Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout05/14/1997 * Town Commission & ARPB MeetingMAYOR: VICE MAYOR: COMMISSIONER: CHAIRMAN -ARPB VICE CHAIRMAN ARPB MEMBER: ALTERNATE MEMBER William F. Koch, Jr. Alan I. Armour James E. Cross Joan K. Orthwein Robert W. Hopkins II Howard E.N. Wilson William Lynch Fred Devitt III Susanna Souder Sara Winston Perry O'Neal Bettina Smith May 9, 1997 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING BEING HELD BY THE TOWN COMMISSION AND THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 1997, AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. ITePt ' I. Call to Order. II. Pledge of Allegiance. III. Roll Call. IV. Review of the Revised Design Manual as recommended by ARPB. V. Revision to the Code Of Ordinances at Section 66- 144(b)(10)g. VI. Presentation by Urban Design Studio of revised elevations using the proposed "Preferred" criteria. VII. Discussion of Floor Area Ratio. VIII. Adjournment. SHOULD ANY INTERESTED PARTY SEEK TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE TOWN COMMISSION AND 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 SPECIAL MEETING HELD JOINTLY BY THE TOWN COMMISSION AND THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 1997, AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. I. Call to order. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Koch at C� 8:30 A.M. II. Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Vice Mayor Armour. III. Roll Call. Present and Participating: Also Present and Participating: Absent with Notice: William F. Koch Jr. Alan I. Armour James E. Cross Robert W. Hopkins II Howard E.N. Wilson Fred Devitt III Perry O'Neal Bettina Smith E. Scott Harrington Rita L. Taylor John Carleen William Lynch Susanna Souder Sara Winston Mayor Vice Mayor Commissioner Commissioner Chairman -ARPB Member -ARPB Alternate Member -ARPB Alternate Member -ARPB Town Manager Town Clerk Urban Design Studio Vice Chairman -ARPB Member -ARPB Member -ARPB Town Manager Harrington advised that Commissioner Joan K. Orthwein had advised that she would be late for the meeting. Mayor Koch thanked the members of the Architectural Review and Planning Board for the work and long hours they expended in formulating the revisions for the Design Manual. IV. Review of the Revised Design Manual as recommended by ARP_n. Town Manager Harrington advised that the proposed revisions are noted in the copy of the Manual that was distributed by using an overstrike and underline format to indicate all revisions. He further advised that he would review the revisions page by page, only mentioning the minor ones and briefly discussing the more major changes. He requested that if there are any questions regarding the revisions, they be asked at the time he is reviewing the revision in question. Mr. Special Joint Meeting -Town Commission & Architectural Review & Planning Board May 14, 1997 Page 2 Harrington reported that the ARPB had not reached a recommendation with regard to lowering the current FAR and had opted to consider this along with the members of the Town Commission at this meeting. In view of the fact that some of the recommended revisions will reduce the appearance of mass, which has always been a large consideration, he advised that C' any discussion regarding the FAR would he held at the end of the review of the proposed revisions to the Manual. Beginning with Article I, pages 5 and 6, Mr. Harrington advised that the definition of "Preferred" had been strengthened by adding that preferred items are those typically found in Gulf Stream and define the existing and desired character of the Town and the Zoning District, along with a few other minor changes. He advised that the definition of "Discouraged" has been revised to make it clear that the burden of proof is on the applicant to show how discouraged items would be acceptable in the design under consideration. He explained that this has always been implied but it was felt it should be made clear. In addition, he advised that it is recommended that that the use of more than three discouraged items on any property would be prohibited. It was thought that applicants could include a number of discouraged items, some of which might not be significant, to use as a trade -off in an effort to be able to include other discouraged items. He added that this has also been included in the definition of "Prohibited ". With regard to Article II, Mr. Harrignton stated that most of the changes in the Manual that are recommend are included in this Article. He pointed out that language has been added to describe the character of each District and preferred items are listed to illustrate the character. Mr. Harrington advised that the revisions to Article III, Use Regulations, are for purposes of clarification, citing for example the addition of aircraft landing pads and strips (temporary or permanent) as a prohibited use. He explained that the Town Attorney had advised that this has always been a prohibited use but it was decided to specifically state this as an item in the Manual. In Article IV, Mr. Harrington noted that in referring to the Coastal Construction Control Line it is recommended that it be designated as the line being established in 1978 so as not to confuse it with the line that is about to be established more landward by the State of Florida. He further noted that the entire section related to roof projections has been re- written. He called special attention to the provision that for each one square foot of roof projection over the maximum permissible FAR, which could be covered under as special exception, two additional Special Joint Meeting -Town Commission & Architectural Review & Planning Board May 14, 1997 Page 3 square feet of roof projection must be provided that are within the maximum permissible FAR, and all shall remain forever unenclosed. Mr. Harrington pointed out that on page 10, an item, Effective Lot Area, has been added under Special Setback Requirements and the item Private Roads ^ has been deleted since the new item covers Private Roads along with (v other setbacks. The Town Manager called attention on page 14 to the addition of a new section, "Building separation counted as part of side setback on lots of 150' and wider ". He explained that this would allow the distance between separated buildings on the site to be counted as a portion of the required side setbacks, that being a total of 30t of the width of the parcel. He explained that in the past it would have been necessary