Architectural Commission (ARCOM)

TOWN OF PALM BEACH PLANNING, ZONING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2025 Please be advised that in keeping with a directive from the Town Council, the minutes of all Town Boards and Commissions will be "abbreviated" in style. Persons interested in listening to the meeting once it has concluded may access the audio of that item via the Town's website at www .townofpalmbeach . com. I. CALL TO ORDER 11. Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. ROLL CALL JeffreyW. Smith, Chairman PRESENT Richard F. Sammons, Vice Chairman PRESENT Betsy Shive rick, Member PRESENT Kenn Karakul, Member ABSENT (Unexcused) Elizabeth Connaughton, Member PRESENT Katherine "KT" Catlin PRESENT Claudia Visconti, Member PRESENT David Phoenix, Alternate Member PRESENT Sue Patterson, Alternate Member PRESENT Kathy Georgas, Alternate Member PRESENT Staff Members present were: Friederike Mittner, Design and Preservation Manager Sarah Pardue, Design & Preservation Planner Bradley Falco, Design & Preservation Planner Pat Gayle-Gordon, Deputy Town Clerk Lainey Francisco, Assistant Town Attorney Ill. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Smith led the Pledge of Allegiance. IV. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR Mr. Sammons nominated Jeffrey Smith for Chair. Ms. Catlin seconded the nomination. There were no other nominations at this time. A motion was made by Mr. Sammons and seconded by Ms. Catlin to accept Jeffrey Smith as Chair of the Architectural Commission. The motion was carried unanimously, 7-0. ARCOM Meeting Minutes 3-26-2025 1 of 18

Ms. Connaughton nominated Richard Sammons for Vice Chair. Ms. Shiverick seconded the nomination. There were no other nominations at this time. A motion was made by Ms. Connaughton and seconded by Ms. Shiverick to accept Richard Sammons as Vice Chair of the Architectural Commission. The motion was carried unanimously, 7-0. V. RULES AND PROCEDURES There were none. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of the Architectural Commission Meeting of February 26, 2025 A motion was made by Mr. Sammons and seconded by Ms. Catlin to approve the minutes of the February 26, 2025, meeting as presented. The motion was carried unanimously, 7-0. VII. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Ms . Pardue announced the following changes to the agenda: Item No. XI.A.1. ARC-24-0145 (ZON-24-0094) 10 SLOANS CURVE DRIVE (COMBO) - pulled from the Consent Agenda and heard immediately. A motion was made by Ms. Shiverick and seconded by Ms. Catlin to approve the amended agenda. The motion was carried unanimously, 7-0. VIII. ADMINISTRATION OF THE OATH TO PERSONS WHO WISH TO TESTIFY Ms. Gayle-Gordon administered the oath and continued to do so throughout the meet ing, as necessary. IX. COMMENTS FROM THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MEMBERS There were none . X. COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS REGARDING NON-AGENDA ITEMS (3 MINUTE LIMIT PLEASE) No one indicated a desire to speak. Clerk's Note : Due to Mr . Karakul 's absence, Mr. Phoenix will be a voting member today. XI. PROJECT REVIEW ~ CONSENTAGENDA 1. ARC-24-0145 (ZON-24-0094) 10 SLOANS CURVE DR (COMBO). The applicant, Sean Hannity, has filed an application requesting Architectural Commission review and approval for a second-story addition to an existing two-story townhome, requiring site plan review. This is a combination project that shall also be reviewed by Town Council as it pertains to zoning relief /approval. ARCO M Meeting Minutes 3-26-2025 2 of 18

