Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutARPB 03 02 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 28, 2012 CONTINUATION OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING THAT WAS HELD ON FEBRUARY 23, 2012, IS BEING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON FRIDAY, MARCH 2, 2012 AT 8:00 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. AGENDA I. Call to Order. II. Roll Call. III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 2-23-12. IV. Items by Staff Continued from 2-23-12. A. Proposed Zoning Code Changes 1. Subdivision Review a. Section 62-10, Proposed Criteria b. Section 66-1, Definitions C. Section 70-71, Floor Area Ratio d. Section 70-68, Lot Size & Dimensional Requirements e. Section 70-4, How to Use This Manual 2. Basement Definition Section 66-1 a. Definitions used in other municipalities V. Items by Board Members. VI. Public. VII. Adjournment. 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, FEBRUARY 23, 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 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. 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 22nd_ Mr. Lyons: May be available June 28th; 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 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 a. Section 66-1, Definitions Mr. Thrasher said staff is concerned with the definition of "basements" and thought about what could be changed to prevent a similar situation that exists on County Road. He referred to page 66-7 of the Code and read the current definition of "basement", as follows: "Basement shall mean that portion of a building, the ceiling which is entirely below ;SIrtL�[=�yii a story wit ree feet above to the height r.W.fll!*S.r4fire w Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 23, 2012 Page 2 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 building." Chairman Ganger referred to the 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 confirmed 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 b which is below the finished floor elevation of the building. A b is not considered a story with regards to height measurement of a building. The square footage of a basement shall be included in calculations at 50o and not be usable for living purposes which i no. COOK1na or recreation. or a 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 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 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 Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 23, 2012 Page 3 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 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. 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. Mr. 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 Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 23, 2012 Page 4 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 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 they 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. 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 Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 23, 2012 Page 5 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 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. 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 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. Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 23, 2012 Page 6 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 asking 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 9:90 A.M. and reconvened at 9:95 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 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 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 Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 23, 2012 Page 7 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 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. Mr. 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 said 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 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 has been that the ARPB makes recommendations to the Commission, the Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 23, 2012 Page 8 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 to 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- 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 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 Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 23, 2012 Page 9 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 70-9, How to Use This Manual 2. Section 70-238, Roofs 3. Section 70-100, Roof & Eave Heights 9. 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 IX. Recess. The meeting was recessed at 10:30 A.M. to be reconvened at 8:00 A.M. on Friday, March 2, 2012. CONTINUATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 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, WHICH WAS RECESSED AND RECONVENED ON FRIDAY, MARCH 2, 2012 AT 8:00 A.M. I. Call to Order: Chairman Ganger called the meeting to order at 8:05 A.M. II. Roll Call: Present and Robert W. Ganger Participating Scott Morgan (8:50 A.M.) Thomas Smith Paul Lyons, Jr. Thomas M. Stanley Absent w/Notice Malcolm Murphy Amanda Jones Also Present and William H. Thrasher Participating Rita L. Taylor John Randolph Marty Minor of Urban Design Kilday Studios Chairman Vice -Chairman Board Member Board Member Sitting as Bd. Member Board Member Alternate Member Town Manager Town Clerk Town Attorney Town Consultant III. Minutes of The Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 2/23/12. Clerk Taylor asked to let the record show that both Malcolm Murphy and Amanda Jones are absent with notice, and she said Vice -Chairman Morgan has advised that he would be one hour late. Chairman Ganger stated that it would be necessary for him to leave at 9:50 A.M. IV. Items by Staff Continued from 2/23/12. A. Proposed Zoning Code Changes 1. Subdivision Review a. Section 62-10, Proposed Criteria Clerk Taylor said the Minutes of the February 23, 2012 Regular Meeting were included in the meeting packets; however, she said no action is required until the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing scheduled for March 22, 2012 at 8:30 A.M. She said the minutes will be continued to include the discussions of this meeting. Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 23, 2012 Page 10 Chairman Ganger said the February 23=d meeting was recessed after presenting Mr. Minor with his assignment concerning FAR, proposed criteria as it relates to subdivisions and the definition of Basements. He asked Mr. Minor if he was prepared to discuss these items at this time and also if he had an opportunity to review the correspondence from Vice -Chairman Morgan dated March 1, 2012. Mr. Minor introduced himself for the record and stated that he reviewed the proposed language provided by Vice -Chairman Morgan and recommended incorporating it into the proposed criteria for subdivisions. Mr. Randolph said he does not understand the language Vice -Chairman Morgan proposes to be added to Mr. Minor's Criteria B which deals with design features. He said Vice -Chairman Morgan uses the word "architecture" in the last sentence of Paragraph B in his letter and, he said when looking at subdivisions you deal with the layout of the land and you should not incorporate design features in subdivision regulations. Mr. Randolph said when the Board reviews the proposed design of a house in a subdivision they will have the opportunity to deal with design features under the Design Manual, where there is existing language that talks about maintaining the design of the neighborhood. Chairman Ganger referred to the applicant for the subdivision of the Spence Property and a continuous comment made by their attorney, which was that they were only applying for subdivision of the land at this time and not the architecture of future structures. He said the Board tried to impress upon them that architectural design features was another step in the process, which is something that should be made clear to an applicant proposing a subdivision. They must follow the Design Code and understand that they must maintain the character of the neighborhood with respect to design features, architecture and landscaping. Mr. Randolph said when the developers of the Spence Property made their presentation they made the mistake of showing houses on the property and, he said, he reminded them at that time that their application was strictly for the division of the land and nothing else. He said when plans for a house are presented to the Board they should rely on the strength of the Design Manual at that time. With regard to Vice -Chairman Morgan's proposed language in Paragraph B of his letter, Mr. Lyons suggested striking the word "design" in line 2 and the word "architecture" in line 4, so that Paragraph B reads, "Proposed subdivisions shall protect the character of the Town by incorporating features that are compatible with and complimentary to the preferred elements and overall character of the neighborhood district in which.they are located, including but not limited to parcel size, parcel shape and landscaping." Mr. Stanley suggested striking the word "landscaping" and Mr. Thrasher did not agree. Mr. Thrasher said there have been several previous discussions concerning berms and buffers. Mr. Randolph suggested