HomeMy Public PortalAboutARPB 02 23 2012 w/ backupCHAIRMAN:
VICE CHAIRMAN:
BOARD MEMBER:
ALTERNATE MEMBER
Robert Ganger
Scott Morgan
Paul A. Lyons, Jr.
Thomas Smith
Malcolm Murphy
Amanda Jones
Thomas M. Stanley
February 16, 2012
REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING BEING 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.
FACTRMI".1
I.
Call to Order.
II.
Roll Call.
III.
Minutes of
the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 1-26-12.
IV.
Additions,
withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items.
V.
Announcements.
A. Meeting
Dates
1. Regular
Meeting &
Public Hearing
a.
March 22, 2012
@ 8:30 A.M.
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.
VI. Items by Staff.
A. Proposed Zoning Code Changes
1. Subdivision Review
a. Section 66-1, Definitions
b. Section 70-71, Floor Area Ratio
c. Section 70-68, Lot Size & Dimensional
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
VII. Items by Board Members.
VIII. Public.
IX. Adjournment.
Requirements
SHOULD ANY INTERESTED PARTY SEEK TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER
CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, SAID PARTY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE, MAY NEED TO INSURE THAT A VERBATIM
RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY
AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 286.0105, F.S.S.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM,
FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL,
100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA.
I. Call to Order
8:30 A.M.
II. Roll Call.
Present and
Participating
Absent w/Notice
Also Present and
Participating
Chairman Ganger called the meeting to order at
Robert W. Ganger
Scott Morgan
Thomas Smith
Malcolm Murphy
Paul Lyons, Jr.
Thomas M. Stanley
Amanda Jones
William H. Thrasher
Rita L. Taylor
John Randolph
Mark Marsh, Architect
Bridges, Marsh & Assoc
Grant Thornbrough
Landscape Arch., A.
Chairman
Vice -Chairman
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Alternate Member
Alternate Member
Town Manager
Town Clerk
Town Attorney
Agent for Roach and
Davis
Agent for Roach
Grant Thornbrough & Assoc.
Pat Scullen Gulf Stream School
III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing 12-22-11.
Chairman Ganger said he hoped all Board Members had an opportunity to
read both the 12/22/11 ARPB Minutes and the Minutes of the January 13,
2012 Commission Meeting. He said the Comp Plan revisions were approved
by the LPA in context and some of the changes reflect the views of the
ARPB. Chairman Ganger added that there were notations from Clerk Taylor
concerning the process of revising the Comp Plan and Zoning Codes. Mr.
Smith moved and Vice -Chairman Morgan seconded to approve the Minutes of
the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 12/22/11. 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. February 23, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M.
b. March 22, 2012 @ 6:30 A.M.
c. April 26, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M.
d. May 24, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M.
e. June 28, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M.
f. July 26, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M.
Mr. Smith asked if there would be a February meeting. Clerk Taylor said
there will be a February meeting for the purpose of discussing other
items concerning zoning code changes. There were no conflicts in the
meeting schedule.
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - January 26, 2012
Architectural Review and Planning Board Page 2
VI. PUBLIC HEARING.
A. Applications for Development Approval
1. An application submitted by Mark Marsh, Bridges Marsh &
Associates, as Agent for Mr. & Mrs. Curtiss Roach, the
owners of property located at 3560 Gulf Stream Road,
Gulf Stream, Florida, 33483, which is legally described as
Lot 3, Block 2, Polo Fields.
a. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS to permit two, one-story additions
to the existing one-story Gulf Stream Bermuda style
single family dwelling, each of which would encroach
2.3 feet into the north side setback, and also to
permit a single story addition to the same dwelling
that would encroach 2.8 feet into the south side
setback.
b. LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the
construction of three one-story additions, 809 square
feet, to the existing one-story Gulf Stream Bermuda
style single family dwelling with two of the
additions encroaching 2.3 feet into the north side
setback and one addition encroaching 2.8 feet into
the south side setback, and to permit the
reconfiguration of the driveway.
Chairman Ganger asked if there was any ex -parte communication concerning
this matter. There were no declarations. Clerk Taylor administered the
Oath to Mark Marsh, Grant Thornbrough and Patricia Scullen.
Mark Marsh introduced himself and stated that Grant Thornbrough,
Landscape Architect, was present to review the proposed landscape plan.