This item was pulled from consent and was not included in the approval of the consent agenda. 2. ARC-25-0002 171 EL PUEBLO WAY. The applicants, Kevin Ryan and Carolyn Pressly-Ryan, have filed an application requesting Architectural Commission review and approval for modifications to a previously approved new, two-story residence, including second-floor fenestration modifications, a revision to the swimming pool, and related landscape adjustments. 3. ARC-25-0004 223 SUNSET AVE. The applicant, 223 Sunset Holdings LLC (Matt Peltz), has filed an application requesting Architectural Commission review and approval for modifications to previously approved renovations of an existing mixed-use structure, including raising terrace railings and new exterior windows and doors at the second-floor residences. A motion was made by Ms. Shiverick and seconded by Mr. Sammons to approve the amended consent agenda. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0. B. ITEMS PULLED FROM THECONSENTAGENDA,IFNEEDED 1. ARC-24-0145 (ZON-24-0094) 10 SLOANS CURVE DR (COMBO). The applicant, Sean Hannity, has filed an application requesting Architectural Commission review and approval for a second-story addition to an existing two-story town home, requiring site plan review. This is a combination project that shall also be reviewed by Town Council as it pertains to zoning relief/approval. Mr. Falco provided staff comments on this project. Several members disclosed ex-pa rte communications. Victoria Tracey, Smith and Moore Architects, presented an overview of the project. Mr. Smith called for public comment, but no one expressed a desire to speak. A motion was made by Ms. Catlin and seconded by Ms. Shiverick to approve the project as presented. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0. C. MAJOR PROJECTS-OLDBUSINESS 1. ARC-24-0098 301 POLMER PARK RD. The applicant, Patrick Carney, has filed an application requesting Architectural Commission review and approval for the construction of a new, split-level, two-story, single-family residence of over 10,000 square feet, with final hardscape, landscape, and swimming pool improvements. Mr. Falco provided staff comments on the project. Several members disclosed ex-parte communications. Attorney Frank Lynch provided an overview of the project and advocated a ARCOM Meeting Minutes 3-26-2025 3 of 18

favorable recommendation to the Town Council. Patrick O'Connell of Patrick Ryan O'Connell Architect presented the architectural plans, and Dustin Mizell of Environment Design Group presented the landscape and hardscape plans for the site. Mr. Phoenix mentioned the awning's color, Manhattan Fog, and indicated that it might need reconsidering. In addition, he thought the color Revere Pewter seemed drab. He did like the landscaping. He felt that the front and rear elevation pediments could be more pronounced. Ms. Patterson commented on the placement of the beach cabana and how it looked compared to the rest of the structure. Mr. Sammons commented on the house's darkness and asked if they had considered a courtyard. He said the outdoor area was tiny compared to the size of the structure. He also commented on the beach cabana. Mr. Sammons suggested that the entablature was miniaturized compared to the columns below. He suggested simplifying the design with the architrave expression at the portico. He also noted extra molding on the capital, which seemed redundant. The design should include either beak molding or ovolo, but not both. Ms. Connaughton agreed with Mr. Sammons about the fatness of the house. She thought the design was a nice improvement. She noted some details that may be changed to help the design. She said the awning pool cabana structure felt too tall and attenuated. She loved the pool cabana but thought it could be repositioned on the site. Referring to the east elevation, facing North Lake Way, the appearance was like an upside-down house. She thought the openings should be reduced at the basement level. She said that part of the home needed to appear slightly smaller. The big plate glass areas on the north elevation felt uncomfortable, as did the proportion of glass to the wall. Ms. Connaughton stated the design was a huge improvement. Ms. Catlin acknowledged the designer for working with the lay of the land in designing the structure. She liked what had been done by making the lower- level living space. She preferred that the lower floor not read like a basement. Referring to the elevation surrounding the pool , she thought it was too flat and needed to be brought to life regarding the fa<;ade. Ms. Catlin suggested that work vehicles be routed out and down County Road versus traveling down Lake. Ms. Visconti liked the pool's folly but thought it competed with the overdesigned pool cabana . She did not think the outdoor area was organized overall. She made some suggestions concerning the folly to reduce competition between the structures. She thought it was odd that the logia had no engagement with the pool. Ms. Shiverick said this street had all Regency-style homes, and the redesign looks like the pre-existing house. She thought there was an opportunity to open the home and liked Mr. Sammons's idea of a courtyard. She thought the home found its style in its place and looked good on the street. Mr. Smith thought the backyard was lost and without focus or symmetry. He did ARCOM Meeting Minutes 3-26-2025 4 of 18