striking the word "landscaping" and replacing it with the word "topography" and Mr. Stanley suggested also adding the words "berms" and "buffers" amending Criteria B to read, "Proposed subdivisions shall protect the character of the Town by incorporating features that are compatible with and complimentary to the preferred elements and overall character of the neighborhood district in which they are located, including but not limited to parcel size, parcel shape, topography, berms and buffers." Mr. Smith inquired about Vice -Chairman Morgan's proposed language in Paragraph A of his letter to amend Mr. Minor's Criteria A. Mr. Minor said Vice -Chairman Morgan added the words . . . which term "surrounding" so that Criteria A would read, "Lots to be created by the proposed subdivision should be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, which term "surrounding" shall be defined as residential lots within 500 feet of the subject parcel." Mr. Minor referred to the map he provided which was done as a case study regarding how Criteria A would apply to a parcel and where the 500 -foot line would go. Chairman Ganger asked if the 500 feet is used by other communities and Mr. Minor confirmed that. Mr. Randolph said he does not see where Vice -Chairman's proposed language in his Paragraph A is that different from Mr. Minor's proposed Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 23, 2012 Page 11 language in his Criteria A and Mr. Smith said he is trying to emphasize what "surrounding" means, but it is covered in Criteria A. With regard to the overlay map, Mr. Smith said that, looking at the 6 lots superimposed on the map, it appears there was no way to deny the Spence subdivision. He said people are more concerned about six cookie - cutter lots all in a row and access to the lots from AlA. Mr. Thrasher said the neighbors did not want vehicular traffic on the private road and, therefore, there will be two entrances from AlA. One entrance will service one lot and the other entrance will service five lots. Mr. Randolph asked if the word "access" should be included in Criteria B. Mr. Stanley said it is covered in Criteria F which reads, "Proposed subdivisions shall avoid traffic congestion on streets, and eliminate conflicts between pedestrian and vehicular movements." He said when reviewing the overall Spence subdivision, Chairman Ganger asked the applicant several times where the roads would go and he also mentioned that they had to account for improvements, drainage and catch basins. With regard to roads, Mr. Thrasher said hammerheads totally eliminate the meandering roadways and he said there was previous discussion about prohibiting them. Mr. Randolph suggested that the proposed language in Criteria B be amended to read, "Proposed subdivisions shall protect the character of the Town by incorporating features that are compatible with and complimentary to the preferred elements and overall character of the neighborhood district in which they are located, including but not limited to parcel size, parcel shape, access, topography, berms and buffers." He further suggested including a separate statement in the Subdivision Criteria that says, "Hammerheads are prohibited." It was the consensus of the Board to amend the proposed language of Criteria B as recommended to read "Proposed subdivisions shall protect the character of the Town by incorporating features that are compatible with and complimentary to the preferred elements and overall character of the neighborhood district in which they are located, including but not limited to parcel size, parcel shape, access, topography, berms and buffers.". It was also the consensus of the Board to add a statement in the Subdivision Criteria that reads, "Hammerheads are prohibited." Mr. Lyons referred to the overlay on the aerial map and said there is enough there to suggest to a developer that he could develop a subdivision. He said the 500 feet could work against us and suggested eliminating that from Criteria A. Mr. Thrasher agreed and suggested there be no exact distance. Mr. Stanley suggested eliminating a radius and simply say, "the surrounding area." Mr. Randolph said he would prefer to not leave it vague, but he said Criteria A could read, "Lots to be created by the proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the adjacent or immediate property." Clerk Taylor suggested using the design district as the neighborhood because it is already defined. She said when they originally designed the design districts through windshield surveys the lots were somewhat the same size and architecture. Mr. Thrasher said there are three districts already identified on this aerial map, which are Ocean West, Beachfront and North/South. It was the consensus of the Board that the proposed language in Criteria A would be amended to read, "Lots to be created by the proposed subdivision should be consistent with the adjacent and immediate properties." Mr. Randolph asked Chairman Ganger to confirm that the Board concurs with all of the changes and that they are ready to make their recommendations to the Commission. Chairman Ganger confirmed that. Mr. Randolph asked Mr. Minor to prepare a final draft of the language for review by the Architectural Review and Planning Board before the make their recommendations to the Commission. b. Section 66-1, Definitions Mr. Minor said he reviewed the code provisions from other communities provided by Mr. Randolph and he has incorporated some of that language into proposed language previously discussed. He summarized the proposed language for Sec. 66-1. Definitions which reads, "Basement shall mean that portion of the building which is below the finished floor elevation Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 23, 2012 Page 12 of the building and is located within the footprint of the first floor. A basement is not considered a story with regards to the height measurement of a building, unless the ceiling of the basement is greater than three (3) feet above grade. The square footage of a basement shall be included as IOOo of the building's Floor Area Ratio calculations. Basements shall conform to all setback regulations for structures. 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 building." Mr. Smith referred to Exhibit A, Illustration 1 -Basement, which was attached to the Jupiter Island Definitions, if a home has a real basement that is completely under the first floor with nothing more than an emergency exit to the outside, we should not be as punitive. Mr. Minor said if the ceiling of the basement is not more than 3' above grade it would not be counted in the FAR. Mr. Thrasher suggested using 75% in the FAR calculations rather than 100% if the ceiling of a basement is more than three feet above grade. Mr. Lyons said that part of the reason the Board is addressing basements is because of the home on County Road where there is concern over grade and the slope of the driveway and the danger it may cause. He said he is not sure how the proposed definition would avoid the situation and asked if we could define a slope and grade of a driveway. Mr. Randolph said it can be done, but he said it is a different issue. Clerk Taylor said that grade should be controlled under the terms of the Building Code rather than the Zoning Code. She said the Florida Building Code has regulations with regard to Multi -Family, but she said there are no restrictions that apply to Single Family. She asked if there would be a way to include a restriction that would apply without causing an issue. Mr. Randolph suggested incorporating an on -point regulation in the Design Manual that would address the grade and slope of driveways. Mr. Thrasher said the Town has asked the City of Delray Beach to examine the situation on County Road and advise whether or not their current code and inspections would prohibit such a driveway. He said their answer was "No" and he said Palm Beach County had the same answer. The consensus of the Board and Staff was that grade and slope of a driveway should be a separate issue. Mr. Lyons agreed that we should not be as punitive if a basement is not visible from the street, not creating mass or impacting the neighbors. Mr. Thrasher said it could still appear as a three-story from the rear. Mr. Randolph said there should be some impediment imposed if a house has a basement where a portion of it can be viewed. Mr. Stanley said it should be controlled by the entrance. He said a basement under the bottom floor, or under the footprint of the house, should only have access from inside the house, and he said if a basement has any external access you would include a percentage of the square footage in the FAR calculations. Mr. Randolph asked the Board if they agree that if a basement is designed in a way that it is habitable space, that space should be counted in the FAR calculations. The Board was in agreement. Mr. Lyons asked if office space or a workout room would be considered habitable space. Mr. Randolph said anything over a six or seven -foot ceiling should be counted as square footage. Mr. Minor asked the Board to confirm that square footage of a basement area having external access and creating a three-story look would be counted 100% in the FAR calculations. Chairman Ganger confirmed that. Mr. Minor asked for clarification concerning a basement completely under the first story with a ceiling that is no greater than 