Mr. Marsh described the existing home as a Gulfstream Bermuda Style of
the 1960s, which is not conducive to current lifestyles, and he said the
owners are asking for modest renovations, minor expansions and some
interior renovation and remodeling. He displayed photos of the existing
home as viewed from Gulf Stream Road showing a white tile roof, a nice
roof line and simple architectural detail. Mr. Marsh said the home sits
on a standard lot, it consists of 3200 SF and the expansions will take
it to 3900 SF. Mr. Marsh said they propose an extension of the garage
7' to the east, an addition of a bedroom/office area/ cabana and extend
the dining area on the northwest side, and an addition of an
office/sitting area off of the master suite. He said the reason for the
Special Exception is that these additions are maintaining the existing
non -conforming setbacks, which were 12 111 feet many years ago when the
house was built and are now 15' under current code. Mr. Marsh said they
are in violation by 2.8 feet; however, he said in the past Staff and the
ARPB have allowed such expansions that have no impact adjacent
properties.
Mr. Marsh said the plan modifications include moving the garage to the
east to accommodate an interior laundry room, reworking the living room,
family room, kitchen and foyer areas, and adding office/sitting areas
and a cabana area. He said the courtyard has a very dark and alley -like
feel and to capture the use of the courtyard they will reduce the wall
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - January 26, 2012
Architectural Review and Planning Board Page 3
height and add a scallop and rail detail, create a trellis to serve as a
winter porch and introduce an outdoor fireplace. With regard to the
fenestration, Mr. Marsh explained that the detail along the east face of
the home includes a Bay Window which will be replaced by casements with
shutters to create a balance both inside and out. He said the existing
sliding glass doors at the rear which face the pool area will be
replaced with impact and the arched entryway will be simplified with
plaster detail and simple embellishment. Mr. Marsh said the exterior
wall color will be beige, the shutters will be a muted green, the
projected garage will be an extended hip roof with white roof tile to
match the existing.
Vice -Chairman Morgan asked if there were any objections or comments by
neighbors. Mr. Marsh explained that the only comments were from Gulf
Stream School concerning the driveway, noise from the air conditioning
and a drainage matter. He said the idea is to maintain the buffer and,
therefore, they will relocate the driveway with hedging across the front
and a small pedestrian entry into the motor court. They plan to replace
the air conditioning units, but keeping them in the same location and
they will eliminate the roof drainage with a new drainage plan. Pat
Scullen of Gulf Stream School said there are no further objections as
long as they maintain the hedge, which they have agreed to do. Mr.
Marsh said there is a meandering well-established hedge along the north
side of the property. He said the owners are environmentalists and
appreciate the lush landscaping and they will maintain that hedge. He
introduced Grant Thornbrough, the landscape architect, to explain the
landscape plan.
Mr. Thornbrough said the existing driveway is semi -circular and faces
the Gulf Stream School parking lot. He said the proposed driveway will
have one entrance and they will create a motor court area. The loose
Chattahoochee material will be replaced with pavers, there will be a
small seating area and planted areas in the motor court which will be
enclosed by a short privacy hedge with piers and there will be a small
pedestrian walkway into the motor court. He said there are low catch
basins in the road and to avoid interference with the drainage the
pedestrian walkway will be three steps up with a small privacy gate.
Mr. Thornbrough described the front courtyard which will feature a
trellis with vines, a small bench and a platform for decorative potted
plants. It will also feature a propane gas log fireplace and the
exterior finish on the chimney will match the exterior wall color and
finish. He said the exterior finish is currently stucco, which may
change slightly. Mr. Thornbrough said there will be a continuous
walkway from the front yard to the backyard, new irrigation and not much
additional landscaping along the sides of the home; however, he said
they will work with the adjoining neighbors in an effort to maintain the
meandering hedge and Areca Palms along the north property line for
privacy. He said they will use the existing pool and the deck, which
will require some pilings underneath, and will be resurfaced using a
stamp concrete with sea glass. Mr. Thornbrough said there will be a
small patio with a garden off of the office addition which will be
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - January 26, 2012
Architectural Review and Planning Board Page 4
separate from the pool area, a small garden area around the pool and a
Butterfly Garden with flowering plants in the back.
Chairman Ganger asked about the road elevation and the house elevation.
Mr. Marsh said the road elevation is 4 feet and the house elevation is
8.27 feet. Mr. Lyons asked about the School's concern regarding the
drainage. Pat Scullen stated that the former owner of the home put
downspouts through the hedge and the school property would get quite
wet; however, she said this issue has been addressed. Vice -Chairman
Morgan said his only concern was the non -conforming setbacks which will
require the involvement of the north and south neighbors to work with
the owner on landscaping. He complimented the consultants for
maintaining the Old Florida look of the home. With regard to the roof
plan, Mr. Smith asked about the Cricket. Mr. Marsh explained that it is
elevated in the valley where two sloped roofs come together creating
another interior sloped element which is called a cricket, and it
diverts the water to the exterior.