to be granted a variance in order to avoid having to meet a very large side setback, resulting in more latitude in the site design. He further explained that the section on Building Height has been moved to Article V, and that the section 3., "Lots Fronting the Atlantic Ocean ", has been revised to provide that the maximum finished floor elevation shall be the greater of 2 feet above the average existing grade of the buildable area of the lot, +17 feet NGVD or the average elevation of adjacent structures. Commissioner Armour questioned if there are any landscape requirements other than the requirement that there be a minimum landscaped open space on each lot of not less than 40% of lot area that is found on page 17. Mr. Harrington advised that there are additional requirements found in Article V. Commissioner Armour suggested that a cross reference to Article V be added to the item on page 17 and all were in agreement. Town Manager Harrington advised that in Article V, there has been an additional item listed under "Discouraged" in the section entitled Building Form. In the section "Roofs Design, Slope and Materials" under "Discouraged ", "roof material uncharacteristic of architectural style or zoning district" has been added. Commissioner Armour believed that this addition should have been made as a "Prohibited" item. Mr. Harrington advised that this had been discussed and it had been determined that there are many styles, or variations of styles, that are not addressed �i specifically and by placing this under "Discouraged ", it will be up to the applicant to prove to the satisfaction of the Board and Commission how the material will be compatible with the design. He further advised that if it is placed under "Prohibited ", there is no opportunity for consideration. It was agreed to leave this as proposed. Mr. Harrington then advised that a new section entitled Roof and Eave Heights has been added on pages 5 and 6. He believed this section would control the appearance of massing and advised that Urban Design Studio would be displaying a drawing of a home that was recently constructed under the provisions of the existing Manual and another of the same home using the Special Joint Meeting -Town Commission & Architectural Review & Planning Board May 14, 1997 Page 4 provisions as proposed in the revision of the Manual, later in the meeting. In the section Roof and Eave Heights, it was agreed to change the last bullet point under One -Story Homes Preferred to read "save height from 8' to 10'6" (from 8' to 12' for entry features)" At this point, Mr. Harrington turned the meeting over to Jon Carleen of Urban Design Studio for a presentation regarding windows. Mr. Carleen presented several displays of the same structure showing the same elevation with various window designs to illustrate the result of some of the revisions proposed under "Preferred, Discouraged, and Prohibited ". The first display represented an example that would be considered "Preferred ", with 20% of the wall of the elevation in windows. The second display was labeled "Acceptable ", which is not a classification in the Manual and represented an elevation of which 35% was windows. Mr. Carleen advised he was showing this due to the fact that the next break in the Manual is to "Discouraged" and he wanted to show the difference in appearance. The display for "Discouraged" showed 42% of the elevation in windows, while the display for "Prohibited" showed 52% in windows. Other considerations such as the use of undivided glass and muntins were illustrated on the display. Mr. Harrington advised that a new section, Additions and Rehabilita- tions, has been inserted on pages 22 and 23 in Article V, and provides that additions and rehabilitations should be designed to match the design of the remainder of the existing structure so that when finished, the addition or rehabilitated portion appears to be an original part of the structure. He further advised that whenever possible, existing discouraged or prohibited design elements should be removed or replaced and preferred elements incorporated, and that very large additions or significant rehabilitations will be treated as completely new structures, those being projects which exceed 75% of the value of the existing structure. These, being considered new structures, would be subject to the standards found in Articles V, VI and VII of the Manual. Mr. Harrington called further attention to another new section, Special Exception Architectural Standards, which provides that designs for J additions and rehabilitations may incorporate prohibited design elements that are an integral part of the existing structure (such as a flat roof) through a Special Exception procedure, the standards for review of which being listed in the section. This is found on page 24. Town Manager Harrington then turned t establishing general outdoor lighting 32. Mr. Harrington stated that this lights or flood lights are used to cr property, and that it will only apply yet another new section standards which is found on page s to basically assure that no spot ate bright, harsh light on the to new construction. It was Special Joint Meeting -Town Commission & Architectural Review & Planning Board May 14, 1997 Page 5 pointed out that on page 33, a lawn statute is shown with a spotlight used to accent this key landscape feature. It was agreed that this example should be removed entirely since this type of feature is prohibited in other parts of the Manual. CMoving on to Article VI, Town Manager Harrington stated that with regard to the chart for building height, in the Gulf Stream Core District and the Place au Soleil District, "Floor to ceiling elevations less than 121" has been removed from the "Preferred" designation. In addition, in the Gulf Stream Core District under "Discouraged" a change was made that reads "Two -story without dormers ". Commissioner Orthwein felt that any reference to two -story structures being discouraged should be deleted. She pointed out that land values justify construction of larger homes. It was agreed that this matter would be discussed further at the June meeting. Mr. Harrington advised Urban Design Studio had completed a new Architectural Style Analysis and he asked Mr. Carleen to present that at this time. Mr. Carleen advised that the two most predominant styles of architecture in Gulf Stream are Spanish- Mediterranean Revival and Gulf Stream - Bermuda. With that in mind, homes of these styles have been located on a map. A third