3' above grade with no external access. It was recommended that square footage of a basement completely under the first story with a ceiling that is no greater than 3' above grade and with no external access should be counted as 75% in the EAR calculations. Mr. Smith said a description of non -accessible, with the exception of an emergency escape from such an area, should be included. Mr. Stanley asked Mr. Minor for another sketch similar to Illustration 1 of Exhibit A that would include what has been discussed and agreed upon. Mr. Minor agreed that the sketches Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 23, 2012 Page 13 are extremely helpful and he would provide a new sketch that would depict the 100% and the 75%. Vice -Chairman Morgan arrived at 6:50 A.M. Chairman Ganger updated Vice - Chairman Morgan on the changes the Board has agreed to so far and he thanked him for the letter to the Board saying that it was very helpful in their thought process and decision making. c. Section 70-71, Floor Area Ratio Mr. Minor said there have been discussions concerning the current FARs and some feel the FARs may be creating a boxy look to homes. He said we include design features such as covered space with no walls which provides flexibility, but he said we see less of that because if applicants feel they can have indoor space in that same area they will choose the indoor space. Mr. Minor asked the Board if they would prefer more articulation in the buildings or if they would prefer not counting as much of the outdoor spaces, such as porticos, overhangs and back porches, as a way of tweaking FAR calculations and how that transfers into design of houses. Clerk Taylor said a special exception is available which provides that you can go 300 SF over and above the maximum allowable FAR if it is a covered, unenclosed space, and she said almost everyone building a new house will take advantage of that special exception. She said the reason they offer the special exception is to encourage balconies. Clerk Taylor said that the space can be used on any side of a house, but she said it is typically used on the first floor as a lanai and the Town would place a deed restriction on that area which restricts the area from ever being enclosed. Chairman Ganger asked if we have asked guidance from architects on how to achieve the amount of living space their client desires while being able to avoid mass or a boxy look. Mr. Smith said the 75% rule is not the problem, he said it is the 25% that must be taken off of the second story that needs to be defined. Mr. Stanley referred to the Delray Beach Code and said that Mr. Minor did the BPOA overlay for the North Beach. He said we are talking about flush walls and a lot of those issues are addressed in the Delray Beach Code and he asked Mr. Minor if there is anything in the Gulf Stream Code that addresses flush wall breaks or that provides incentives for breaking up a side of a building. Mr. Minor said there are standards for that within the Delray Beach Code, but he said there is nothing like that in the Gulf Stream Code. Mr. Stanley said Delray's issues are similar and he said Mr. Minor may have input from architects like Gary Eliopoulos and others that have projects in Gulf Stream. He said Delray has incentives, but you must have height plains coming from the street and flush wall breaks every so many feet on the house. Mr. Lyons asked Mr. Stanley to describe a flush wall break. Mr. Stanley said if you come in on three sides on the second story, there must be a break in the flush wall on the fourth side every 50 feet. He said the alternative is to have an additional architectural element on the street side to break up the flush wall. Mr. Stanley said other towns offer incentives that Gulf Stream may not be ready to offer at this time. Mr. Thrasher asked if Delray regulations talk to different architectural styles. Mr. Stanley said the regulations are shorter and simpler and leave room for interpretation, but he said they define four different architectural styles, including photos, as does Gulf Stream. He said the regulations are very similar and they could serve a model for Gulf Stream. He recommended providing more sketches and requiring flush wall breaks, and he said incentives could be considered down the road. Vice - Chairman Morgan asked Mr. Minor for his input. Mr. Minor said one of the things Delray was looking at was buildings as they relate to their neighbors to avoid creating canyons of buildings that are straight up. He said they want to create a preferred living environment with some building sections set back creating light in those areas. Mr. Randolph asked Mr. Minor if the implementation of height plane would help in this regard. Mr. Minor said it would be helpful. Mr. Randolph requested another sketch from Mr. Minor showing the apparent height from the street. Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 23, 2012 Page 14 Mr. Thrasher said many previous applications introduced different architectural elements and setbacks on both the front and rear of a structure, and he said the differences we see in large walls seem to appear on the sides. He said height plane seems to be something you would look at from a front elevation only and, therefore, we should concentrate more on 75% second story coverage and/or some kind of setback break on more sides of a second story. Mr. Randolph said, due to height plane regulations, you cannot bring a side wall all the way to the front of a house and, therefore, you are dealing with the sides when looking at height plane from the front. Mr. Stanley said that Gulf Stream should include a separate section that addresses building height plane for corner lots, which is not addressed in the BPOA regulations. Mr. Thrasher said our setbacks are different for lots located on one, two or three streets, and he said you will typically see additional architectural elements on the street sides for that reason. Mr. Thrasher said, from a two dimensional drawing, it consistently appears that the 75% rule is not sufficient and it disputes the first impression of mass. He said when we send two-dimensional drawings to our consultants for recalculation they come back okay and, therefore, it appears that the 75% rule is lacking something. Chairman Ganger suggested that maybe the 75% rule should require all four elevations to contribute to the 75%. Mr. Thrasher said that type of restriction would limit creativity of a good architect and there are many architectural elements that can be used to create a break without creating a boxy look. He said the incentive concept is good if we can incorporate something similar to the Delray Beach, and he said the incentives would have to be tailored to the two predominant architectural styles in Gulf Stream. Mr. Thrasher said we encourage architects to be more creative with the introduction of architectural elements and there may be common terminology that will create incentives to increase the use of those elements. He asked Mr. Minor to provide some information. Mr. Minor said it would be an excellent addition to the Code to address this issue. Chairman Ganger asked Mr. Stanley about other architects who contributed to the Delray Beach Code. Mr. Stanley said Bob Curry, Jeff Sowers and William Wietsma contributed their ideas and he said Gary Eliopoulos sat on the Delray Beach Commission when they were reviewing the Code. Vice - Chairman Morgan asked how long it has been in place and if it is working. Mr. Stanley said it is now on the Delray Beach website, but he said it has been in place for five or six years and it works primarily because of the FAR. He said the setbacks are better, structures have to be smaller and are limited to 6,000 SF on an average lot. Chairman Ganger said the Board would like to go in this direction to address mass and the boxy look. Mr. Minor said he has a very good idea of what the Board is looking for and he will come back with his recommendation. Mr. Thrasher asked why we do not have second story requirements in the Beachfront and Ocean West Districts. Clerk Taylor said it is because of the larger lots. Mr. Stanley said if you have a larger lot with a 30' or 40' setback from your property line, general design standards allow you to go up, and he said it should be based on actual lot size and not district specific. He said the idea is the larger the setback, the bigger the buffer, the more you can do. Mr. Thrasher said it really shows up when we are dealing with a stand-alone garage with a second story apartment. Clerk Taylor referred to the existing special exception which allows an additional 300 feet of covered, unenclosed space and asked if it would help to increase the additional allowable area. Mr. Thrasher said he likes the elements they have to produce in those areas. Chairman Ganger said it could be used as an incentive in that if you are under the 75% you will receive a credit on the 3001. He said it is logical because those elements create breaks and it would be the rewarding of good design. d. Section 70-68, Lot Size & Dimensional Requirements Chairman Ganger asked if there is a formula that would preserve some larger lots where large lots exist. Mr. Randolph said the Board is attempting to do this in the subdivision regulations, and he said you Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 23, 2012 Page 15 must keep in mind that with lot size requirements