not like how the bathroom area was designed to draw attention. Mr. Smith called for public comment. The following people made comments: Darren Ross, Palmer Park Road, stated that he did not feel the concerns of all Palmer Park Road residents that had been addressed. He thought the scope and size of the structure were too large and out of place. He also thought the home should only be a single-story structure. Robert Fraumer, 340 Palmer Park Road, discussed the concerns of other residents of Palmer Park Road and agreed with Mr. Ross' comments. Timothy Hanlon, the attorney for Palmer Park Homeowners, summarized their concerns. He stated that if the design was approved or deferred, the Palmer Park Homeowners would like to participate in the planning. Attorney Lynch addressed the comments. He stated that the proposed house's footprint was smaller than the existing structure's. He did not have a problem with Mr. Hanlon and his clients participating in the planning process. He stated he did not believe their problems were with the architecture but with existing issues. He stated those issues would not be exacerbated. Mr. Sammons said the structure was bulky even though the footprint may be smaller. He questioned the amount offill, said the house was unimaginative, and that the quality of the architecture was not sophisticated. Mr. Smith thought adding a courtyard may not be the right approach. He also thought that because the house was fat and had a flat roof, it did not resemble a Godfrey home. He thought that fat houses were in keeping with the design's style. He wasn't sure a deferral would help the project. A motion was made by Ms. Connaughton and seconded by Ms. Catlin to defer the project to the April 23, 2025, meeting. The motion carried 6-1, with Mr. Smith dissenting. 2. ARC-24-0027 (ZON-24-0034) 203 SLAKE TRL (COMBO) The applicants, Darlene & Gerald Jordan, have filed an application requesting Architectural Commission review and approval for a new two-story single-family residence with a one-story pool house and padel court, with final hardscape, landscape, and swimming pool improvements; with (2) special exceptions required as it pertains to the proposed padel court and the location of a vehicular gate. Town Council shall review the application as it pertains to zoning relief/approval. Mr. Falco provided staff comments on the project. Several members disclosed ex-parte communications. Randy Correll of Robert A.M. Stern Architecture gave an architectural presentation, and Cory Meyer of Nievera Williams Design presented the site's landscape and hardscape plans. ARCOM Meeting Minutes 3-26-2025 5 of 18

Ms. Shiverick thought this project was going in the right direction. She felt the Oliver Messel inspiration was lovely, but maybe there was too much Messel instead of being more subtle . She thought the atrium was lovely and liked the interior design. Mr. Sammons thought the project footprint was too large. Architecturally, he thought the large span in the rear of the home was too much . It was too horizontal. Ms . Catlin liked the proposed structure but said the home 's overall feel should not be lost. She agreed with Mr. Sammons about the scale. Ms. Visconti also felt the home was influenced too much by Messel. She thought that some elements could be reconsidered to improve the project. She asked about the revised west elevation , and Mr. Correll clarified. She liked the Hemlock color best. Mr. Phoenix agreed with Ms. Visconti. He did not mind the Messel inspiration and found it to be playful. Ms . Patterson found the home welcoming . She agreed it may be a little bit too much, but it was lovely, nonetheless . Mr. Smith liked the proposed design. He thought the scale of the guesthouse was large. Mr. Smith called for public comment. No one indicated a desire to speak. A motion was made by Ms. Visconti and seconded by Ms. Catlin to defer the project to the April 23, 2025, meeting. The motion carried 4-3, with Messrs. Smith, Phoenix, and Ms. Shiverick dissenting. 3. ARC-24-0114 (ZON-24-0092) 1010 N LAKE WAY (COMBO) The applicant, 101 O North Lake Trust, LLC , has filed an application requesting Arch itectural Commission review and approval for elevation , shifting, and renovation of a two - story house, the addition of a loggia, new pool , hardscape and landscape requiring variances for lot coverage, setbacks, and screening. Town Council shall review the application as it perta ins to zon i ng relief/approval. Ms. Mittner provided staff comments on the project. Several members disclosed ex-parte communications. Peter Papadopoulos of Smith and Moore Architecture provided an overview of the project , site plans, and zon ing relief. Timothy Haynes of Haynes-Roberts Inc . reviewed the fac;ade elevations. Keith Williams of Nievera Williams Design presented the site 's landscape and hardscape plans . Mr. Sammons discussed the details of the front portico. He thought the entablature was too heavy for the columns . He stated that the entablature and ARCOM Mee ti ng Minutes 3-26-20 25 6 of 18