Chairman Ganger asked for comments from the Staff. Mr. Thrasher asked
the consultants to verify the height of the piers in the front and the
distance of the piers from the pavement. Mr. Marsh said the piers are 3
1-i feet back from the property line and 6' to 8' back from the pavement.
Mr. Thrasher said he would like to add the condition that the height of
piers and distance from the edge of pavement would conform to Code
Section 70-187, subsection 6, which prohibits the top of piers to be
greater than 4' tall and the edge of the pier would be at least 7 14 feet
from the edge of pavement.
Vice -Chairman Morgan moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval
of a Special Exception based on a finding that the proposed two, one-
story additions to the existing one-story Gulf Stream Bermuda style
single family dwelling, each of which would encroach 2.3 feet into the
north side setback, and the single story addition to the dwelling that
would encroach 2.8 feet into the south side setback meet the minimum
intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards. There was
no discussion. All voted AYE.
Vice -Chairman Morgan moved and Mr. Murphy seconded to recommend approval
of the Level III Architectural/Site Plan based on a finding that the
proposed construction of three one-story additions, 809 SF, to the
existing one-story Gulf Stream Bermuda style single family dwelling with
two of the additions encroaching 2.3 feet into the north side setback
and one addition encroaching 2.8 feet into the south side setback meet
the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards,
with the condition that the height of piers and their location comply
with Code Section 70-187, subsection 4. No Discussion. All voted AYE.
VII. Items Related to Previous Approvals.
A. Revision of an approved renovation at 554 Palm Way submitted
by Mark Marsh as Agent for Mr. & Mrs. James Davis to permit
the elimination of a 2 -story garage with storage/guest room
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - January 26, 2012
Architectural Review and Planning Board Page 5
and the addition of a second story above the existing garage
for storage/guest room.
Mr. Marsh summarized the Davis application to renovate their existing
home at 554 Palm Way which was approved last summer. He said
construction began about two months ago and the owners have concerns
about the proposed 2 -story detached building which would have been a
one -car garage with a guest room and exercise area on the second floor.
The structure cannot be attached to the house because of a 10 -foot
drainage easement which dissects the property; however, he said the
owners feel that a detached structure would be too remote from the main
house and they would like to maintain that open space as a play area for
the children. Mr. Marsh said they would like to eliminate the detached
structure and are proposing to expand the existing two -car garage and
add a second floor, which would be a full suite consisting of a guest
room and bath and an exercise room. He said the entry element of the
existing garage currently faces north and they are proposing to expand
the garage about 12' to the north with flip garage doors facing east and
a half -garage door facing north for bicycles and other recreational
equipment. The entry into the second floor of the garage will be from
an interior staircase going up to a loft play area and then into the
exercise room and guest suite.
Mr. Marsh displayed drawings of the new plan showing all views. He said
the owners are going with a ventless fireplace and, therefore, propose
removing the chimneys. Mr. Marsh displayed the new rendering, saying
they have simplified what they refer to as the service area of the home
by removing the heavy dramatic piers and creating wing walls instead.
He said he would like the Board to support the removal of the piers.
Vice -Chairman Morgan pointed out that there appears to be bars over the
sidelight windows on the north elevation. Mr. Marsh said it is
grillwork. In addition, Mr. Marsh stated that the grey roof tile which
was originally presented to the Board may be revised to add mottling to
the grey. Chairman Ganger said the Board is in the process of looking
at the section of the Code that addresses roof tile and, therefore, the
Board will definitely need to review any revisions in that regard. Mr.
Marsh said he will come back to the Board with the actual tile, saying
that it will be closer to the roof tile used in Ocean Ridge.
Mr. Thrasher said, for the record, this went to Urban Design for
calculations in two areas. The first was the FAR, and their response
indicated that a variance would be required to exceed the FAR. In
discussing the matter, Mark Marsh and Marty Minor worked it out and the
plan was modified to conform to the FAR. He said the second area was
the calculations of percentage of second story to first story, which
seemed to be a bit massive with a 26% increase. Mr. Thrasher said Staff
was trying to accommodate Mr. Marsh, but if he had more time for review
he would have commented that the house as presented appears to be
massive and not in context with the neighborhood. In closing, Mr.