you are dealing with regulations within an entire district and you could create a problem if you try to change lot size. Mr. Thrasher asked if a reward system could be applied with regard to larger lots that would allow a larger FAR. He said, for example, for the first 20,000 square feet of lot the FAR is 33%, thereafter it is 20% of the remaining square footage, and somehow you would correlate that 20% upward in relation to the size of the lot to encourage future subdivision to be larger lots. Mr. Thrasher asked if that would work to help us maintain larger lot sizes. Mr. Minor said you may want to limit that to a large size of a certain threshold as a way of encouraging preservation of larger lots. Chairman Ganger said Ocean West is where we are focused and we are talking about how to maintain the economic value of the entire community by having a sprinkling of beautiful estates as part of our inventory of homes. He said it is a concept worth pursuing and it should be done in terms of acre as opposed to lot, and he said we should say that the reason for doing this is to maintain a few large lots. Mr. Stanley said he believes we need to move forward, but he said some of these things will have to be tested over a period of time to see results. Mr. Minor said he will come back with several options and he will also provide a three- dimensional sketch -up with regard to that point. e. Section 70-4, How to Use This Manual There was no discussion concerning this item. 2. Section 70-28, Roofs Mr. Thrasher said Staff has issued four reroof permit applications in the last few weeks where contractors are using the white cement tile thru and thru which is a flat material with no slurry coating. He said this tile has been used forever and he said its purpose was to mirror the original design of the Bermuda Style homes. Mr. Thrasher said there has been more discussion recently concerning white roof tile material, specifically the white cement thru and thru with a slurry coating and a slight glaze. He said there are pros and cons concerning both roof materials, but he said Staff's recommendation is to maintain our Code in the manner in which we have administered it for several years, and that is the use of the white flat cement thru and thru, untextured, unpainted and with no slurry coating. Mr. Thrasher said there have been reports that this tile is no longer available, but he said Staff has found that to be false. He asked the Board if they want to allow the white slurry - coated tile to be placed on Gulf Stream Bermuda Style homes. Mr. Thrasher said there has been additional discussion as to what the Board would like to do with grey slate -like roof tile. He said the Board has allowed a solid grey tile, which does not appear to be slate - like, and a light green, which was approved for the Sargeant home. He said the discussion between slate and slate -like allows distortion and he said architects feel that limiting them to white or grey tile handicaps their ability to create a desirable look. Mr. Minor said he spoke with a carpenter/roofer friend who does work up and down the Island, and he said his friend confirmed that the non - slurry -coated white flat cement tile thru and thru by Entegra is readily available. Mr. Randolph asked what there is in the Code that precludes a slurry -coated tile. Mr. Thrasher said that when he sought guidance from the ARPB several years ago, the Board directed him to approve the white flat cement thru and thru. He said there were discussions in the past about consistency in the Bermuda styling and he said there is also some language in the Code that discourages shiny -surfaced roof tile and specific tile material in certain districts, or in the Core. Clerk Taylor said there is an additional word in the description of roof tile under "Required" which reads, . . . white flat untextured tile. Chairman Ganger said the ARPB and the Commission cannot be oblivious to new technology or a new product, but he said there has to be some benefit to using it such as, it has the same look or that it is better than what has been used in the past. He said the functionality of each tile may be similar, but he said we are trying to maintain a certain look. Mr. Randolph said those who presented the slurry -coated tile say they are advised that it holds up better, it avoids mold and it is not harmed when pressure cleaned. Mr. Thrasher said there are contractors Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing - February 23, 2012 Page 16 that believe the non -slurry -coated tile is the better product and Mr. Minor agreed saying that professionals claim the non -slurry -coated tile holds up better and is preferred. Chairman Ganger pointed out that the slurry -coated tile is a larger tile. Mr. Thrasher said the size of the tile is what alerted Staff to the slurry -coating, but he said there is nothing in the Code that defines size. Mr. Lyons said the slurry -coated tile is too big and suggested adding something in the Code that defines size. Mr. Stanley pointed out that the slurry -coated tile could probably be custom-made to any size. Mr. Smith said roofers are selling the larger slurry -coated tile because it is easier to install and it is cheaper to maintain. Mr. Lyons commented that the larger roof tile will give the appearance of mass. Mr. Thrasher said with regard to requesting a variance, money cannot be a hardship. Mr. Smith said that Peter Bennett is the resident who has a slurry -coated roof tile and suggested driving by the property to see what it looks like. He said he supports not going to multi -color tile on Bermuda Style homes. Vice -Chairman Morgan said color is covered under Section 70-238, but he said the slurry -coated tile is not covered and it would be subject to interpretation. Mr. Thrasher explained that Mr. Bennett's permit application for the slurry -coated tile was denied at the administrative level and he appealed the administrative decision. He said his appeal came before the Board of Adjustment and they approved the slurry -coated tile, then directed there be Zoning in Progress. Vice -Chairman Morgan said that, because of the way the Code Section is written, the Board of Adjustment could not preclude the slurry -coated tile. Chairman Ganger agreed saying the word "untextured" can be interpreted in different ways. Chairman Ganger excused himself from the meeting at 9:50 A.M. In closing, Mr. Thrasher said Mr. Bennett, in Place Au Soleil, has the slurry -coated tile roof and two houses south of Mr. Bennett has the white flat cement thru and thru. He said if you drive by you may be able to see the difference, and he said try to picture the slurry -coated tile in the Core. Mr. Thrasher said there is a variety of architectural styles and roofs in Place Au Soleil, but he said it is mostly Bermuda Style in the Core Area, and he said once a decision is made you can affect the character of the Town. He said roofs are a very important element in the architectural styling of Gulf Stream and there are no tools in place as guidance to make these decisions. Mr. Randolph said the Code is vague, Mr. Thrasher's interpretation of the Code was challenged and the Board of Adjustment granted it, but then held zoning in progress, giving the ARPB an opportunity to look at it and decide whether a change is appropriate. Mr. Randolph suggested looking at some of the roofs that have the slurry -coated tile, ask Mark Marsh for his opinion and make your decision based on that information. VII. Items by Board Members. There were no items by Board Members. VIII. Public. There were no items by the Public IX. Adjournment. Mr. Lyons moved and Mr. Smith seconded to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 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 �� � ji � � & & & E \ () r _ ..1 ct > �� W �� 0 C    �� �% K | | / �% � �� � ` �� k 2 � | | �%�� | ��| � �� `| ������� !� ,. | �%,�� | |wf WON �� �� �� W �� 0 �� � ji � � & & & E \ () r _ ..1 ct > �� W �� 0 C    �� .b o. -1 c� a� W 0 O cd a� W 0 PA, 1-77,71H it I %.O' e • �q • W r r ®! CO z 7 c Q � a� a Im R 3, § 70 -49 GULF STREAM CODE (b) These prohibitions shall not extend to telephonic transactions and communications. Sec. 70 -50. Private schools. Any private school conducted in any single family residential zoning district may continue to be used as such under the provisions of sections 66 -131 et seq. of this Code, provided however, that any private school building, or other structure used in connection with and as a part of and appurtenant in the operation and maintenance of such private school, may be replaced, or another building substituted in place thereof; repaired and maintained from time to time as shall be necessary for the effective operation and maintenance of such private school; and further, any development permits, orders or written agreements granted or executed by the town prior to the adoption of this chapter shall remain in full force and effect. Sec. 70 -51. Minor accessory structures. The following structures shall be considered as minor accessory structures in all five single family zoning districts subject to specific setbacks established in this chapter. Any structure which is larger or more intensive shall be subject to the same setbacks as the principal structure. (1) Detached, one -story structures of 300 square feet or less and 18 feet or less in height, including but not limited to: Garages /sheds Gazebos Greenhouses Guest houses Pool cabanas/bathhouses Trellises /arbors (2) Permanent recreation facilities, including but not limited to: Batting cages/backstops Forts and playhouses In- ground swimming pools and spas Paved/special surface areas and accompanying equipment and/or fencing for tennis /squash/ racquetball, basketball, shuffleboard, putting greens /sand traps, etc. Swing sets and other playground equipment (3) Fountains. (4) Mechanical equipment and television antennae /satellite dishes. (5) Decks and patios with elevations greater than eight inches above highest abutting grade. (6) Awnings with leg supports and those otherwise extending more than three feet out from a structure. (7) Docks, boat lifts, and davits. (8) Flagpoles. CD70:24 :kV. A. N. § 66 -351 GULF STREAM CODE tion as a condition precedent to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed use. The unity of title declaration shall apply to all the property necessary for the proposed use, and shall declare that no portion of said property shall be sold or transferred by the owner or successors in interest apart from the whole. (b) If there is a sale or transfer in contraven- tion of a unity of title declaration, no building permit will be issued for any portion of the prop- erty contained in the unity of title declaration. Declaration shall remain in effect until a release of the unity of title declaration is executed by the town. (c) The unity of title declaration shall be filed at the expense of the owner in the public records of the county. Proof of such filing shall precede the issuance of a building permit. (Ord. No. 83 -1, § 2(X, K), 4 -8 -83) Sec. 66 -352. Nuisances. No use shall be made of any property within any district that shall in any way be offensive or noxious by reason of the emission of any dis- charge, odor, gas, dust, smoke, vibration or noise; nor shall any vehicle be parked or used in any way that would constitute a nuisance; nor shall anything be constructed or maintained that would in any way constitute a nuisance to adjacent property owners, residents or to the community. Each use shall be operated so as to lessen the damage from fire and explosion. (Ord. No. 83 -1, § 2(X, J), 4 -8 -83) Cross reference — Nuisances, ch. 22. Secs. 66- 353 -66 -365. Reserved. DIVISION 2. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES Sec. 66 -366. Antennas and antenna systems/ structures. (a) Broadcast receiving antennas or communi- cation antennas may be permitted in any zoning district upon site plan review and approval by the town commission and upon issuance of a building permit by the town. (b) Broadcast receiving antennas or communi- cation antennas shall be attached to the main building or structure and shall not extend more than five feet above the highest portion of the roof. (c) Satellite television antenna systems may be permitted in any zoning district upon site plan review and approval by the town commission and the issuance of a building permit by the town. (d) Satellite television antenna systems shall not exceed 12 feet in diameter or width. (e) Satellite television antenna systems shall be considered as accessory structures and shall be subject to the applicable site plan review require- ments and regulations of this chapter. (f) Unless specific approval is granted by the town commission, satellite television antenna sys- tems shall be ground mounted and located in such areas as to be screened or buffered from view from adjacent properties, rights -of -way, the Intracoastal Waterway and/or the Atlantic Ocean. (g) There shall not be more than one satellite television antenna system, broadcast receiving antenna or communication antenna per residen- tial building or condominium association on any platted lot or parcel. (h) Upon receipt of site plan approval and prior to the issuance of a building permit for satellite television antenna, the town commission shall review the installation plans, which plans must be signed and sealed by a professional engineer registered in the state who shall certify that the proposed satellite television antenna system is wind resistant with an ability to with- stand winds up to 140 miles per hour. The calcu- lations and such certification by the engineer shall be submitted along with the plans. (Ord. No. 83 -1, § 2(X, H), 4 -8 -83; Ord. No. 84 -7, § 2, 12- 14 -84) Sec. 66 -367. Swimming pools. (a) No swimming pool shall be located, de- signed, operated or maintained so as to interfere unduly with the enjoyment of the property rights by owners of property adjoining the swimming pool. ZONING (b) Lights used to illuminate any swimming pool shall be so arranged and shadowed as to reflect away from adjoining premises. (c) A pool may be located within an enclosed courtyard, patio, etc., provided it is to the rear of the required front yard setback line. (d) All enclosed swimming pools shall be in conformity with the setbacks required by the zoning district in which it is located. (e) Unless otherwise specified elsewhere in this Code, unenclosed or open swimming pools in the "RS" single - family residential district shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from front property lines; provided, however, that any swimming pool located on property fronting on SR AlA shall be subject to the established 78 -foot centerline set- back. (f) Swimming pools shall be located on the same lot or parcel of land as that of the main building. In the event of contiguous lots or par- cels, a unity of title shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit for either a main building or an accessory structure which would cross lot lines. (g) All pools shall be enclosed by a self - locking, child resistant fence, wall or equivalent barrier at least four feet high, except as provided elsewhere in this Code, and in no event shall a pool be exposed to open view from any public roadway. (h) No aboveground pools of any nature shall be permitted in any zoning district. An aboveground pool shall be considered a pool constructed or assembled of any material and whose top edge exceeds two feet in height above the average finished grade of the lot or site. (i) All pools shall be landscaped so as to pre- vent exposure to off - premises view from any pub- lic roadway, any public or private right -of -way, and the ground level of any adjoining property. However, this subparagraph shall not be con- strued so as to prevent the exposure of pools to open view from public or private waterways. (Ord. No. 83 -1, § 2(X, I, 1), 4 -8 -83; Ord. No. 92 -5, § 1, 9- 28 -92; Ord. No. 00 -1, §§ 18, 19, 3- 10 -00) Sec. 66 -368. Tennis courts. § 66 -369 (a) No tennis court shall be located, designed, operated or maintained so as to interfere unduly with the enjoyment of the property rights by owners of property adjoining the tennis court. (b) No lights shall be used in any manner so as to illuminate any tennis court. (c) All tennis courts shall be in conformity with the setbacks required by the zoning district in which it is located. Any tennis court located on property fronting on SR AlA shall be subject to the established 78 -foot centerline setback. (d) Tennis courts shall be located on the same lot or parcel of land as that of the main building. In the event of contiguous lots or parcels, a unity of title shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit for either a main building or an accessory structure which would cross lot lines. (e) All tennis courts shall be enclosed by a fence, open wall or equivalent barrier and in no event shall a tennis court be exposed to open view from any public roadway. (Ord. No. 83 -1, § 2(X, I, 2), 4 -8 -83) Sec. 66 -369. Docks. In the single - family residential district, one dock per lot of record shall be permitted in accor- dance with the following: Supp. No. 1 CD66:69 (1) Site plan review required. All new docks and significant alterations to existing docks shall require site plan review and ap- proval. (2) Permitted as accessory use. Docks shall be permitted only as an accessory use to single - family dwellings for the exclusive use of the dwelling's occupants (residents and nonresident members of the occupant's family and resident guests at the dwell- ing). Docks shall not be permitted on vacant lots unless the vacant lot is adja- cent to a developed lot under the same ownership and a unity of title has been recorded. . V. A - ,r, ZONING minimum offset from the setback centerlines. For lots with designated water frontage less than 100 feet the docking zone shall have a minimum five -foot offset from each of the set- back centerlines. In the case of cove end lots and lots with a water front- age of 100 feet or less, neither boat nor dock shall exceed a length of 70 feet. For rounded corner lots, water frontage is determined by the mid- point of the arc. For purposes of determining designated water front- age, dock widths, setbacks and max- imum boat lengths for each water- front lot within the Town, the figures contained within Exhibit "B" at- tached hereto and incorporated herein shall apply. [See the end of this sec- tion.] In cases with multiple water frontages, owner must treat each frontage according to the appropri- ate size category. In the case of low profile piling boat lifts, the lift shall be located in the following manner. The first piling shall be placed a minimum of twenty feet (towards center of the lot) from the setback