot up to 16,500 sq. ft. which is the minimum lot size at this time. Mr. Jones pointed out that while the side setback on the south side, next to 525 Middle Road, is only required to be 15 feet they are proposing to increase it to 20 feet. Mr. Jones believed that when looking at the neighborhood, this re -plat and the two proposed houses are well within the context of the architecture and massing of that street. Mr. Murphy asked if there had been any other comments from the neighbors and the Town Clerk advised there had not. Chairman Lyons asked for comment from the public and Mr. Peter Kline was recognized. The Oath was administered to Mr. Kline by the Town Clerk. Mr. Peter Kline introduced himself and said he lived at 3157 Polo, across the street from what will be the smaller lot. He thought this was a terrific plan and he had no objection. He then asked if they plan to develop both lots at the same time to which Mr. Jones replied yes. Mr. Dockerty inquired if one of the homes is a custom home for the owner with the other being a spec home. Mr. Jones replied that the intent is that the smaller home will likely be a residence for the owners' in -laws and it might at 4 r ARPB Regular Meeting and Public Hearing January 22, 2015 one point be a house that could be sold, but it's being designed as two independent and separate houses. Chairman Lyons stated, when this subject came up on the original plan, that Mr. Ladauni represented he would make every effort to keep most of the trucks and vehicles on the property and not on the street and Mr. Jones replied, "that's correct ". Chairman Lyons asked if there were any further questions and there were none. The Chairman then asked for a motion. Mr. Dockerty made a motion to recommend approval of the Level 3 Architectural Site Plan based on a finding that the proposed re- platting of lots 5, 6 & 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 square feet or 1.05 acres more or less, into two lots, 3180 Polo being Lot 1, a total of 16,509 square feet and 3140 Polo Drive being Lot 2 a total of 29,318 square feet meet the minimum intent of the design manual and applicable review standards. Motion was seconded by Mr. Smith with all voting AYE at roll call. Mr. Jones commented that he•sees that the next item on the agenda is considering a change in the Code with regard to lowering the permitted square footage of the second story. He was concerned about what impact that may have on the two houses planned for the lots considered today. Mr. Thrasher did not believe there would be an impact on these proposed structures inasmuch as they are only showing a small amount of second floor. Chairman Lyons observed that the number under review is about 70% and the second floors of "these houses are only 20% to 25% the size of the first floors. Mr. Smith asked for the numbers on the smaller house and Mr. Jones replied it was 1,342 sq. ft. of the 5,400 sq. ft. or roughly 25 %. Mr. Smith questioned if the setback on the second floor would apply to front or side elevation. Town Manager Thrasher advised that is under discussion and he's not sure what the Boards will do. He advised that it's a section of the code that is not working as was intended. 5 ARPB Regular Meeting and Public Hearing January 22, 2015 Mr. Jones asked if he could follow up with Mr. Thrasher after today and Mr. Thrasher reminded that there has not been an application submitted for these homes. He further reminded that if a code change is recommended by this board it would then be studied by the Commission, followed by an adoption process. During this time applications would be in progress under the existing written code. Mr. Jones asked if he had a pre - application meeting by March 1, 2015 would the application be reviewed under_ the existing code and was advised yes it would. VII. Continued from Meeting of 12 -8 -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 lse floor Chairman Lyons asked Town Manager Thrasher to review this issue. Mr. Thrasher stated that they were discussing Section 70 -71 (c) which is incentive floor area ratio, followed by two subsections. He said that Mr. Marty Minor of Urban Design Kilday Studios was intending to be present at this meeting but that he has the flu. Mr. Thrasher said that in his conversations with Mr. Minor he had asked him if there was a way that he might be able to develop a modification to the code, an amendment, and have it remain basically intact with certain additional language but Mr. Minor did not recommend that. His