Thrasher stated that the FAR now conforms and the second story coverage
has always conformed.
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - January 26, 2012
Architectural Review and Planning Board Page 6
Mr. Marsh explained that Marty Minor said the square footage and FAR did
not correlate with their calculations. He said the ground floor has a
brick veneer on concrete block and the owner could not decide whether to
keep the brick and stucco over the brick or remove the brick and stucco
over standard concrete block. Mr. Marsh said he took calculations to
the outside face of the brick, which created the FAR situation. He said
the owner has decided to keep the brick and stucco over it. He said
with regard to the other issue, the house has water on two sides, it is
set back far from the edge of the water, they are 60 feet from the road
at any point and they are 57% uncovered. Vice -Chairman Morgan said he
had the same impression as Mr. Thrasher when reviewing the plans because
there seemed to be massing on the north side when changing this
property. He said the previous drawing had symmetry and now, with the
ancillary wing and the elevated garage on the northwest side, the
elevations caught his attention. Mr. Marsh said his presentations are
always in 3D because it shows mass and imbalance.
Vice -Chairman Morgan moved and Mr. Smith seconded to approve the revised
renovations of 554 Palm Way to permit the elimination of a 2 -story
garage with storage/guest room and to permit the addition of a second -
story above the existing garage for a storage/guest room, the
elimination of the chimneys, the elimination of piers as submitted, with
additional drawings to come, and with submission of the adjustment of
the color and texture of roof tile. There was no further discussion.
All voted AYE.
The ARPB Meeting was recessed at 9:30 A.M. to review a letter from Vice -
Chairman Morgan addressed to the ARPB regarding changes to Article II of
the Gulf Stream Design Manual/Single Family Districts, Art.II, Section
70; and, to review the Memorandum from Marty Minor of Urban Design
Kilday Studios addressed to William Thrasher regarding subdivision
analysis. The Meeting reconvened at 9:40 A.M.
VIII. Items by Staff
A. Proposed Zoning Code Changes
1. Section 70-238, Roofs
2. Section 70-100, Roof & Eave Heights
3. Section 70-51, Minor Accessory Structures
4. Section 66-367, Swimming Pools
5. Section 66-369, Docks
6. Section 66-1, Definitions
7. Section 70-71, Floor Area Ratio
8. Section 70-68, Lot Size & Dimensional Requirements
9. Section 70-4, How To Use This Manual
Chairman Ganger suggested beginning with items having zoning in
progress. Mr. Randolph explained that zoning in progress is in place on
any item being considered for change by the Board, such as subdivisions,
lot dimensions and any item under study, whether it was discussed at a
previous meeting or during this meeting and it is reflected in the
Meeting Minutes. Chairman Ganger asked for Mr. Randolph's insight,
specifically concerning subdivisions because case law is cited, and
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - January 26, 2012
Architectural Review and Planning Board Page 7
Vice -Chairman Morgan asked Mr. Randolph to go over the Memorandum from
Urban Design while it is still fresh. Chairman Ganger said the
Commission is expecting the recommendations from the ARPB and he said
when the State and Treasure Coast Regional Planning Counsel comments
concerning the amended changes to the Comp Plan are received, there
should be one change to the Comp Plan and one change to the Code at the
same time.
Mr. Randolph said, per the request of the Board, Mr. Minor included a
list of lots in his Memorandum which may be subject to subdivision in
the future. He said Mr. Minor also took note that the County has a
provision regarding Coastal High Hazard Areas which indicates that no
increase in density or subdivision should be included in Coastal High
Hazard Areas. Mr. Randolph said he sent Mr. Minor a copy of Tequesta's
Ordinance in that regard, which may no longer exist, showing that other
communities had something in place which was similar to Palm Beach
County in that respect. He said Mr. Minor looked at subdivision codes
from other municipalities and saw that some are more complete than Gulf
Stream Code. Mr. Randolph said the Board is not in a position to
finalize anything today; however, he said suggestions, recommendations
and proposed criteria included in Mr. Minor's Memorandum are worthy of
continued study and consideration. Mr. Randolph said the Board may not
implement all of the criteria, but he said one of the most specific
proposed criteria provides that a subdivision shall be in character with
other lots within 500 feet in any direction of the subdivision. He
recommended that the Board ask Mr. Minor to continue with the study and
come back with his presentation.
