Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout02/23/2012MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2012 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. I. Call to Order. Chairman Ganger called the meeting to order at 8:30 A.M. II. Roll Call. Present and Participating Absent w/Notice Also Present and Participating Robert W. Ganger Scott Morgan Thomas Smith Paul Lyons, Jr. Amanda Jones Thomas M. Stanley Malcolm Murphy William H. Thrasher Rita L. Taylor John Randolph Marty Minor of Urban Design Kilday Studios Mrs. Cuppy Craft Chairman Vice -Chairman Board Member Board Member Alt. Member sitting as Board Member Alternate Member Board Member Town Manager Town Clerk Town Attorney Town Consultant 10 Little Club Rd. III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 1-26-12. Chairman Ganger thanked Mr. Randolph for preparing the Bert Harris Act information and he thanked the Board for reading the material provided in their packet. He said the Minutes are a bridge to what will be discussed today and he asked if there were any questions or comments concerning the January Meeting Minutes. Mr. Smith moved and Vice - Chairman Morgan seconded to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of January 26, 2012. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. There were no changes. V. Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. March 22, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. C b. April 26, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. c. May 24, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. d. June 28, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. e. July 26, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. Chairman Ganger asked if there were conflicts with the meeting schedule. Mrs. Jones: May be available May 24th; will not be available June 28th and July 26th. Vice -Chairman Morgan: Will not be available March 22 Id. Mr. Lyons: May be available June 28'n; will not be available July 26th. Chairman Ganger said it will be necessary to establish a quorum for these discussions and he asked the Board to inform Clerk Taylor of these and any additional conflicts in the meeting schedule well in advance. He said he hopes to have zoning matters resolved by summer and said it Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 23, 2012 Page 2 would be best to submit zoning changes and any tweaking to the Comp Plan at the same time. VI. Items by Staff. A. Proposed Zoning Code Changes Mr. Thrasher stated that Marty Minor was present to guide the Board through discussions of the zoning items. 1. Subdivision Review G a. Section 66-1, Definitions Mr. Thrasher said staff is concerned with the definition of and thought about what could be changed to prevent a similar that exists on County Road. He referred to page 66-7 of the read the current definition of "basement", as follows: "Bas mean that portion of a building, the ceiling which is entire grade or less than three feet above grade. A basement is no a story with regards to the height measurement of a building shall be no entrances to such basement on the street side an, exterior appearance of such basement shall conform to the ge: architecture of the building." Chairman Ganger referred to "basements" situation Code and ement shall situation cited on County Rd. and said there is an entrance into the lowest story, which is the garage, and he asked if the floor of the basement is at the same level as the garage floor, and Mr. Thrasher said copfirmed that. Chairman Ganger asked if the Code should also prohibit entrances that are visible from the street. Mr. Thrasher read Staff's recommended change to the definition of "basement," as follows: "Basement shall mean that portion of a building which is below the finished floor elevation of the building. A basement is not considered a story with regards to height measurement of a building. The square footage of a basement shall be included in the FAR calculations at 50% and not be usable for living purposes which includes working, sleeping, eating, cooking or recreation, or a combination thereof. There shall be no entrances to such basement on the street side and the exterior appearance of such basement shall conform to the general architecture of the structure." Mr. Thrasher said the entire area below finished grade in the structure on County Road is livable, and he said the reason for changing the Code to what it is today was that the only concern was the massing of the structure and that anything below the finished floor elevation did not add to the mass of the structure, which is true. He said the definition, in part, has caused some of these issues and Staff feels that if you include a margin of that area as FAR, people may think twice about where they put their allowable FAR. Mr. Smith referred to a new home under construction on N. Ocean Blvd which has a basement that can hold 15 cars and he asked Mr. Thrasher if that project would have been impacted by this proposed language. Mr. Thrasher