recommendation was to eliminate both subsections 1 & 2, just eliminate the incentive altogether. He also had two people in his office look at trying to modify the language and come up with ideas and recommendations, and they did not come up with anything, Mr. Thrasher reported. He believed this section was something that was created perhaps as a reaction to something that existed and we have seen examples of how it could be designed in such a way that is a loophole in regards to mass and square footage. Mr. Lyons asked if there were any discussions or questions. Mr. Kent stated that when reviewing this house that they're proposing, it is going to have a two story section of the house 20 feet from the street and it's going to be very close to a corner which is going to give a very vertical type of appearance to this property. He thought that when they looked at it on the plot planner, everything looked okay but when you see two stories 20 feet off the street, it's going to be an incredibly imposing vertical component. L e ARPB Regular Meeting and Public Hearing January 22, 2015 Mr. Kent believed it's important to control where the second story massing is while also discussing the ratio between the first floor and the second floor. He felt a number could be set for the ratio, suggesting 80 %, but that when considering the location of the massing it would be necessary to take into consideration the side setbacks. He suggested that two stories set in only 20 feet would be an incredibly imposing vertical format, not unlike the two houses that line Lakeview Rd., but if the second story sits in the middle of the lot you don't get that vertical component. Mr. Kent said he would like to see new wording that forces the second story massing more towards the center of the lot. He felt this should apply only to the Districts with smaller lots and homes that are closer together. Mr. Lyons commented that, based on what Mr. Kent had said, the massing could be addressed by changing the setback which would amount to squeezing a wedding cake back into the property. Mr. Kent stated yes, getting the two story massing centered on the property. Mrs. Jones asked if this would only apply to a corner lot and not be a general rule. Mr. Kent said a general rule, so that when you have houses that aren't even on corner lots the neighbors aren't going in 15 feet and seeing... he thinks that the code does address in the general discussion of the Town of Gulf Stream's appearance, right now you can't build two stories right up to the 20 foot side setbacks. He feels that it's very important that we don't have two story walls going up only 20 feet off the property line. And then to address that would be that the massing had to be centered on the property. Mr. Lyons reminded that this 'incentive was created in an effort to prevent a structure from looking like one big block and obviously that was not accomplished. He further reminded that this unwanted.appearance is even more objectionable when the structure is on a corner. He thought it would be helpful to have some language from Mr. Minor directed to this for discussion and consideration by this Board. Mr. Thrasher reminded that when the incentive language was created the permitted second story coverage was reduced 5% in all districts. He further reminded that at the time, several architects had encouraged the Town not to tie their hands as it relates to creative style. With this in mind, he questioned if 7 ARPB Regular Meeting and Public Hearing January 22, 2015 requiring the second story to be in the middle of the house, positioned in the center of the lot, is in the Town's best interest architecturally speaking. Town Clerk Taylor was asked if she had any comments to which she replied that she was inclined to agree that it shouldn't be mandatory that the second story be actually centered. She stated that she thought that would take away a lot of the architect's expertise to alter the design and if it is required that all second stories be centered and there are 3 or 4 houses in one neighborhood area, they would all look the same. She stated that they are trying not to have cookie cutters. She stated that she could understand requiring the second story to go back further on the side on the corner lots, but feels it's not so necessary to have a general rule except for everything other than what's on the corner because they usually handle interior sides with various landscaping in between the houses. She thinks it would be a bad thing to require that the second