line with the pilings extending into the docking zone no farther than twenty feet from the seawall. For lots with setbacks of more than fifteen feet on either side, the twenty foot mea- surement for the first piling shall be mea- sured from the setback on the side with the largest setback. f. A maximum of one dock box shall be permitted which shall be no higher than 30 inches and no larger than 24 cubic feet. § 66 -369 g. Light fixtures shall be installed in a manner that provides safe pedes- trian circulation using low voltage lighting with a maximum fifty watts mounted no higher than three feet above the dock at a minimum spac- ing of ten feet on center. Lights are to be step, path or marine type fix- tures. Fixtures must project down- ward at a minimum 45- degree angle from the horizontal plan tangent to the top of the light source fixture and allow no light spillage onto ad- jacent properties. No fixture shall be mounted to the seawall. h. Subject to level one site plan ap- proval, a maximum of one floating platform may be permitted in lieu of a boat lift for the purpose of storing small watercrafts. The floating plat- form shall be constructed of nonfer- rous material, be black in color and may not rise more than 12 inches out of the water. No more than two wa- tercrafts of a maximum length of 14 feet shall be stored on the floating platform. The platform dimensions shall not exceed eight feet in width or 16 feet in length. All watercrafts shall be stored parallel to the sea- wall. A floating platform must be removed after three months of dis- use. (7) 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. (Ord. No. 83 -1, § 2(X, I, 3),4-8-83; Ord. No. 91 -24, § 3, 10- 21 -91; Ord. No. 00 -1, §§ 20, 21, 3- 10 -00; Ord. No. 04 -9, § 2,2-11-05; Ord. No. 05 -2, §§ 1 -6, 9 -9 -05; Ord. No. 008 -4, § 4, 9 -5 -08) Supp. No. 1 CD66:71 3Z.A. 60 ZONING ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL Sec. 66 -1. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Abutting shall mean having a common border with, or being separated from such common bor- der by, an alley or easement. Access shall mean the principal means of in- gress and egress to property from a publicly dedicated right -of -way. Accessory building, structure or use shall mean a building, structure or use on the same lot with, and of a nature customarily incidental and sub- ordinate to, the principal building, structure or use. Acre, net. See Net acre /net land area. Addition (to an existing building) shall mean any walled and roofed expansion to the perimeter of a building in which the addition is connected by a common load- bearing wall other than a firewall. Any walled and roofed addition which is con- nected by a firewall or is separated by indepen- dent perimeter load- bearing walls is new construc- tion. Adjacent shall mean that which lies near or close to, not widely separated or necessarily touch- ing. Adjoining shall mean that which is joined or united, actually touching. Alley shall mean a dedicated public right -of- way other than a street which provides only a secondary means of access to abutting property, is not over 20 feet in width and is not intended for general traffic circulation. Alterations, as applied to a building or struc- ture, a change or rearrangement in the structural parts of the existing facilities, or an enlargement, whether by extending on a side, or by increasing the height, or the moving from one location or position to another. § 66 -1 Antenna shall mean a device for radiating and/or receiving television or radio signals. Antenna structure shall mean an antenna con- sisting of two or more radiating elements, gener- ally similar which are arranged in such a manner as to obtain direction radiation patterns. It in- cludes any structural members which are neces- sary to maintain the proper electrical relation- ships between the radiating elements, including the mast or other structure used to support the array as a whole, but does not include the trans- mission line which supplies energy to or receives energy from the array as a whole. Apartment. See Dwelling, multiple - family. Appeal shall mean a means for obtaining re- view of a decision, determination, order, or failure to act pursuant to the terms of this chapter. Area of shallow flooding shall mean a desig- nated AO or VO Zone on a community's flood insurance rate map (FIRM) with base flood depths from one to three feet where a clearly defined channel does not exist, where the path of flooding is unpredictable and indeterminate, and where velocity flow may be evident. Area of special flood hazard shall mean the land in the floodplain within a community subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. Awning shall mean any movable rooflike struc- ture cantilevered or otherwise entirely supported from a building, so constructed and erected as to permit its being readily moved within a few minutes time to close an opening, or rolled or folded back to a position flat against the building or a cantilevered projection thereof, or which is detachable. Base flood shall mean the flood having a one percent chance of being equalled or exceeded in any given year. Base flood elevation shall mean the height above mean sea level expected to be reached by the 100 -year flood. Basement shall mean that portion of a build- ing, the ceiling which is entirely below grade or less than three feet above grade. A basement is Supp. No. 1 CD66:7 § 66 -1 GULF STREAM CODE not considered a story with regards to the height measurement of a building. 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 build- ing. Bedroom shall mean a room other than a kitchen, dining room, living room, bathroom or closet which is marketed, designed or otherwise likely to function primarily for sleeping. Block shall mean a tract of land bounded by streets, or by a combination of streets and public parks, cemeteries, railroad rights -of -way, bulk- head lines, or shorelines of waterways, or corpo- rate boundary lines of the town. Breakaway wall shall mean a wall that is not part of the structural support of the building and is intended through its design and construction to collapse under specific lateral loading forces with- out causing damage to the elevated portion of the building or the supporting foundation system. Breezeway shall mean a roofed, open -sided pas- sageway connecting two separate structures, or two separate portions of the same structure. Broadcast receiving antenna shall mean an outside antenna used for the reception of signals transmitted by stations licensed by the Federal Communications Commission in the radio broad- cast services, including AM, FM and TV. Building area shall mean the portion of a lot remaining after required setbacks have been pro- vided. Building shall mean any structure built for the shelter, support or enclosure of persons, animals, chattels or movable property of any kind; and, when separated by division walls without opening from the ground up, each portion of such struc- ture shall be deemed a separate building, and for the purpose of this chapter, all porches, projec- tions, cornices and eaves shall be deemed and considered a part of a building. The word "build- ing" shall include the word "structure." Building, detached, shall mean a building hav- ing no party walls in common with another build- ing. Building front shall mean that exterior wall of a building which faces a front lot line of the lot. Building height shall mean the vertical dis- tance measured from the point of first floor base flood elevation of the building site to the highest finished roof structure including any rooftop su- perstructure or appurtenance. Building line shall mean a line on a lot, gener- ally parallel to a lot line or road right -of -way line, located a sufficient distance therefrom to provide the minimum yards required by this chapter. The building line delimits the area in which buildings are permitted subject to all applicable provisions of this chapter. Building official shall mean that person who is designated by the town commission and is charged with the responsibility of enforcing and adminis- tering the various land and building regulations of the town. Building permit shall mean the document or certificate issued by the town building official or other designated official which verifies adherence to all applicable development regulations and gives permission to the permit applicant to pro- ceed with the actions for which the permit was requested. Building, principal, shall mean a building in which is conducted, or in which is intended to be conducted, the main or principal use of the lot on which it is located. Building site shall mean a portion or parcel of land considered as a unit, devoted to a certain use or occupied by a building or group of buildings that are united by a common interest or use, and the customary accessories and open spaces belong- ing to the same. Bulk shall mean the term used to describe the size of buildings or other structures, and their relationships to each other and to open areas and lot lines. Carport shall mean a freestanding covered area or a roofed area open on one, two or three sides and attached to a building, either of which is designed for the storage of one or more vehicles or boats. Supp. No. 1 CD66:8 19. A 7 § 70 -69 Sec. 70 -69. Unity of title. GULF STREAM CODE In the event of contiguous lots or parcels, a