said it would have been impacted and so would every structure that has a basement that was created after the original date of the Code. Vice -Chairman Morgan asked how many other properties could be affected. Clerk Taylor said anything on a hill, or dune and Mr. Thrasher added that the DEP offers little support to the Town's Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 23, 2012 Page 3 concerns. He said there are other areas that could potentially create this situation because of elevation, such as a home on Gulf Stream Road that has a basement. Mr. Thrasher said in a previous discussion concerning this matter a comment was made that it is not unusual to control habitable space in a basement and that some percentage is typical. Mr. Minor confirmed that. Mr. Lyons said it is different in the Northeast because an entire basement, all four sides, is below O grade. Mr. Thrasher said finished floor grade is determined in the Code by other factors such as the crown of the road and the lowest grade between residences and, after that is determined and depending on the contour of the land, you have the potential of a basement area. Chairman Ganger asked if there is anything in the Code to prevent people from going below grade in flood zones. Mr. Thrasher said livable space is presently controlled by 7.0 finished grade and when you try to renovate more than 50%, or a certain percentage, and you have a grade below that flood plain elevation, you must get appraisals on value. He said the key factor may be the percentage of the home that is livable space and basement. Chairman Ganger said if you look at the structure on County Road from the golf course it appears to be three stories, and he said the ARPB recognized this when the project was presented to them, they made their recommendations to the Commission and the Commission did not uphold their recommendations. Mr. Thrasher said they modified the Code. Chairman Ganger said he believes the responsibility of the ARPB is to make appropriate recommendations and stand by their decisions. Mr. Lyons asked if the structure is built in compliance with existing Code and Mr. Thrasher said it was permitable under the current Code. Mr. Lyons asked if the proposed language would have eliminated this structure and Mr. Thrasher said the proposed language would have altered the design of this structure. Vice -Chairman Morgan said the proposed language seems straight forward, it only modifies the use of basements and does not prohibit them, and he asked if there is anything objectionable to the way the proposed language is presented. Mr. Smith said he agrees with the 50% in the proposed language, but he said it may be too restrictive with respect to use of a basement. He said, for example, his home could have a 10 -foot basement where he could have a workshop or a small office rather than just using it for storage. Mr. Thrasher said the language in the previous code was much more restrictive than what he is proposing for discussion. Mr. Randolph asked why language in the Code prohibiting occupancy of basements was taken out. Clerk Taylor said the previous Code provided for the right of inspection from time to time to ensure that the area was not converted to bedrooms and so forth. She said, when going though his approvals, the owner of this particular home expressed violent objection claiming that would intrude on his privacy, and, therefore, the Commission radically changed the language in the Code. Chairman Ganger said he is seriously concerned that people will use basements as bedrooms and putting more people in homes, and maybe renting the space for income. He said the definition of a boarding house includes having a place to eat and sleep and we restrict commercial activity in Gulf Stream. Vice -Chairman Morgan said he agrees with Mr. Smith in that an Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 23, 2012 Page 4 office, workshop or recreational activity is acceptable; however, he said we want to avoid someone using the space for sleeping and cooking. Clerk Taylor said if you count the entire basement area in the FAR, the structure on County Road would be one story less. She said if you count a garage at the side of a house at 100% in the FAR, what would be the difference if you count a garage that is under the house at 100% in the FAR, and she said use of the space would not matter if you did that. �1 Mr. Thrasher suggested that, in the language we use, we articulate in a way that would eliminate the requirement of post -construction inspections or deed restrictions. Mr. Stanley suggested that the percentage counted for FAR be determined by District and Mr. Thrasher said he thought it should be restricted in some way. Mr. Minor said Clerk Taylor's suggestion is very good in that it addresses Chairman Ganger's concern because it makes the homeowner decide where to put their livable space. With regard to defining height of a basement, anything less than 5' or 3' would be considered traditional crawl space