story were to be centered on every lot. Mr. Kent stated that he didn't mean take the lot and split it in half, but that he meant that the massing couldn't be at one end. Mr. Thrasher stated that presently in the code it says that the secondary setback shall be a minimum 5 foot from the ground level but only on the front setback. He pointed out that it seems the problems are with the sides and that perhaps the additional 5 foot setback should be considered for all setbacks. Mr. Smith stated that he wanted to agree on that as many of these homes had a front that was on one street and that a side was on another street so the corners do need to be addressed differently than a lot that's between two other lots that may be on corners. Mr. Jones cautioned about requiring a 5 foot setback for the second story on all sides. He believed the front elevation to be sacred. He suggested that perhaps the setback on the front should be controlled by a percentage, maybe 10 %. Mr. Lyons stated that double stacking on the front elevation is allowed at this time. Mr. Jones stated yes you allow it now, but if the additional 5 feet is mandatory on all the elevations then... Mr. Kent stated no I don't think we're going there. E] ARPB Regular Meeting and Public Hearing January 22, 2015 There was discussion with regard to establishing additional building setbacks, second story setbacks and percentage setbacks but there was no conclusion. Chairman Lyons asked if there were other comments and there being none, stated he believed it was necessary for Mr. Minor to give them some thoughts. He asked Mr. Thrasher to summarize it for Mr. Minor or that he could. Mr. Thrasher advised that he would have Mr. Minor listen to the tape. Mr. Dockerty asked if they wanted to take any action on striking the existing section or wait. Mr. Thrasher advised that they could and asked if they were going to send it to the Commission when it was completely done. Town Clerk advised that part was under restriction and frozen. Mr. Dockerty stated that's very good to know. Mr. Lyons thanked Mr. Jones for his comments. He stated that he thought they were all in agreement that Mr. Minor will draft some language to deal with the massing issue that he didn't think they accomplished from the original language, and asked if everyone was in agreement. All replied yes. No vote was required. Mr. Lyons asked if there were any other matters. There were none. VIII. Items by Staff. There were no items from the staff. IX. Items by Board Members. There were no items from the Board Members. X. Public There were no public comment. XI. Adjournment Mr. Smith moved to adjourn at 9:45 A.M. and Mr. Dockerty seconded the motion with all voting AYE. N ARPB Regular Meeting and Public Hearing January 22, 2015 Uzi - Rita L. Taylor Town Clerk 10 THE MARKER GROUP FINE DIIILDING COMPANY January 15, 2015 Town of Gulf Stream Town Hall 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, Florida 33483 Attn: Ms. Kelly Avery RE: Expired Architectural Review and Planning Board Approval c/o Mr. & Mrs. John Smith 555 Old School Road Gulf Stream, Florida 33483 Dear Ms. Avery, The purpose of this letter is to request the opportunity to be granted an extension on an expired Town of Gulf Stream Architectural Review and Planning Board Approval by the Town Board or persons having authority to grant this request. The project's original approval was granted on December 19t1i, 2013 for the construction of a new entry portico and covered loggia over an existing patio and modifications to the existing driveway. The delay in applying for the required permits are the results of prior obligations of the management personnel specifically requested by the clients and multiple scheduling conflicts which would have prevented the clients and contractor from providing the attention to the project that we feel the Town of Gulf Stream and our clients deserve and would demand. The personnel necessary to manage and supervise the project have completed their projects and are ready to manage the 555 Old School renovations in the utmost timely and professional manner. Adhering to the guidelines and expectations of the Gulf Stream Community and our clients will be our highest priority. Thank you for your assistance and consideration of this request. Sit ncerely, Y��� W.Grey Marker lI President Co: W. & Mrs. John Smith M. Mark Marsh AIA Mark K. Swanson, VP The Marker Group, LLC TMG Files FLORIDA 226 SE 12th Avenue I Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 j 954.767.9767 