cornice needed to be reduced, and the piers needed to be thickened. He encouraged a change in the baluster caps. In the rear portico, he thought the same entablature was being used all the way around, but the triple columns on the end were too massive and should be spread out more. Ms. Connaughton agreed with Mr. Sammons. She thought the changes suggested in the rear of the structure would address the concerns. Ms. Catlin nodded to Mr. Sammon's comments on the details. She asked for an explanation about the pros and cons of saving the structure versus tearing it down and rebuilding it. Mr. Papadopoulos responded. Ms. Visconti thought the design improved and agreed with Mr. Sammons' suggestions. She asked about the colors. Mr. Phoenix asked about the colors, and Mr. Haynes responded. Mr. Phoenix liked the project and thought it was an improvement. Mr. Smith called for public comment. No one indicated a desire to speak. A motion was made by Ms. Shiverick and seconded by Ms. Visconti to approve the project with the following conditions: The shutter color will be changed to white, and with a restudy of the entablature, and column order, with all changes to be approved by staff and the chair. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0. A motion was made by Ms. Catlin and seconded by Ms. Connaughton that the implementation of the proposed variances will not cause a negative architectural impact on the subject property. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0. 4. ARC-24-0040 (ZON-25-0002) 1285 N OCEAN BLVD (COMBO) The applicant, M2B Properties LLC, has filed an application requesting Architectural Commission review and approval for construction of a new, two-story single-family residence with final hardscape, landscape, and swimming pool requiring a variance for fill. Town Council shall review the application as it pertains to zoning relief/approval. Ms. Mittner provided staff comments on the project. Several members disclosed ex-parte communications. Gregory Palmer of Harrison Design provided an overview of the project and its site plans. Brian Vertesch of Vertesch Landscape Architecture presented the site's landscape and hardscape plans. Ms. Connaughton liked the additional columns and thought the house would be nice. However, she had an issue with the right side of the entry on the front elevation of the house. She wondered if two windows could be added. Mr. Palmer said two could be added on the lower but not the upper level. She also felt that the rear elevation could have been better designed. ARCOM Meeting Minutes 3-26-2025 7 of 18

Mr. Sammons stated that the front elevation was improved . However, he found some conflicts between the plan and the elevation. He commented on the main portion of the home compared to the two wings. He made some suggestions about the width of the middle part of the house, as well as the columns. He thought the end sections were too wide. He suggested aligning the wall of the second-story mass with the pier between the two garage doors. He thought the center mass and the two wings needed restudy as well as the intercolumniation of the piers. He thought the porch should be recessed further w ith a longer eave. He thought the upper story needed to be lighter in construction so that the span cou ld be carried and the intercolumniation of the middle section could be wider. Ms . Shive rick asked about the colors of the pool house, the front door, garage doors, shutters, and pedestrian gates. She suggested that the house color could be too gray for a home on the ocean . She also asked about the lime cypress; she thought a more gray lime would be betterthan the brown lime . Ms. Catlin liked the house in many respects but thought it was missing the mark. She thought several details needed to be refined. Ms . Visconti liked the blue color over the gray. She thought the design needed a Sea Island/Caribbean flair. She also commented on the tabby for the driveway. She recommended restudying the pedestrian gate, but overall, the changes were an improvement . Mr. Phoenix said the lot was difficult , and this project would raise the bar on the north end. He asked about the small w i ndow in the m iddle of the living room wall. Mr. Smith refe rred to the ocean fac;ade , and he thought the structure could be brought down by inserting a couple of columns to make the house look less substantial. Mr. Smith called for public comment . No one indicated a desire to speak. A motion was made by Ms. Shiverick and seconded by Ms. Catlin to defer the project to the April 23, 2025, meeting. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0. 5. ARC-24-0128 (ZON-24-0093) 203 VIA VIZCAYA (COMBO) The applicant, PAUL Z. OKEAN (Trustee, under Trust Agreement dated 5/21 /91 as the Paul Z. Okean Revocable Living Trust), has filed an application requesting Architectural Commission review for the design of a new, two - story , single-fam i ly residence w ith final hardscape , landscape and swimming pool improvements , with special exception approval required for redevelopment of a nonconforming parcel and a variance request for deficient landscape open space. Town Council shall review the application as it pertains to zoning relief/approval. Mr. Falco provided staff comments on the project . ARCO M Meeting Minutes 3-26-2025 8 of 18