Mr. Randolph said Mr. Minor pointed out the Burt Harris Act which was
adopted about 15 years ago. He said any regulation in effect prior to
the Burt Harris Act is not subject to the Act, but any regulation
adopted subsequent to the Act would be subject to it. Mr. Randolph said
the Burt Harris Act provides that if persons having reasonable
investment -back expectations in a property at the time of purchase and
regulations are imposed subsequent to the Act which could diminish their
reasonable investment -back expectations and their property is diminished
in value, the entity imposing those regulations may be subject to the
provisions of the Burt Harris Act and may be responsible to pay the
difference incurred as a result of the regulation. He said communities
should not fear the Burt Harris Act, but should consider it in their
planning process. Mr. Randolph said when the Commission is determining
whether to put new regulations in place they should give consideration
to how the Act will impact those regulations.
Mr. Randolph was asked, if a change had been made by the Board with
respect to subdivisions prior to the Spence matter that would have
potentially restricted the purchaser to the use of that property, would
the next step have been some form of appraisal. Mr. Randolph confirmed
that and said it would only relate to the regulations that were imposed
subsequent to Burt Harris. He said the reasonable investment -back
expectations would have applied to the prior owner of the property and,
if they wanted to sell to a developer and regulations were imposed prior
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - January 26, 2012
Architectural Review and Planning Board Page 8
to their sale they would have had a cause of action and the next step
would be to get an appraisal. The appraiser could say that, as a result
of the regulations put in place, the property has diminished in value at
"X" amount, which would present an opportunity for mediation between the
Town and the property owner to come to an agreement. If an agreement is
not reached, the property owner could go to court.
Mr. Randolph was asked if existing Code predates Burt Harris and he
confirmed that saying most of the Code was in place prior to Burt Harris
and there have been substantive changes, but none that would invoke the
Burt Harris Act. He said if regulations in Section 70-4 allowed the
Town to give consideration to the size of surrounding lots when
determining whether or not a subdivision could be approved, he believes
those regulations were in effect prior to Burt Harris. Mr. Randolph
said the concern should be with any future amendments made to the Code
that could invoke Burt Harris. Mr. Randolph was asked, what if in five
years from now someone wants to subdivide and states they were not aware
of the impact on the value of their property five years ago, but they
are now. Mr. Randolph said that question went unresolved in the courts
for a long time because they questioned whether or not the year runs
from the time of the imposition of the code or from the imposition of
the regulation on their property. He said he would look into that for
clarification.
Mr. Randolph was asked if there was anything in the proposed criteria
that does not already exist in the Code which could invoke Burt Harris,
and if there is a stipulation in the Code with regard to the 500 -foot
rule. In response, Mr. Randolph said the 500 -foot rule does not
currently exist in the Code, unless we can determine that Section 70-4
is similar, and he said that would have been the one criteria proposal
he would have pointed out in Mr. Minor's list that could invoke Burt
Harris. Mr. Randolph said the other criteria are very general, almost
implying "shall protect the character of the Town." He said, if put into
place it would not change the current state of the law as it relates to
subdivisions and it would not invoke Burt Harris, but neither does it
provide a tool to allow the Town to turn down a subdivision. Mr.
Randolph summarized the other criteria saying Bullets #3 and #4 are
similar and Bullets #5 through #9 are implied in existing language of
the Code.
Chairman Ganger asked if the 500 -foot rule is appropriate and has it
been tested. Mr. Randolph said he has discussed this with Marty Minor
and he needs to do some research in other codes with regard to the 500 -
foot rule. Vice -Chairman Morgan said the point of his letter was to
show that the 500 -foot rule is already in the Code and, with regard to
the Spence Property, the Board may have considered this and felt that
the property was not inconsistent with the character of the Town. Mr.
Randolph said there are no decisions being made today and he encouraged
the Board to not act too quickly in putting new language in place. He
said as these matters are being studied, the Town Manager cannot grant
building permits until the study is complete.
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - January 26, 2012
Architectural Review and Planning Board Page 9
Vice -Chairman Morgan asked if there are State Laws that may be in
conflict with what the Board is trying to accomplish. Mr. Randolph said
there is specific case law with regard to subdivisions, one in
particular which provides that as long as a subdivision application is
in conformity with all of the lot, yard and bulk regulations within a
zoning district, the municipality has no discretion as to whether or not
they can turn it down. He said he would like to study Chapter 163 which
addresses Coastal High Hazard Areas and examine that with regard to the
Burt Harris Act. He will look for language putting people purchasing
property on notice that if they are in a Coastal High Hazard Area the
municipality may have a right to restrict further density and
subdivision within that district. Mr. Randolph said that, although the
Town may not have that language in effect, if Chapter 163 gives notice
to people purchasing property that such restrictions may go into effect
in a Coastal High Hazard Area it may be a defense for Burt Harris if the
Town is ever in a position to defend itself. Chairman Ganger said the
State has removed that policy and the County has chosen to maintain it
and, therefore, DCA will not be looking at this, but it may come back.
