HomeMy Public PortalAbout05/14/1997 * Special Joint Meeting of the Town Commission & the ARPBMINUTES 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
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 -AAPS
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 ARPB.
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
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
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 30% 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
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 "eave
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
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 to yet another new section
establishing general outdoor lighting standards which is found on page
32. Mr. Harrington stated that this is to basically assure that no spot
lights or flood lights are used to create bright, harsh light on the
property, and that it will only apply 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.
Moving 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 1116. 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
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)a.
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. Presentation by Urban Design Studio of revised elevations usina
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
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
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
front entrances to the extent desired
should not be changed at this time.
changes limit the size of the
but he also agreed that the FAR
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.
Rita L. Taylor, Town Clerk
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
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 ARPB.
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
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 1976 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
Chas been deleted since the new item covers Private Roads along with
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 30% 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
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 "eave
height from 8' to 1016" (from 8' to 12' for entry features)"
CAt 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
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 to yet another new section
establishing general outdoor lighting standards which is found on page
32. Mr. Harrington stated that this is to basically assure that no spot
lights or flood lights are used to create bright, harsh light on the
property, and that it will only apply 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.
Moving 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
1211, 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
r. Federal Regulations mandate that these cannot be prohibited so this
Article is intended encourage the placement on the side or rear of the
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)(1O)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. Presentation by Urban Design Studio of revised va ion ina
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
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
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 save 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
front entrances to the extent desired
should not be changed at this time.
changes limit the size of the
but he also agreed that the FAR
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.
--�� �1<7
Rita L. Taylor, Town Clerk