NEW YORK 1Ga Forest Avenue I Locust Valley, NY 11560 1 51 6.609.3003 www.themarkergroup.com 1200 South Rogers Circle • Suite 7 • Boca Raton, FL 33487 February 17, 2015 Town of Gulf Stream ARPB 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 Re: Permit Application #13- 147965 To whom it may concern, (561) 995 -8989 Fax:995 -8059 License CGC041975 www.cudmorebuilders.com Please see the accompanying site plan for the project currently under construction at 3250 Polo Drive. This site plan has been revised since it was last approved by the Town Commission on October 11, 2013. The proposed changes include a revised driveway layout which allows for an additional point of access to the home from Polo Drive, and changes to the landscaping plan to accommodate this revision. Please call our office Sincerely, Terry Cudmore President Cudmore Builders questions at 561- 995 -8989. 150.00'(P) 150.3.? nn i h r k €gip �m cn 9118 i am I A - -- 444 I o z � 44R �I v OP>P " E USTOVC-RFIEFlD ------- - - - - -- � ' -- - -- ----- 4 °° n�l I Ir I � SIM _o . ''± I I I O I Jt21 r •� � Im I � Pz I 02 1 I ___________ I it -r= i i „IL° L r LFA Mo' i n I II 'JL_ J IL JI1 1 11 _JL _II LIr1r IIss1oE Erarx } I II L�Li LI _JJ j II (1y 11 ! n_I L_JJ Fir— II 1111 II III LJJ 1_ul III r —lr7 II C_]u.O.J III III L_J II — I s LryCJ o a I I _ WOOD DOAK 1•EAGISIUE(Y \ 1 eulwEnsusE � �■ I II L� �l� C C�.li�'I � �`N�� —L P. _ n 1 _IJLy II III _ -i i -11 II ❑ r� - -, -- — III• II II III I ' I •III II IIIII I I��I II IIIII I� 1 101 u I I I I _�LL�lll 1� I N 41 y O e -�T - -1 I I I I I 1 I �Elgj POLO DRIVE m L ,,. n 11v R._ ° I E', you I �g m 5' i 5' �a ,..1 1 ,111;.1=111 ,- 4 K . � "v s IX o$v a R F iWNO n0" N � @ 'z5 s�• � � s ° etl ° of . ® fii II. 0 m�n nF A k €gip �m cn 9118 i am A T 444 I o z 44R �I v OP>P E USTOVC-RFIEFlD o A 4 °° RRRR °4 � SIM _o . ''± Il O Im N 41 y O e -�T - -1 I I I I I 1 I �Elgj POLO DRIVE m L ,,. n 11v R._ ° I E', you I �g m 5' i 5' �a ,..1 1 ,111;.1=111 ,- 4 K . � "v s IX o$v a R F iWNO n0" N � @ 'z5 s�• � � s ° etl ° of . ® fii II. 0 m�n nF A k €gip �m cn 9118 i am A T 444 I o z 44R �I v OP>P E USTOVC-RFIEFlD N 41 y O e -�T - -1 I I I I I 1 I �Elgj POLO DRIVE m L ,,. n 11v R._ ° I E', you I �g m 5' i 5' �a ,..1 1 ,111;.1=111 ,- 4 K . � "v s IX o$v a R F iWNO n0" N � @ 'z5 s�• � � s ° etl ° of . ® fii II. :r Ii :r Yd ■_�.. K PERMIT SET 110 -14 -' 1111 1111 I iANDALL STOFFT CLARK RESIDENCE 119 I ARCHITECTS 3250 POLO DRIVE I I I 4 distinctive. inspirational. architecture. GULP STREAM, Fl, jP ° ° ° ° ° ° 9P ° P .IN.MIIVI AH. 1011.,. E1O,RMM ®,1,,,,. RQb ftlnl: ,MA,IO.iL01 L � � s � d � 9 a a! C3 0 5 0 m�n nF A k €gip �m Z y 9118 �81s A Q:s�z 444 R••n 44R OP>P o A 4 °° RRRR °4 :r Ii :r Yd ■_�.. K PERMIT SET 110 -14 -' 1111 1111 I iANDALL STOFFT CLARK RESIDENCE 119 I ARCHITECTS 3250 POLO DRIVE I I I 4 distinctive. inspirational. architecture. GULP STREAM, Fl, jP ° ° ° ° ° ° 9P ° P .IN.MIIVI AH. 1011.,. E1O,RMM ®,1,,,,. RQb ftlnl: ,MA,IO.iL01 L � � s � d � 9 a a! C3 0 5 0 m�n nF A k €gip �m Z y 9118 �81s A Q:s�z 444 R••n 44R :r Ii :r Yd ■_�.. K PERMIT SET 110 -14 -' 1111 1111 I iANDALL STOFFT CLARK RESIDENCE 119 I ARCHITECTS 3250 POLO DRIVE I I I 4 distinctive. inspirational. architecture. GULP STREAM, Fl, jP ° ° ° ° ° ° 9P ° P .IN.MIIVI AH. 1011.,. E1O,RMM ®,1,,,,. RQb ftlnl: ,MA,IO.iL01 L � � s � d � 9 a a! C3 0 5 O0 m 3 m m s m 5 Z n a &^ SeC ",CC:C°.ExaS- 'issccri= So %�XC:CC Eon °�v ". "..- o- a:SS:Ga =a °see " "+. "•, - R'�:•^.$'d �?Ffl�fl��eev����i "^Ii2,E„A9�?99RHS�o'o F��£a'84������ §i��A RIP DOCK 2'CONC.SE4WALL g Ban °A88 ° °a ° °. F � FR F• ,� F� F�F�FR& FAR F � � R 4 °4 €Y' 444== 44= �€€£ 4€ 4fyYYE4y' 44yyyyyYyy44 °F= 4'�= 4F44Y4444Y4Y4= � ,� '§o'eP Xo k k. °op'6 x :UC o o ---- — AAAaAAAaAg ° C F F CLARK RESIDINCE 5'A-- FENCE ---------- j 5'BULKHEAD -------------------- E' 2Y22�2F2�222i�2 £g2'�i'"ri4222F ^ "Y2F22F44P2222 ««r�'°2��2444Fq4�422 A' RF�FiF�AF�£FRFF�F�F�F•R��F•FnrS rS�F�S��r�r�F�F�F�����izz YZ3 z£i2222 ':Y T LOT 13 m x cn z G) '-i m m r cn --I �✓ _ T POLO DRIVE WOOD DOCK 2'CONC.SE4WALL ---- — CLARK RESIDINCE 5'A-- FENCE ---------- j 5'BULKHEAD -------------------- z j LINE LOT 13 LOT 13 p v N 0 I • 3550 FOLD DRIVE r i d n GULF STREAM, FLORIDA Ti j I II I I' O POOL e • I I� � I ,_ 'oA . ° BUILDING I I _ FFELEV =6.21' I 7 D N �. \ c_&ERED �,� ' CONCRETE ;CONCRETE:. *, ` • I� ' a FENCE I Im n u T O .' I• 10 ;3 z mz .. t•• I� a �m oma •' I� JD u rn m< Nm I IN 2 2 � y _ •. I• I" 3 I> " CQYL4IED .. ` I • IN o - C ,.o e m • - m CONCRETE DRIVEWAY • • w e a Im . '---'-- --- ---'� ----------- — ------ r _t' - ---- --- '---- --- --- -- OVERHEAD ---'------ -- -CABLE -___----------'------ - -•• ' m �^ �✓ _ T POLO DRIVE MAUREEN SMITH, IANDSCAPE ARCHTI'ECT W DOGWOOD DRIVE DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33483 OFFICE 561.279.4114 CELL' 561171.8933 Flodda nglutatim X6667056 CLARK RESIDINCE p v 3550 FOLD DRIVE r i d GULF STREAM, FLORIDA MAUREEN SMITH, IANDSCAPE ARCHTI'ECT W DOGWOOD DRIVE DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33483 OFFICE 561.279.4114 CELL' 561171.8933 Flodda nglutatim X6667056 R a m 3 lig ' •tli+ !'