He said we are a municipality within a county that has this policy and
we should lean heavily on it.
Mr. Randolph said if the Board feels any of Mr. Minor's recommendations
are worthy of study, the Board should ask him to continue and come back
with his findings. He said there may be an opportunity for the Board to
include provisions beyond lot size when giving consideration to
subdivision. Mr. Randolph said there is more than lot size included in
the current Code, such as road width, easements and lot frontages and,
after reviewing Mr. Minor's findings and further case law, the Board may
find one or two items that would be helpful or find nothing further to
impose. Mr. Randolph said it may be necessary to have a study of what
the actual lot sizes are of all homes within a particular district as
opposed to what the Zoning Code calls for and we may find that most of
the lots are larger than the minimum lot size in the Code. If that is
so, it would be justification to increase minimum lot size. If it shows
that they are all as set forth in the Code, it would be difficult to
select certain areas in a zoning district to increase lot size. When
asked if it would invoke Burt Harris if lot size is increased, Mr.
Randolph confirmed that, but he said it would depend on how much the lot
size was increased. Chairman Ganger used the empty lot recently annexed
into Gulf Stream as an example and Mr. Randolph said that different laws
may come into play. He said State Law says that the zoning applicable
in the County will apply until rezoned by the Town.
Chairman Ganger said there are 24 lots that have the potential for
subdivision and asked if it is worth the effort to seek opportunities to
maintain the scale of the community. He said citizens of the community
do not want to see massive subdivisions, which is why we are addressing
the matter. Mr. Randolph said Mr. Minor has provided the information
requested by the Board and, if the Board feels that the report is
dramatic enough to impose further regulations he suggests that Mr. Minor
continue a study of the items he proposed from the standpoint of
specific regulations and the Coastal High Hazard Areas. Clerk Taylor
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - January 26, 2012
Architectural Review and Planning Board Page 10
said she has a question concerning the lots Mr. Minor chose and believes
it is strictly by lot size. She said the beachfront requires that
frontage be 150 feet and she is not sure this was taken into
consideration when counting the lots that could be divided. Clerk
Taylor said some of the lots include canals and they should not be
counted.
Chairman Ganger asked Mr. Minor to be more specific with lots and land
mass and to tighten the language. Mr. Randolph said it seems as though
the Board would like the study to continue with regard to lot size and
dimensions and with regard to subdivisions, to include the various items
discussed today, such as Coastal High Hazard Area and some of the
proposed criteria. He recommended that the Board make a motion to
authorize the Consultant to move forward with a study of all of the
items considered today, specifically those items which were included in
the Consultant's January 25, 2012 Memorandum, the Coastal High Hazard
Area, lot size and dimensions and subdivision viability.
Vice -Chairman Morgan moved and Mr. Smith seconded to authorize Urban
Design Kilday Studios to continue their study and subdivision analysis,
following up on issues raised in their January 25, 2012 Report and
issues discussed at this meeting, specifically looking at lot size and
subdivision viability, Coastal High Hazard Area and how it may impact
any decision by the Architectural Review and Planning Board and the Town
Commission, and other legal ramifications. There was no further
discussion. All voted AYE.
IX. Items by Board Members. Mr. Lyons asked if Gulf Stream would be
addressing the transient housing issue. Chairman Ganger said it is not
the Town's jurisdiction; however, he said the City of Delray Beach
Commission will consider changes in their regulations relating to
transient housing as early as February 7, 2012 or as late as February
21, 2012.
X. Public. There were no items by the Public.
XI. Adjournment. Mr. Smith moved and Vice -Chairman Morgan seconded
to adjourn the Meeting. The Meeting was adjourned at 10:35 A.M.
Gail C. Abbale
Administrative Assistant
Potential Code Changes; 2012
1. Section 70:238. Roofs (a); Page CD70:93
Required. White flat untextured tile, except that gray slate or slate -style may be
permitted on homes that are predominately Georgian or British Colonial with
Bermuda influences subject to Level II approval
Recommended Changes:
Required. Flat, white thru and thru, smooth, un- coated tile, except that gray, slate
or slate - style, may be permitted on homes that are predominately Georgian or
British Colonial with Bermuda influences, subject to Level II approval.