and could be allowed without being counted. He said 7' or 8' may be considered storage space, but he said it may be acceptable to some people as living space. Chairman Ganger asked if there is an established height that would discourage habitation. Mr. Minor said maybe 6' within the basement, but he said with respect to height from finished floor grade he would like to keep the height at 3' and that would not be included in the FAR. Chairman Ganger asked Mr. Thrasher to refine the proposed language to be consistent with comments and suggestions made by Mr. Minor and Clerk Taylor and Mr. Thrasher said he would put something together. Cuppy Craft asked for permission to comment. Chairman Ganger allowed public comment at this time. Mrs. Craft said she lives at 10 Little Club Road, which is just behind the subject home on County Road. She said neighbors are not concerned with the use of the basement, they are concerned and distressed with the access to the basement, saying that it is offensive, it is below the Coral rock and it is unsafe. Mr. Thrasher said the current language in the Code allows that to happen. He said the owner wanted to maximize the usability of that space and thought they could do that by lowering it, which created the drop-off. Mrs. Craft asked the Board to address the drop-off. Chairman Ganger thanked Mrs. Craft for her comments and said the Board is working on the matter by working on the definition and height of basements. OMr. Lyons said that basements are very common in the Northeast and said he gathers from history that the Town prefers not to have usable basements. Mr. Randolph said basements in the Northeast are generally enclosed on all four sides and not visible from the street and in Gulf Stream we are concerned with appearance. Mr. Thrasher said in every District, with the exception of Ocean West and Beachfront, the Code controls size of a second story, which can be no more than 75% of the first story. He said we carte blanche basements allowing them to be 100% of the first story and it makes no sense to not have some control over the size of a basement. To have that become part of the FAR calculations places the responsibility on homeowners to maximize their Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 23, 2012 Page 5 potential for the sale of their home. Mr. Smith said Clerk Taylor's suggestion of the 100% covers it and he suggested increasing the FAR calculation to 100%, eliminate the reference to use and define a basement as something that is taller in height of more than 5' or 6' from floor to ceiling, or whatever height suggested by the consultant. Mr. Randolph asked Mr. Smith if he was suggesting no restriction on use. Mr. Smith confirmed that, saying 100% eliminates the necessity to describe use because owners would have to conform to Code with regard to use and it also eliminates the policing of it. He also suggested leaving in Mr. Minor's recommendation of no more than 3' above grade because it is in the current language. Mr. Thrasher said finished grade must be determined by the crown of the road, average height between homes and existing grade of buildable area of lot. Mr. Randolph said they would look into whether it is necessary to include that. Chairman Ganger said it seems to be the consensus of the Board that Mr. Thrasher fine tune his proposed language regarding the definition of basements, using Clerk Taylor's suggestion of the 100% and Mr. Minor's suggestion of some height limit, and present that language to the Board at their next meeting. Mr. Randolph said a motion will not be necessary if it is a consensus. There was a consensus. b. Section 70-71, Floor Area Ratio Mr. Thrasher said this item is brought forward for discussion as it relates to controlling subdivisions and size, and he said he and staff feel that the FAR seems to work for us as it is. However, he said if you include FAR in a combination of things to get a better feeling of potential subdivisions, it is worthy of discussion. Mr. Randolph said the FAR has nothing to do with subdivisions and should not be considered in the regulation of subdivisions. He said it should be done in the Subdivision Code and not in the Design Element. Mr. Thrasher said FAR was brought into the discussion at a previous meeting about the size and massing of new homes on Polo. Mr. Lyons remembered that Vice -Chairman Orthwein commented at a previous meeting that while lowering the FAR will address homes being massive in size, should we consider amending the Code that addresses design issues to stop the construction of blocky -looking buildings. Mr. Thrasher said Mr. Morgan also commented on massive homes in that area and thought the FAR may have been incorrectly calculated or the data used in making a decision was wrong. He said, subsequently, the Town started asking Mr. Minor to run through calculations and floor plans to determine whether or not we should do more than rely on an Architect's sealed drawings. Mr. Thrasher said Othey found some minor changes that were enough to require one person to modify their plans. Mr. Minor said he can request Auto Cad drawings from an architect and run them through his program to calculate FAR, and he said that kind of enforcement will help define some of the issues. He said when looking at FARs, or the equivalent lot coverage of height, up and down the coast, Gulf Stream is not the smallest, but it is at the lower end in relationship to everyone else. However, he said when deciding whether or not to include other design features, such as setback of second stories or length of overhangs, FAR is something to look at to avoid the issue of blockyness and massing. Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 23, 2012 Page 6 Chairman Ganger said that architects have software and Cad Cam to assist in calculations and he asked about technology that can assist the Board in their evaluation process. Mr. Randolph said there was an architect the Town used in the past who could show numbers transposed into elevations and asked if he might be willing to do that again. Clerk Taylor said he probably would. Vice -Chairman Morgan suggested drafting additional design language that would assist in restricting the second story so that all buildings will comply with the Code and Design Manual. Mr. Thrasher said that second story coverage at 75% has been an issue in the past and on more than one occasion Staff has asked for assistance from Mr. Minor. He said this has happened several times where, from a visual standpoint, two-dimensional elevations seem to present something that is out balance. Mr. Thrasher said a perfect example of this is on Palm Way where calculations were sent to Mr. Minor for recalculation and it came back acceptable, but it did not look right. He said if it meets the mathematical requirements in the Code there is nothing we can do, and he said maybe the language is too lenient. Mr. Smith said the homes to be constructed on the Spence Property will be two-story and the Board will experience these issues when those plans are presented to them. He said Vice -Mayor Orthwein commented on the lineal straight up from the ground appearance and she is probably looking for some stepback in the front and on the sides. Mr. Thrasher said there are two factors in the Code that address this, one being square footage coverage percentage where, in the Core for example, the second story can be no more than 75% of first story. He said the second has to do with the stepback that the second story must be from first story. Chairman Ganger asked if any communities require three-dimensional presentations. Mr. Randolph confirmed that and said some require a model or a CAD presentation. He said the meeting room would need a screen, a projector and more to accommodate that. Mr. Thrasher said technology is great, but he said this room cannot accommodate the equipment. Chairman Ganger said Vice -Mayor Orthwein has raised a real issue and he feels the Town should request proposals on what is required to use existing technology that would assist in the evaluation process. Mr. Randolph said the first step is to amend the Code to include certain provisions and then have someone like Mark Marsh come in to show us what those provisions will look like before imposing them. He said Gulf Stream's Code is unique to all of Palm Beach County in having the Design 0 Manual. He said if proposals meet the Design Manual the Board has very little discretion, but he said other jurisdictions such as Palm Beach and Jupiter Island have architectural review boards and impact review committees where they allow themselves more discretion. They can look at a house and see if it is in keeping with the character of a neighborhood. Chairman Ganger said it would be helpful in the evaluation process to view Level II and Level III presentations in a more interactive way than on a flip board and we should use all of the tools that are available to us. Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 23, 2012 Page 7 Mr. Randolph asked Chairman Ganger if he is looking for an explanation of what we currently have in place in the Code dealing with mass and design issues, along with a suggestion as to what can be done to address these issues in the Code as it exists. Chairman Ganger confirmed that. He said having studies done and asking architects to change the way they do things can be very expensive and, before time and money is spent, he would like to inform the Commission of how the Board is addressing these O issues. Chairman Ganger said he would like input from the Commission in hopes that they would encourage the Board to move forward. Clerk Taylor said that when the Code was established these steps were set up. She said the Commission has approved the list of zoning items for the ARPB to work on and, therefore, the Board has Commission approval to study these issues and then make their recommendations to the Commission. Clerk Taylor said the Town Manager knows how much money is available and he will let you