classification, "other ", includes all styles other than Spanish- Mediterranean Revival and Gulf Stream - Bermuda, he said. In comparing the first Style Analysis that was completed at the time the Manual was prepared with the new Style Analysis it was learned that there is actually 20% less Bermuda while the Mediterranean has remained the same at 11 %. He explained that when an application is submitted for a renovation, the style of the existing structure will be verified on the map in order to ascertain if the proposed improvements are in keeping with the existing style of the structure. The final Article VIII has been re- written to address the small satellite dishes of 18" or less, Mr. Harrington said. He advised that Federal Regulations mandate that these cannot be prohibited so this Article is intended encourage the placement on the side or rear of the �i structure unless reception can only be achieved from the front. Commissioner Armour questioned if the appearances of mail boxes could be regulated. Mr. Harrington advised that this had been considered but this type of regulation had been discouraged by the Town Attorney due to there being Federal Regulations related to mail boxes. In discussion, it was thought that at least they could be required to use a post for mounting the box. Town Manager Harrington advised he would speak to the Attorney once again to determine how far the Town could go with this type of regulation. Special Joint Meeting -Town Commission & Architectural Review & Planning Board May 14, 1997 Page 6 V. Revision to the Code Of Ordinances at Section 66- 144(b)(10)Q. Town Manager Harrington called attention to the proposed addition which provides that proposed structures and site improvements shall be designed and utilize forms, elements and materials in a manner consistent with the character of the Zoning District as described in Article II of the Design Manual. VI. the proposed "Preferred" criteria. Urban Design Studio, represented by Mr. Carleen, displayed two drawings of the same house that was recently approved in minimal compliance with the Manual. The first display showed the structure as approved and the second showed the same structure as it would have looked if it had been approved under the revised provisions. Everyone was in agreement that the design was much improved through the provisions of the revised Manual. VII. Discussion of Floor Area Ratio, Mr. Harrington reminded that at both the beginning and end of the revision process, members of the ARPB expressed concern about the FAR with some members feeling that it was too high. In addition, some members wanted to explore trying to tie the size of the home to the use of preferred and discouraged elements (i.e. those homes that used preferred elements could have a higher FAR than those that didn't, with those using discourage elements having an even lower FAR). At the conclusion of the last ARPB meeting, staff was directed to develop a new FAR formula incorporating this concept. He stated that after reviewing all of the preferred and discouraged elements in the Manual, staff believes such an FAR system would be difficult to implement without further, and possibly substantial, revisions to the Manual. The preferred and discouraged elements were not developed with this type of system in mind, he said. And further, the preferred items do not have equal weight nor do the discouraged items. He added that the relative importance of each item would have to �i be determined for such a system to work. Mr. Harrington advised that when the Manual was first being developed, staff, Urban Design Studio and the Town Attorney discussed having some type of point system for reviewing homes where each preferred and discouraged element would have some numeric value and a certain total of points would have to be reached in order for a project to be approved. Due to the complexity of developing such a system, it was quickly abandoned and the suggested FAR system would essentially do the same thing, he said. Special Joint Meeting -Town Commission & Architectural Review & Planning Board May 14, 1997 Page 7 Mr. Harrington stated that it might be possible to tie the FAR into the style of the home and he presented some formulas to accomplish this. He added that he did not favor doing this. He believed that many of the O size concerns expressed by the ARPB and members of the community are really appearance concerns where one or more aspects of the designs made the homes appear larger or out of scale. He reported that in this regard, three significant changes to the Manual have been proposed as follows: 1) Establishing eave heights for one -and two -story homes and roof heights for one -story homes using the preferred and discouraged system rather than absolute maximums and minimums. 2) Re- defining the term "discouraged" to require the applicant to justify that the use of a discouraged element is acceptable rather than having the Town justify that the use is unacceptable, which will permit the Board and Commission to get tough on the use of any discouraged element, thereby keeping their use to a minimum. 3) Restricting the use of discouraged elements to no more than three. He recommended that no change be made in the FAR until these new appearance regulations have been applied and the results reviewed. He then asked Urban Design Studio to present their displays. Mr. Carleen displayed a drawing of the home that was recently constructed on Polo Drive. He then displayed an overlay on the drawing that had been drawn using the revised provisions as proposed. It was agreed that there was a great improvement in the design when implementing the provisions of the Revised Manual. Chairman Wilson, Mayor Koch and Commissioner Orthwein were all in agreement with the recommendation of the Town Manager. Perry O'Neal did not believe that the changes limit the size of the front entrances to the extent desired but he also agreed that the FAR should not be changed at this time. Special Joint Meeting -Town Commission & Architectural Review & Planning Board May 14, 1997 Page 8 Mr. Devitt reminded that previous discussion at other meetings had determined that a statement should be included in the Manual advising that the Manual is only one of the Site Plan Review criteria and that the applicant must comply with all criteria as found in Section 66 -144 of the Land Development Regulations in the Code of Ordinances. VIII. Adjournment. Mayor Koch adjourned the meeting at 10:40 A.M. R. Rita L. Taylor, Tin Clerk