2. Section 70 -100. Roof and eave heights
Define preferred, discouraged and prohibited height of entry feature.
Recommended Changes:
Entry features are the front portion of the structure which provide door entrance to
the dwelling. The height of the entry feature is measured from the finish floor
elevation to the upper portion of any balcony railings, Dutch gable or other such
element.
Height: Preferred, From eight feet to 14 feet.
Discouraged, From 14 feet to 16 feet.
Prohibited. Greater than 16 feet.
3. Section 70 -51 Minor accessory structures (2); Page CD70:24
In- ground swimming pools and spas
Recommended Changes: Add "Waterfalls"
4. Section 66 -367 Swimming pools
Recommended Change: Add
(j) No grotto shall be permitted in any zoning district. A grotto shall be
considered and artificial structure or excavation made to look like a cave or
cavern.
(k) Waterfalls, minor accessory structures, shall not exceed 4' in height as
measured from the average finished grade of the property and the back side of
the structure shall be screened from off - premises view with landscape
material.
5. Section 66 -369 Docks (7); Page CD66:71
Materials and colors. Materials and colors of docks and ancillary structures
shall be considered as part of architectural review and planning board
consideration and shall be maintained as approved.
Recommended Changes: No concrete docks are permitted. All docks will be
made from natural materials.
6. Section 66 -1 Definitions
Recommended Change: 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.
7. Section 70 -71 Floor Area Ratio
Recommended Change: Seeking Input
8. Section 70 -68 Lot size and dimensional requirements.
Recommended Change: Seeking Input
9. Section 70 -4 How to use this Manual
Recommended Change: Seeking Input
FiII. A. I.
GULF STREAM DESIGN MANUAL
§ 70 -238
(b) Stepbacks. The use of stepbacks is appropriate to reduce excessive bulkiness and provide a
transition between first and second stories. A few critical stepbacks on a building are better than several
minor stepbacks that only complicate the facade and create busy architecture.
(c) Preferred.
Balconies+
Simple rectangular config-
urations
Single story garages
Smaller second sto ry con-
figurations
Stepbacks to second story
(d) Discouraged.
Angular walls
Complex facade treatment
(excessive multi -layer
stepbacks)
Stepbacks, smaller second story, single story garage, and a balcony help to
Sec. 70 -238. Roofs. articulate and give appropriate scale to this house (preferred).
(a) Required. White flat
untextured tile, except that gray slate or slate -style tile may be permitted on homes that are
predominately Georgian or British Colonial with Bermuda influences subject to Level II approval.
(b) Preferred.
Combination hip /gable
roofs
Decorative capped chim-
ney
Exposed rafter tails
Flashing, vent stacks, and
pipes painted to match ad-
jacent building surface
Hip roof
Low pitched roofs (6:12
slopes)
Roof overhang (2 -21/2 feet)
Simple roof geometry em-
phasizing long horizontal
lines
_ _..
White flat untextured tile Gulf Stream- Bermuda style white tile roof (required)
OC, Corr. CD70:93
§ 70 -238
(c) Discouraged.
Dormers on single story
GULF STREAM CODE
houses
Gable
Pyramidal hip (often has
too steep of slope)
Very low pitched roofs
(slope less than 5:12)
(d) Prohibited.
Barrel tiles -
.-..� u
Front gable except for en-
try features
Gambrel
Mansard
Monolithic roof design
where inadequate mea-
sures were taken to re-
duce massing and height Roof detail showing exposed rafter tails and decorative capped chimney
of roof design (preferred)
Pan tiles
r
Shed
Shingles
Tiles other than white flat untextured tiles or gray slate tiles
Unnecessarily complex roof geometry
(Ord. No. 00 -1, §§ 56, 57, 3- 10 -00)
OC, Corr. CD70:94
§ 70 -99 GULF STREAM CODE
Metal roofs (except unpainted copper when used as a decorative accent or on minor accessory
structures)
Non - earthtone colors (except white), for example: blue, peach, pink, teal or yellow
Primary color tiles and shingles
Roll tile and similar tile styles in all districts except Place Au Soleil
S -Tile in all districts except Place Au Soleil
Solar panels on the streetside
Unnecessarily complex or monolithic roof design
All white tile other than flat cement tile
(Ord. No. 00 -1, § 36, 3- 10 -00; Ord. No. 03 -9, § 2, 10- 10 -03)
Sec. 70 -100. Roof and eave heights.
(a) Generally.