know if spending is getting out of line. Mr. Randolph asked about the recommendation of new technology. Mr. Thrasher said he has no idea what that would cost and Clerk Taylor reminded the Board that the Commission did not give that to the Board as an assignment. Chairman Ganger said it would not be costly to find out what other communities are using. Mr. Thrasher said he could inquire and get some estimates and ideas, but he said the Board should decide whether or not they would like to engage Marty Minor and his recommendation is to do SO. Mr. Smith noted that Section 70-70. Floor area calculation. Item (6) reads "Areas in basements shall not be included." He said we need to amend Section 70-70 to eliminate Item (6) if the Board makes the recommendations changes in Section 66-1. Mr. Lyons wanted clarification of what we are asking from Mr. Minor with regard to blocky -looking structures. Chairman Ganger said we are asking for language that is missing from the current Code that will assist us in the evaluation process by helping us understand presentations to recognize whether or not they meet the FARs. In addition, he said we would like to know if there is technology available to help with calculations so that we have looked at something better than a blueprint or architectural drawings before making recommendations to the Commission. Vice -Chairman Morgan said the current Design Manual has allowed excessive mass of a structure and we are asking Mr. Minor to evaluate that and come up with what is causing this and what we can do to reduce mass. Mr. Minor said his understanding of what the Board is Oasking is where the Code can be modified to avoid some of the bulkier issues. With regard to software, he said it is common for architects to have three-dimensional modeling software and there is a program called "Sketch -Up" which takes two-dimensional and turns it into three- dimensional. The Board recessed from 9:40 A.M. and reconvened at 9:45 A.M. c. Section 70-68, Lot Size & Dimensional Requirements Mr. Thrasher said comments have been made indicating that lot size and dimensional requirements may need to be changed and he noted that this is found at Section 70-68 in the Code. He said, as an example, we have an effective lot area minimum of 16,500 in the Core, 30,000 in Ocean Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 23, 2012 Page 8 West and Beachfront, 20,000 in North-South and 15,000 in Place Au Soleil, with frontage and things of that nature. Mr. Thrasher said Mr. Minor provided an inventory of those properties that have potential to be subdivided under most of the requirements of the Code. He said it is difficult to do, but he asked Mr. Minor if he looked at how someone might configure a driveway or a roadway. Mr. Minor said the difference in this report compared to the January report is that they looked at O effective lot areas, taking out water, and they used a scale map provided by the GIS Consultant so they could estimate how much was water and how much was outside the Coastal Construction Line. He said they looked at minimum lot widths and lot sizes in each zoning district and they did look at possibilities of where a road could go, but did not spend much time on that. Mr. Randolph said Mr. Thrasher is presenting this as a consideration of Section 70-68 regarding lot size and dimensional requirements and he asked Mr. Minor if he is concerned with lot size and dimensional requirements within the Town. He said Mr. Minor prepared a document that seems to deal with lots that have potential to be subdivided as opposed to a document that was prepared as a study to determine whether or not current lot size and dimensional requirements are correct. Mr. Randolph said if you are going to amend 70-68 you will need a thorough study of the lots in the Town and the different districts of the Town to determine how they have been developed. He said if lots have been developed as 125 -foot lots and Code requires that they shall be 100 -foot lots, it would be evidence to assist in revising the Code. If lot sizes throughout the Town are fairly consistent with what exists in the current Code, the study should not relate to 70-68, but rather to the subdivision regulations, which is what he thought was the Board's direction to Staff and the purpose of the preparation of the document. Chairman Ganger said they wanted facts and the map is clear. He said lots developed in the Ocean West District tend to be large and the characteristic of the District, as described in the Design Manual, is larger homes on large wooded lots with water. Chairman Ganger said it appears that the characteristic of that District is large-scale and if you change the characteristics of the Ocean West District by subdividing into smaller lots, you will be making it more like the Core and other districts of the town. Mr. Minor said it would be somewhat smaller than what currently exists in the Ocean West District, but it is still almost double of what exists in the Core. Chairman Ganger