Several members disclosed ex-parte communications. Attorney Jack Rice from Gunster, representing the owner, provided an overview of the project, explained the zoning relief needed, and advocated for a positive recommendation to the Town Council. He stated that the team has been working with the neighbors to address any issues. Jonathan Parks of Solstice presented the architectural plans for the project, and Andres Paradelo of Paradelo Burgess Design Studio presented the landscape and hardscape plans for the site. Attorney John Eubanks, representing the neighbor at 854 South County Road, LLC, spoke on behalf of his client and stated that if the issues could not be resolved between the parties, they would be raised to the Town Council. Mr. Sammons complemented the proportions of the front fac;:ade and stated they had been improved. He asked about the projection of lintels above the doors. Mr. Parks responded. He thought something should be introduced above the door, as he felt the door was not tall enough. He thought the front portico needed some dimension. The overall massing and scale of the building only needed some subtle improvements, but it was a lovely structure. Ms. Visconti thought the project had been much improved. She also thought the sconces on the front door needed to be deleted. She commented about the materials covering the south wall and asked about the materials used for the gates and the pattern. She said she liked the east elevation but did not think the gates belonged in the rendering looking west. She thought the pattern was overly done. She was not in favor of the water feature. Mr. Phoenix thought the house was moving in a positive direction. He loved the awnings and thought they softened the courtyard facing northeast. He also liked the one facing the northwest. He did not like the gate or the width of the gate in the courtyard facing west. He did not favor the white sconces on the front loggia but felt the home needed additional adornments. Mr. Phoenix felt three doors would be better regarding the garage door elevation. Mr. Phoenix agreed with Mr. Sammons about adding something decorative and changing out the sconces, and he thought the front door was too short. Ms. Patterson stated that given the charm on the street, this home was quite a departure. She agreed with Mr. Sammons' comments about adding detail and charm. Ms . Visconti asked about the landscaping. Mr. Paradelo stated his client wished to stay with drought-tolerant Zoysia. She also asked about the gate and recalled the request to narrow it. She thought it could go to 6 feet to help with the aesthetics. She asked to view the materials sheet for the project. Mr. Smith called for public comment. A motion was made by Ms. Shiverick and seconded by Mr. Sammons to defer the project to the April 23, 2025, meeting. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0. ARCOM Meeting Minutes 3-26-2025 9 of 18

6. ARC-24-0071 224 VIA MARILA The applicant, Adrian Tauro, has filed an application requesting Architectural Commission review and approval for the construction of a new, two-story single-family residence and attached accessory structure with final hardscape, landscape, and swimming pool. This application has been deferred to the May 28, 2025 meeting. Clerk's note: This item was deferred to the meeting on May 28, 2025, at Item V. Approval of the Agenda. 7. ARC-24-0108 (ZON-24-0066) 1519 N OCEAN WAY (COMBO) The applicant, 1519 N Ocean Way #1 LLC & 1519 N Ocean Way #2 LLC (Maura Ziska, Attorney), has filed an application requesting Architectural Commission review and approval for a new two-story single-family residence of over 10,000 sq ft and detached guest house with final hardscape, landscape, and swimming pool improvements. A special exception with site plan review is required to redevelop the existing nonconforming parcel and zoning variances are required to exceed maximum building height, maximum overall building height, and to permit improvements within the ocean bulkhead setback. The Town Council shall review the application as it pertainstozoningrelief/approval. This application has been withdrawn by the applicant. Clerk's note: This item was withdrawn at Item V. Approval of the Agenda. D. MAJOR PROJECTS-NEW BUSINESS 1. ARC-24-0129 288 QUEENS LANE The applicant, Steven Rosenberg, has filed an application requesting Architectural Commission review and approval for the construction of a one - story addition on an existing single-family residence. Ms. Mittner provided staff comments on the project. Several members disclosed ex-parte communications. Shilun Zhou of LUN Architects presented the site's architectural plans, and Dustin Mizell of Environment Design Group presented the site's landscape and hardscape plans. Mr. Phoenix did not favor the project, stating it lacked architectural charm. Ms. Catlin did not think this was a successful design. Although she was not opposed to an addition, she felt it made the area feel congested. Ms. Visconti said the project looked too much like an addition. She thought that Queens Lane opened the opportunity for something imaginative. Ms. Connaughton asked about the project's siting and relationship to the yard's exterior spaces. She said that just as no windows were facing the street, it could be reconfigured on the lot to create a nicer exterior space. She was not in favor of the proposed color. ARCOM Meeting Minutes 3-26-2025 10 of 18