!�i aag agg ! Fta ac'1 w(gE .a,1 Fi gag +'id SAP l i51��i� 19 I:41 g °iF: gt a�. 'o[ =C —!t; t �fff' QaJe npai iilt iiF: a o l l 7✓IA f a i1 e jfE � g 9e i.e! iFi FB issvg��e lit to D a�,p iii' iii ai ae,l +� I1,'s FF1 fit tii lj ii;i dlijii =��4: m Z 1 Lg I �etl e D O m °� �g tf�tiai a rD-- li !d it(Fii cn an p'a €le lF e¢ -(6i +i Fpiti a if i�•a !! ( la !! aFpia Flit pis j^? Isa H l.f i gg le i ta: 8ggf!19! or .tBIE`j`ino IN i a !1 �+ag ,gif �lili �g°l@y S�i g ii g c� nnn, EF F ggiSyg3 S�a;g €I ydgg = 3e 5F� 's� +� ae5�Yaag €3 -ills 6 11 + L;e 3 1 3 1 1 1 A Zia :113 e2e Ig dun v 8y 3 � 9��5 �H D Z r m 1 CLARK RESIDENCE 3550 POLO DRIVE GULF M PANT. FI ORIDA MAUREEN SMITH, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 968 DOGWOOD DRIVE DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33483 OFFICE, 561.279.4114 CELL 561.271.8933 Florida rtgkumlob #66b7056 6RR�.ggR.gg € :e EttaR,aa;ec..�g;YYRflYRRRRy: li a; zdy t, �y MEMORANDUM TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK RFFA TAYLOR DATE: February 20, 2015 TO: Members of the ARPB RE: Item VI. B. on the Agenda (Revised -3259 Polo Dr.) The attached is what was originally approved for 3250 Polo Dr. This is being included along with the request so you can make a comparison. 15000'(P) 150.33(M) + 2'CONC. SEAWALL Q\ - -, — - -- — _ '; TO 0.9 � � •r (�'t -�y � .... � � � c� - 0 \ - + a of _O i O elm 0— 0 ar Ik_ a cco - — a CA ol cm + rn N - c � !�: - 150.00'(P) 150.02'(M) :m POLO DRIVE w m 15'ASPHALT p �' x L, ),y O Z D im �m im r z z ee � � 7 c as j I i � i FOUND NAIL THESE TWO PAGES ARE 14HAT WAS APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION IN 2013. SITE PLAN REVIEW SUBMISSION 08-22 -13 ��p��r;����y Town of Gulf Stream ARPB Modification or Elimination of Sec 70 — 71 (C) Perspective /Recommendation As noted in prior minutes I am in favor of eliminating this section in the Town of Gulf Stream Design manual because this incentive language has not accomplished the desired goal of restricting "box- like" structures. Drafted by Paul Lyons February 21, 2015 �7r6 O Town of Gulf Stream ARPB Two Story Structures /Second Floor Issue /Discussion Point In order to limit the construction of bulkier homes with full second stories the Town of Gulf Stream Design Manual restricts the amount of allowable FAR on the second floor in relation to the first floor: Section 70 -73 limits the second floor area to .70 of the first floor area. While it certainly helps to contain /limit massing it does not prevent stacking. I am particularly concerned about stacking on side elevations in the Core and Place au Soleil where the lot sizes are smaller. Fortunately there are currently only a few exceptions where there is stacking on the second floor on side elevations in these two districts. On most two -story homes the second floor is setback on the side elevations. It is my recommendation that we maintain this practice by establishing some new setback regulations. Suggested Modifications to the Design Manual I agree with Rita that a requirement that there be a setback of the second floor in relation to first floor of 100% on all elevations is not a good solution as it might create a "cookie- cutter" outcome and stifle architectural flexibility and diversity. As suggested by Mr. Thrasher it is preferable to have some quantitive standards as it provides for more efficient administration of the code by the Town staff by setting out clear standards /guidelines. Having these quantitative standards also provides the homeowner and architect with a more definitive guideline of what should be acceptable to the Town. I am not in favor of allowing "stacking" of the entire building even if the entire building is pushed back by some incremental feet beyond the normal setback particularly for the Core and Place au Soleil. On small lots in these two districts the incremental setbacks would not accomplish much in disguising the massing on side elevations unless the