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
��
� j i
� � &