unity of title shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit for either a main residence building or an accessory structure which would cross lot lines. Sec. 70 -70. Floor area calculation. For purposes of computing the floor area ratio, floor area shall be defined as follows. "Floor area" shall mean the gross floor area of a structure as measured from the outside of the exterior walls and shall include or exclude the following: (1) All floor area under a solid roof whether or not the area is enclosed with walls (i.e., porches, balconies, breezeways, etc.) shall be included. (2) Areas under awnings with leg supports or those that extend more than three feet out from a structure shall count as one -half shall be included. (3) Floor area under ceilings which are higher than 15 feet shall count as double. (4) Areas under screen enclosures shall count as 1/2. (5) Areas under eaves or roof extensions of 21/2 feet or less shall not be included. (6) Areas in basements shall not be included. (7) Areas in attics that cannot be used for living area shall not be included if the ceiling height does not exceed 61/2 feet and there are no windows. (Ord. No. 00 -1, § 28, 3- 10 -00) Sec. 70 -71. Floor area ratios. (a) Sliding scale floor area ratio (FAR). (1) Floor area ratio (FAR) is the relationship between a building's total floor area and the area of the lot it sits on. If a building is 2,500 square feet and it sits on a lot of 10,000 square feet, its FAR is .25. This direct relationship results in the ability to build bigger homes on bigger lots. While a ratio of total floor area to lot size such as .25 may be appropriate for smaller lots, on larger lots the result can be unnecessarily and inappropriately large homes. This is particularly a problem when two lots are combined and are now twice as large as the lots next door. This section provides a methodology for maintaining a reasonable opportunity to build larger homes on larger lots, while recognizing that the relationship to the scale of an existing neighborhood is an important community character concern. (2) In order to establish a sliding scale which reduces floor area ratio yields on larger lots; the following FAR step down shall be used: Effective Lot Area I Gulf Stream Core Ocean West Beachfront North /South I Place au Soled Maximum FAR First 20,000 .33 .33 square feet .33 .33 .33 Portions over 20,000 square .20 .20 .20 .20 .20 feet+ Supp. No. 1 Example 1: 45,000 square foot lot in Beachfront District. First 20,000 square feet x .33 = Next 25,000 square feet x .20 = Total 45,000 square feet CD70:28 6,600 square feet 5,000 square feet 11,600 square feet maximum floor area GULF STREAM DESIGN MANUAL § 70 -71 Example 2: 30,000 square foot lot in Ocean West District. First 20,000 square feet x .33 = 6,600 square feet Next 10,000 square feet x .20 = 2,000 square feet Total 30,000 square feet 8,600 square feet maximum floor area . Example 3: 18,000 square foot lot in Place au Soleil. First 18,000 square feet x .33 (b) Neighborhood context floor area ratio. 5,940 square feet maximum floor area (1) In order to address the potential problem created when two lots are aggregated in a district of predominantly small lots, the neighborhood context FAR shall be followed. This special FAR calculation will apply only to new lots in excess of 20,000 square feet created in the Gulf Stream Core or Place au Soleil Districts after the adoption of this chapter. (2) When dealing with double lots, it is reasonable to allow a larger home than would be allowed on a single lot, but probably not twice as large if abutting lots remain small. An equitable method for determining the maximum FAR for a double lot (or when a vacant lot is split between two existing homes) shall be to use existing abutting lots to create a "neighborhood context FAR" or average FAR yield and then to apply a reasonable factor for floor area expansion. (3) For lots over 20,000 square feet in the Gulf Stream Core or Place au Soleil districts created after the adoption of this manual, the neighborhood context FAR shall be the average maximum FAR yield of the two abutting lots with a 50 percent increase allowance. If the neighborhood context FAR is less than the standard FAR, the neighborhood context FAR shall be the maximum allowed. This will restrict new houses or homes with additions to a size that, while large, would not overshadow neighborhood residences. For example: Double lot at 33,000 square feet. Maximum FAR for newly created lots over 20,000 square feet is the smaller of the two FAR calculations (sliding scale FAR and neighborhood context FAR). a. Sliding scale FAR: 20,000 square feet x .33 = 6,600 square feet 13,000 square feet x .20 = 2,600 square feet Total 33,000 square feet 9,200 square feet maximum floor area b. Neighborhood context FAR: Neighbor 1 lot: 13,000 square feet x .33 = 4,290 square feet maximum Neighbor 2 lot: 16,000 square feet x .33 = 5,280 square feet maximum Total 9,570 square feet max _ 2 Maximum FAR is smaller of the two: 7,177.5 square feet Supp. No. 1 CD70:29 = 4,785.0 square feet aver- age x 1.5 7,177.5 square feet maxi- mum floor area Gulf Stream Core Ocean West Beachfront North /South Place au Soleil Neighbor- Lots greater than 20,000 Lots greater than 20,000 hood Context square feet created after N/A N/A N/A square feet created after FAR Applica- adoption of this manual adoption of this manual bility (2) When dealing with double lots, it is reasonable to allow a larger home than would be allowed on a single lot, but probably not twice as large if abutting lots remain small. An equitable method for determining the maximum FAR for a double lot (or when a vacant lot is split between two existing homes) shall be to use existing abutting lots to create a "neighborhood context FAR" or average FAR yield and then to apply a reasonable factor for floor area expansion. (3) For lots over 20,000 square feet in the Gulf Stream Core or Place au Soleil districts created after the adoption of this manual, the neighborhood context FAR shall be the average maximum FAR yield of the two abutting lots with a 50 percent increase allowance. If the neighborhood context FAR is less than the standard FAR, the neighborhood context FAR shall be the maximum allowed. This will restrict new houses or homes with additions to a size that, while large, would not overshadow neighborhood residences. For example: Double lot at 33,000 square feet. Maximum FAR for newly created lots over 20,000 square feet is the smaller of the two FAR calculations (sliding scale FAR and neighborhood context FAR). a. Sliding scale FAR: 20,000 square feet x .33 = 6,600 square feet 13,000 square feet x .20 = 2,600 square feet Total 33,000 square feet 9,200 square feet maximum floor area b. Neighborhood context FAR: Neighbor 1 lot: 13,000 square feet x .33 = 4,290 square feet maximum Neighbor 2 lot: 16,000 square feet x .33 = 5,280 square feet maximum Total 9,570 square feet max _ 2 Maximum FAR is smaller of the two: 7,177.5 square feet Supp. No. 1 CD70:29 = 4,785.0 square feet aver- age x 1.5 7,177.5 square feet maxi- mum floor area § 70 -71 GULF STREAM CODE (4) For lots subject to neighborhood context FAR, the methodology for identifying abutting lots is as follows: Note: Lots not conforming to outlined examples are subject to approval by the town Planning and Building Administrator in keeping with these guidelines. (Ord. No. 00 -1, § 26, 3- 10 -00) Combined Lot Types Sec. 70 -72. Special exception floor area ratio (FAR). End Lot )r Lot (a) Lots of less than 7,576 square feet. Up to 2,500 square feet of floor area may be permitted on any legally established lot of record of 7,576 square feet or less, subject to the following: (1) Maximum floor area. The maximum floor area is 2,500 square feet. (2) Specific standards for review. Site and structural design elements including, but not limited to: a. Height of the structure relative to neighboring structures; b. The location, number and size of windows, doors, porches, balconies and outdoor lights; Supp. No. 1 CD70:30 Abutting Neighbor #1 Abutting Neighbor #2 For interior lots, abutting lots are: the side lot the other side lot example: if lots 29 and 30 are combined, abut- ting lots are: lot 28 lot 31 For corner lots, abutting lots are: the side lot which faces the same the largest lot directly across the street same street example: if lots 7 and 8 are combined, abutting lots are: lot 6 lot 17 For end lots, abutting lots are: the side lot the next nearest lot on street example: if lots 1 and 2 are combined, abutting lots are: lot 3 lot 4 Note: Lots not conforming to outlined examples are subject to approval by the town Planning and Building Administrator in keeping with these guidelines. (Ord. No. 00 -1, § 26, 3- 10 -00) Combined Lot Types Sec. 70 -72. Special exception floor area ratio (FAR). End Lot )r Lot (a) Lots of less than 7,576 square feet. Up to 2,500 square feet of floor area may be permitted on any legally established lot of record of 7,576 square feet or less, subject to the following: (1) Maximum floor area. The maximum floor area is 2,500 square feet. (2) Specific standards for review. Site and structural design elements including, but not limited to: a. Height of the structure relative to neighboring structures; b. The location, number and size of windows, doors, porches, balconies and outdoor lights; Supp. No. 1 CD70:30 GULF STREAM DESIGN MANUAL § 70 -68 ARTICLE IV. SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Sec. 70 -66. Generally. Typically, zoning regulations affect the size and location of development on individual lots and establish the basic building envelope. The development standards in this article respond to the unique characteristics of the town's five single - family zoning districts and address community concerns regarding the mass of new construction and its impact on neighborhood character. Sec. 70 -67. Effective lot area. (a) Because many of the site development regulations contained in this chapter are a function of lot size, the definition of the term "lot size" becomes very important. One of the key goals of this chapter is to maintain a proper proportion and scale between buildings and between buildings and the land. Accordingly, it is necessary to establish an "effective lot area" in order to meet this goal. (b) All references to "lot size" or "lot area" in this chapter shall have the same meaning as "effective lot area" which is defined as follows. "Effective lot area" shall mean the platted/recorded lot area minus the following: (1) Any submerged lands. (2) Any lands east of the Coastal Construction Control Line established in 1978. (3) Any lands separated from the main portion of the lot by public or private roads. (4) Any lands used for private road surfaces including an additional ten feet of area beyond the edge of the pavement of a private road. (5) Any unrecorded public right -of -way which shall be determined by using an average of the recorded right -of -way adjacent to other properties along the same roadway. Sec. 70 -68. Lot size and dimensional requirements. The following requirements shall apply only to lots created after the adoption of this chapter. Nonconforming lots which were legally subdivided and recorded in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time of the subdivision, but prior to the adoption of this chapter, shall have all building rights provided under this chapter and chapter 66 provided all other applicable requirements are met. Minimum Lot Size and Gulf Stream North/ Place au Dimensional Requirements Core Ocean West Beachfront South Soleil Effective Lot Area 16,500 30,000 30,000 20,000 15,000 Width Front 100 100 150 100 100 (Rectangular Shaped Lot) Front/Point 40 40 N/A 40 40 (Pie Shaped Lot) Other Lots shall have a All lots shall have a minimum frontage minimum of 150 feet of 100 feet on both of frontage on both AIA and Gulf AIA and the ocean. Stream Road where Land - locked lots are adjacent to both. prohibited. (Ord. No. 00 -1, §§ 26, 27, 3- 10 -00; Ord. No. 008 -5, § 1, 9 -5 -08) Supp. No. 1 CD70:27 GULF STREAM DESIGN MANUAL § 70 -4 (c) In addition to the design standards contained in this chapter, for convenience, the specific mandatory land development regulations are included to facilitate an overall understanding of the review criteria to which new construction is subject. North Ocean Boulevard entering Gulf Stream Sec. 70 -4. How to use this manual. (a) Organization. This chapter is organized into nine articles. The user is encouraged to read the chapter in its entirety. This chapter is a full part of the town's land development regulations and has the same force and effect of all other provisions contained therein. (1) Articles III and IV. Article III, Use Regulations, and article IV, Site Development Regulations, contain land development regulations which are mandatory and apply to all of the single - family zoning districts. These are the typical zoning -type regulations found in most other codes. (2) Articles V through VIII. Articles V through VIII provide design standards and establish a basis for review and approval of all new single - family construction or remodeling. Article V, Areawide Standards, applies to all single - family homes in the town. Provisions with respect to Gulf Stream - Bermuda and Mediterranean Revival architecture (see article VII) are not applicable if an alternate architectural design is selected. The reader is encouraged, however, to become familiar with their provisions in that they are the preferred styles in most of the town. (3) Article VI. Article VI, District Standards, provides more specific design direction for the five single - family zoning districts established in this chapter. The user should identify the applicable district and should study it carefully to ensure that the unique characteristics of and appropriate design direction for that district are incorporated into any design proposal. (4) Article VIL Article VII, Predominant Architectural Styles, contains design standards for Gulf Stream - Bermuda and Mediterranean Revival styles of architecture. As discussed, these styles are not mandatory but are indicative of the predominant styles within the community. (5) Article VIII. Article VIII, Supplemental Development Regulations, addresses elements such as antennas, that sometimes are tacked on to homes that otherwise display good design character- istics. Standards for these elements are provided in this article. CD70:7 § 70 -4 GULF STREAM CODE (6) Article IX. Finally, an appendix is included in article IX. This includes a glossary of architectural terms, an explanation of the development review process, details of the historic survey and single - family development survey, a discussion of color, and a bibliography. These are included as reference materials but are not formally a part of this chapter or chapter 66. (b) Illustrations. The illustrations contained within this chapter address and respond to the oppor- tunities for enhancing and preserving the visual environment of the town. (c) Design standards. The design standards in this chapter provide the town with a methodology and common framework for reviewing submissions for project approvals. The design standards contained herein are either mandatory or discretionary. The terms "required" and "prohibited" are mandatory. The terms "preferred" and "discouraged" are discretionary. These terms are defined below: (1) Required. a. Required items are design elements that are necessary in order to maintain the desired character and quality of the zoning district within which they are located. b. Compliance is mandatory for project approval. (2) Preferred. a. Preferred items are design elements that, whenever possible, should be used in order to maintain the desired character and quality of the zoning district within which they are located. These items are those typically found in the town and which, in combination with other preferred items, define the existing and desired character of the town and the zoning districts. Preferred items are thought to comply with the 'following goals with respect to desired zoning district character and quality: 1. Consistency of neighborhood character. 2. Consistency of architectural style. 3. Consistency of building form and mass. 4. Consistency of materials and colors. 5. Consistency of location of elements. b. Incorporating preferred items into a design increases the probability of, but does not assure, project approval. (3) Discouraged. a. Discouraged items are design elements that should not be used in order to maintain the desired character and quality of the zoning district within which they are located. These items are not typically found in the town and detract from the existing and desired character of the town and the zoning districts. Discouraged items are thought to not comply with the following goals with respect to desired zoning district character and quality: 1. Consistency of neighborhood character. 2. Consistency of architectural style. 3. Consistency of building form and mass. 4. Consistency of materials and colors. 5. Consistency of location of elements. b. Incorporating discouraged items into a design decreases the probability of project approval and may result in project denial. In order for a discouraged item to be approved, applicants must show, and the town must find, that the proposed item is not inconsistent with the above goals. The use of more than three discouraged items on any property is prohibited. CD70:8 GULF STREAM DESIGN MANUAL (4) Prohibited. § 70 -25 a. Prohibited items are design elements that do not maintain the desired character or quality of the zoning district within which they are located and are not permitted under current codes or regulations. b. The use of more than three discouraged items on a property is prohibited. C. Use of prohibited elements mandates project denial. (d) Additional standards and criteria. Please note that the chapter constitutes only one small subsection of the Land Development Regulations found in this Code. While compliance with the standards found in articles I through VIII of this chapter is essential to final project approval, compliance with several additional standards and criteria also may be necessary before a building permit can be issued. Accordingly, users of this chapter are strongly advised to familiarize themselves with all federal, state and/or town regulations that might apply to a particular type of project. To assist in determining which town regulations may apply, users are encouraged to review the tables and flow chart contained in section 70 -297 of this chapter. Users also are encouraged to direct questions to, and share information with, town planning staff as early as possible in the plan development stage. Secs. 70- 5- 70 -25. Reserved. CD70:9