(1) The height and number of eave lines and the overall height of a structure play an important role
in establishing visual continuity with other structures on the street and maintaining an
appropriate residential/human scale. Most structures in the town are characterized by simple
roof designs with low to medium eave heights and roof heights. This type of design emphasizes
the horizontal dimension of the structure while minimizing the vertical dimension.
(2) Roof height is measured from the top of the first finished floor to the highest exterior point on the
roof. Eave height is measured from the top of the first finished floor to the top of the roof beam
at the end of the beam (top of flashing). Different eave heights establish different eave lines. Two
or more separate roof areas with the same eave height are considered to have the same eave line.
(3) Roof features can provide appropriate design articulation to a roof area, but should be used
sparingly to avoid unnecessary and undesirable complexity. Roof features include, but are not
limited to, chimneys, cupolas, decorative towers, dormers, and small cut -outs and extensions.
Two or more dormers are considered to be one roof feature, as are two or more chimneys.
(4) Entry features, if used, should provide a sense of arrival to visitors, yet should not overpower
them or the remainder of the structure. The scale and proportion of entry features should be
consistent with the rest of the structure, varying just enough to provide a focal point to the front
of the house.
(b) One story homes.
(1) Preferred.
Eave heights: From eight feet to ten feet six inches (from eight feet to 12 feet for entry features)
Eave lines: Three or less
Roof features: Three or less visible per building side
Roof heights: 20 feet or less (24 feet or less for roof features)
(2) Discouraged.
Eave heights: Between ten feet six inches and 12 feet (between 12 and 14 feet for entry features)
Eave lines: Four
Roof features: Four visible per building side
Roof heights: Between 20 and 24 feet (between 24 and 28 feet for roof features)
OC, Corr. CD70:46
GULF STREAM DESIGN MANUAL § 70 -100
(3) Prohibited.
Eave heights: Less than eight feet or greater than 12 feet (greater than 14 feet for entry features)
Eave lines: Five or more
Roof features: Five or more visible per building side
Roof heights: Greater than 24 feet (greater than 28 feet for roof features)
(c) Two story homes.
(1) Preferred.
Eave heights:
Beachfront and Ocean West Districts —From eight feet to 12 feet for one -story portions
(from eight feet to 14 feet for entry features)
22 feet six inches or less for two -story portions
All other districts —From eight feet to ten feet six inches for one -story portions (from eight
feet to 14 feet for entry features)
21 feet or less for two story portions
Eave lines: Four or less
Roof features: Three or less visible per building side
Roof heights: 22 feet or less for one -story portions
(2) Discouraged.
Eave heights:
Beachfront and Ocean West Districts— Between 12 and 14 feet for one -story portions
(between 14 and 16 feet for entry features)
Between 22 feet six inches and 24 feet six inches for two -story portions
All other districts— Between ten feet six inches and 12 feet six inches for one -story portions
(between 14 and 16 feet for entry features)
Between 21 feet and 23 feet for two -story portions
Eave lines: Five
Roof features: Four visible per building side
Roof heights: Between 22 feet and 26 feet for one -story portions
(3) Prohibited.
Buildings with more than two and one -half stories
Eave heights:
Beachfront and Ocean West Districts —Less than eight feet or greater than 14 feet for
one -story portions
Greater than 24 feet six inches for two -story portions.
All other districts —Less than eight feet or greater than 12 feet six inches for one -story
portions
Greater than 23 feet for two -story portions
Eave lines: Six or more
Roof features: Five or more visible per building side
CD70:47
§ 70 -100
GULF STREAM CODE
Roof heights:
Greater than 26 feet for one -story portions
For two -story portions greater than the following for each zoning district:
District Height in feet
Gulf Stream Core
30 (roof features may extend to 35)
Ocean West
30 (roof features may extend to 35)
Beach Front
35 (including roof features)
North/South
30 (roof features may extend to 35)
Place Au Soliel
30 (roof features may extend to 35)"
CD70:48
GULF STREAM DESIGN MANUAL § 70 -101
Preferred
■ Four or less eave lines
Prohibited
Six or more eave lines
Line 3
Line 2
Line 1
Above graphic illustrates eight different eave lines, adding unnecessary complexity to the elevations.
(Ord. No. 00 -1, §§ 26, 37, 3- 10 -00; Ord. No. 03 -1, § 1, 4- 11 -03)
Sec. 70 -101. Windows.
(a) Generally.
(1) Windows not only provide light and ventilation but add to the aesthetics of a building by creating
rhythm, proportion, distinction and articulation. Certain styles of windows correspond to specific
CD70:49
��
��
��
W
��
0
��
� j i
� � &