said when the Spence �) property was redeveloped, the concern was that it would change the characteristic of the district. He asked if there is data that suggests subdividing large lots into small lots will go to Bert Harris, and is one large lot worth more than two smaller lots. He asked if it would be better to impose esthetic restrictions rather than financial restrictions. Mr. Minor said he included potential criteria in his January report to assist the Town in determining whether a subdivision is appropriate. He said it provides general guidance that is missing in current subdivision regulations, it provides criteria to be complied with and addresses conformity to surrounding parcels that helps maintain the existing Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 23, 2012 Page 9 character of a neighborhood. Mr. Minor said these criteria are common in more advanced zoning codes and does not create prohibition or sever restriction, but rather provides guidance to the Town in making decisions. He said, for example, we encourage all multi -family areas to become single family and certain provisions in the Code may suggest it would require a subdivision. Mr. Minor said his recommendation is to provide more criteria to address these situations. QMr. Thrasher asked Mr. Minor if he is suggesting there are ways to modify the Code to protect the desire for subdivisions to fit within the character of a neighborhood. Mr. Minor confirmed that and Mr. Thrasher said it sounds like the direction we should take. Mr. Lyons asked if we could be getting into Bert Harris by crossing the line if we went in Mr. Minor's direction. Mr. Randolph said potentially, but he said you will not know until you deny someone. Chairman Ganger said it is important to let it be known that the Town is trying to preserve the character of one of their neighborhoods that is different from the others. Mr. Randolph said you are not asking for a study to be made of this district to determine whether or not the district regulations should be modified, but rather you are focusing on the subdivision regulations and whether or not we can incorporate the language Mr. Minor is proposing. Mr. Randolph said the Board should determine whether or not this is dramatic enough to do anything and not just focus on the Ocean West District. Chairman Ganger agreed. Vice -Chairman Morgan said the criteria Mr. Minor is proposing flushes out existing general criteria in the Code and provides clarity as a guideline for the Board and Commission as they review these applications. Chairman Ganger said the Board will soon be looking at houses for the six lots on the Spence Property and we will be looking at how to maintain the character of the district. Mr. Randolph said those guidelines currently exist in the Code. Vice -Chairman Morgan asked if the criteria set forth by Mr. Minor place the same discretionary onus on the Board as before, and he asked if the ARPB will have the discretion to deny. Mr. Randolph said yes, but he said Bert Harris may come into play and the ARPB will have the necessary tools to deal any Bert Harris liability. He said, for example, if someone were to say you have placed restrictions on their property where, under the old Code they could have subdivided into two lots and now, using your discretion, you have indicated that only one lot is permissible, they can make a claim and you will have the tools to deal any Bert Harris liability. Mr. Randolph Osaid the potential liability would be if they came in for a building permit and they were denied. He said at that point they would have to come in with an appraisal showing that you have denied their reasonable investment back expectations and you would then have to make the determination as to whether that is true or whether one larger lot is more valuable than two smaller lots. Mr. Randolph said he would not avoid putting tools in force that are beneficial to the Town because you can always negotiate a Bert Harris matter at a later time. Mr. Lyons asked how to handle a one-year claim. Mr. Randolph said, for example, if someone is denied a subdivision of six lots and only gets four lots, their one year could run from the time of denial of their Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 23, 2012 Page 10 building permit or from denial of their subdivision, but to avoid that you give notice to them that you are imposing this regulation and they then have one year to make a claim. Vice -Chairman Morgan asked if notice would have to be sent to all affected property owners if a change is made to a Code regulation in the Design Manual. Mr. Randolph said you would not notice all property owners, but he said there would be notice by advertising in a newspaper. Chairman Ganger said the process O has been that the ARPB makes recommendations to the Commission, the Commission either objects, modifies or approves, there are new ordinances with two hearings for first and second readings, which will be advertised for public notice. Mr. Randolph