additional setback was very significant which I do not think would be practical or doable. A solution might be to require the following setbacks on the second floor: less setback in the front, more on the sides and no setback on the back. These setback regulations may not necessarily be on 100% of the given elevation. While I favor this approach I am not certain this is a practical solution as it might effectively be too restrictive on the amount of allowable FAR on the second floor resulting in the square footage of the second story being less than the 70% currently allowed under section 70 -73. Additionally I am not certain how to address corner lots. For the ARPB to arrive at the right balance we need input from Marty Minor, architectural professionals and other interested parties. Drafted by Paul Lyons Februry 21, 201 / TO: FROM DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM William Thrasher Town Manager Marty R.A. Minor, AICP February 20, 2015 k Id" STUDIO Urban Planning and Design Landscape Architecture Communication Graphics CODE AMENDMENT DISCUSSION REGARDING 2 -STORY HOMES Background During 2012, the ARPB had several discussions as two ways to encourage desirable design within single family homes in the Town. In addition, there was a concern regarding the potential massiveness and "box -like" appearance of two -story homes. As a result, the ARPB recommended two code changes to encourage variation in the facades of single family homes. The first code change to Section 70 -71 would grant an increase the allowable FAR for the home if the applicant provides for a minimum 10- foot setback on the second story from the front setback. The recommended language is as follows: Section 70 -71. Floor area ratios. (c) Incentive floor area ratio 1. For new structures in all districts. FAR may be increased to 0.33 for first 20,000 square feet of lot area plus .25 for portions above that if a minimum ten (10) foot setback is provided on any multi -story portion of the structure. The ten (10) foot setback is in addition to the minimum required front setback The structure must conform to all applicable setbacks. H. \JOBS \Gulf Stream _94- 012\2012 Code Amendments \Code Amendment Discussion regarding 2 -story homes.022015.doc 477 S. Rosemary Avenue Suite 225 - The Lofts at CityPlace West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561.366.1100 561.366.1111 fax www.UDKstudios.com LCC35 Page 3 ll The use of architectural design features to provide variation among two -story single family homes is required. One or more of the following features shall be incorporated within facades facing public or Private roadways on any new two -story, single family home in all zoning districts. • Second -story setback (minimum 5' setback, in addition to ground level front setback) Front porch (minimum 8' depth) Balcony (minimum 24 SF) Arcade The Town Commission may waive this requirement within subsection Ib) if the applicant can demonstrate that these features are inconsistent with the home's architectural style and that the desired visual variation is provided through other measures. These recommended changes were adopted by the Town Commission through the adoption of the Ordinance 12/4. Discussion As discussed during the past several ARPB meetings, the adopted language with regards to the incentivized additional setback for second -story portions for single family homes has proved problematic and has not achieved the goals intended. However, the goal for variation of the second -story elevations for single - family homes is still desired. In order to achieve this goal of elevation variation and to avoid the creation of a "canyon" effect along the Town's residential streets, we are proposing the following changes to the Town's code: Section 70 -71. Floor area ratios. Page 5 The Town Commission may waive this requirement within subsection (b) if the applicant can demonstrate that these features are inconsistent with the home's architectural style and that the desired visual variation is provided through other measures. (c) Second stories shall have an additional five f5) foot setback from the zoning district's front, side, and rear setbacks. Second stories shall have an additional ten (10) feet of setback from the district's side street setback requirement No more than 70% of the front building elevation shall have the first and second- story elevation within five (5) feet of the same vertical plane I look forward to discussing this issue with you and the ARPB at its next meeting.