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.