said to avoid Bert Harris going on forever, you would only give notice to property owners who are directly affected in Bert Harris and then there is the potential for appraisers coming in. Chairman Ganger asked if it would be enough for someone to make a claim if we said no further subdivisions are permitted in Town, versus providing a new set of guidelines to help the Board give definition to maintaining character and including criteria such as the 500 -foot rule. Mr. Randolph said it is possible and you have to wait and see. Vice -Chair Morgan said there are a number of recommended subdivision criteria in Mr. Minor's January report that could be included. Mr. Minor said he could bring that criteria back in a separate document for further discussion and he can also provide a graphic showing what 500 feet looks like on an aerial. Vice -Chairman Morgan said he likes criteria, but he said he also likes a general statement that sets forth guidance which he believes we already have. He referred to his letter of January 25th wherein he recommends modification of Section 70-27(c) at line 5 to read: . . . proposed projects must incorporate design features that are compatible with, and complimentary to, the preferred elements and overall character of the district, including parcel size, parcel shape, architecture and landscaping. Mr. Thrasher said, it would be helpful if Mr. Minor could take the proposed criteria and overlay it on the Spence Property as a case study, if it is not very difficult or expensive. Mr. Minor agreed to do that. Chairman Ganger said the surrounding neighbors of the Spence Property effectively argued for a public road to serve the new homes rather than using existing roads, which changed the character of the design and took away a substantial amount of acreage that could have been used for other purposes. He said roads take space and have other issues with respect Oto maintenance, fire and so on and he would like to provide guidelines for contractors to consider before they address a subdivision. Chairman Ganger asked if the proposed criteria to avoid traffic congestion and eliminate conflict between pedestrian and vehicular movement should be included and he asked if there are other criteria that would require addressing access before addressing subdivision. Mr. Minor said the spacing of access points on roadways is very important. He said it is appropriate to have separate driveway access from a local street rather than from an area such as Ocean Boulevard where you should limit access points by congregating them. Mr. Minor said he will look at the general wording for access, but he said he is not sure he can draft something to cover both situations. He said determining access is done on a case-by- Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 23, 2012 Page 11 case basis. Clerk Taylor said there is something in our current Code in the subdivision regulations that says the plat must include access and, therefore, contractors know it is something they have to address. Mr. Smith excused himself from the meeting at 10:20 A.M. Chairman Ganger said we have regulations in place and we have not lost O sight of our goal to maintain the character of our neighborhoods, but he said we want to make things clearer in the subdivision regulations. Mr. Thrasher said the current language relating to roads is sufficient. Chairman Ganger said that leafy and meandering driveways and large homes should be addressed and clarified in our Code. Mr. Thrasher suggested consideration of having more than one meeting a month to address these items and maybe set some time limits. He asked the Board to schedule another meeting to take place in the next couple of weeks for the purpose of concentrating on the assignment given to Marty Minor. Mr. Thrasher asked Mr. Minor if he could have everything prepared by then. Mr. Minor said the FAR information may take a bit longer, but the basement language and the subdivision criteria will be prepared. Clerk Taylor said she would include all three items on the Agenda and Mr. Minor can present what is prepared. Mr. Randolph asked if Clerk Taylor could give the Board a time certain. Clerk Taylor asked for availability on Friday, March 2, 2012 at 8:00 A.M. There were no conflicts. Mr. Lyons moved and Vice -Chairman Morgan seconded to defer this meeting to reconvene at a time certain of Friday, March 2, 2012 at 8:00 A.M. There was no further discussion. All voted AYE. d. Section 70-4, How to Use This Manual 2. Section 70-238, Roofs 3. Section 70-100, Roof & Eave Heights 4. Section 70-51, Minor Accessory Structures 5. Section 66-367, Swimming Pools 6. Section 66-369, Docks There was no discussion concerning Item l.d. and Items 2 through 6. These items will remain on the list for a future meeting agenda. VII. Items by Board Members. There were no items by Board Members. VIII. Public. There were no items by the Public O IX. Recess. The meeting was recessed at 10:30 A.M. to be reconvened at 8:00 A.M. on Friday, March 2, 2012.