Ms. Shiverick thought the existing landscape was driving the location of the addition. She recommended removing the existing and adding new landscaping around the studio. Mr. Sammons offered suggestions for a successful pavilion. He thought there should be more room between the house and the pavilion to achieve success. He did not care for the project, as presented. Mr. Smith did not see how the house and the addition worked together. He requested additional drawings and the floor plan of the house for the next presentation. Ms. Catlin urged the logistics of the truck plan to use North County Road to N Lake Way, crossing after Bahama Lane. Mr. Smith called for public comment. No one indicated a desire to speak. A motion was made by Ms. Visconti and seconded by Ms. Catlin to defer the project to the April 23, 2025, meeting. The motion carried 6-1, with Mr. Phoenix dissenting. 2. ARC-24-0090 (ZON-24-0046) 2720- 2730 S OCEAN BLVD - EDGEWATER/ AMBASSADOR SITE (COMBO) The applicant, Palm Beach Edgewater Fee Borrower LLC, and Palm Beach Ambassador Fee Borrower LLC has filed an application for Architectural Commission review and approval of a new multifamily, multibuilding residential development on the east and west sides of S Ocean Boulevard with a new multi-story residential building with five residential levels and a subterranean parking level and rooftop penthouse mechanical equipment to replace two existing five- and eight- story buildings on the east side of S Ocean Boulevard and to replace an existing three-story building on the west side of S Ocean Boulevard, to be demolished. This project includes multiple variances related to building height, building setbacks, building length, lot coverage, maximum amount of fill, rooftop generators, and rooftop mechanical equipment. This is a combination project that shall also be reviewed by Town Council as it pertains to zoning relief/approval. Mr. James Murphy, Assistant Director of Planning, Zoning, and Building, provided staff comments and answered questions about the project. Several members disclosed ex-pa rte communications. Mr. Sammons asked about the density, to which Mr. Murphy responded. Mr. Murphy discussed the density allowance and stated the applicant was below the allowance by nearly 60 percent. Attorney Harvey Oyer provided an overview of the project and advocated a positive recommendation to the Town Council. Nelo Freijomel of Spina O'Rourke + Partners presented the architectural plans, Jason Long of OMA discussed the concept for the architecture, and Keith Williams of Nievera Williams Design presented the landscape and hard scape plans for the site. ARCOM Meeting Minutes 3-26-2025 11 of 18

Mr. Sammons asked how many of the replacement units would be hotel rooms . Mr. Freijomel responded that 98 would be hotel rooms. Mr. Sammons thought the proposed architecture lacked charm. He questioned how the proposed structure differed from the original, stating that it rema ined a block structure regardless of landscaping. He also questions how the building would be energy efficient with all the glass windows so close to the fac;ade. Clerk 's note: A lunch break was taken at 1:00 p .m ., and the meeting resumed at 2:02 p.m . Ms. Patterson liked the project while understanding there were details to work through . She thought it was appropriate in an area with larger buildings and that the structure felt elegant and beautiful. Ms . Catlin agreed with Ms. Patterson and found the sense of this project appealing. She spoke about using other textures instead of the terracotta to soften the appearance . She thought the structure seemed boxy, but she was unsure what could be done to fit it on the property. Ms. Catlin stated she preferred underground parking to allow more green space and lush around the site . She did not find five stories to be unreasonable. Ms . Visconti felt that the project felt cold . She felt that the project design could be improved. She liked the landscape but thought the project looked too much like Miami or Costa Rica rather than Palm Beach . She was also interested in hearing more informat ion about parking spaces per unit. She was apprec iative that the number of units was lower than allowed . Ms. Connaughton asked Mr. Freijomel to provide further explanations of the design of the build ings, with all heights the same . Mr. Freijomel responded. She agreed with Mr. Sammons and Ms . Visconti ' s comments about the project. Mr. Phoenix thought that, with aesthetics aside, the project was impressively put together, although the site was complex. He asked for clarification about the security office and how the project would be lit on the exterior. Mr. Freijomel responded that there would be low-level turtle lighting at the ground level, and most of the lighting would be in the landscape. M r. Phoenix liked the coral stone, and he also asked about parking. Mr. Freijomel said there would be two dedicated spaces per un it , and the remaining parking spaces would be for guests and services . Mr. Phoenix asked about the underground tunnel connect ing the properties and wondered if the road would be closed . Mr. Freijomel said there was a discussion about this , and there would be some opportunity to reconfigure traffic . Ms. Shiverick liked more dramatic architecture. She even thought that Asian- style architecture would be more interesting. Ms . Sammons said every fac;ade was the same from every orientati on , responding to no natural cond ition . He thought the scale of the buildings was larger than that of other buildings and too large for the area . He felt it was colossal in scale. He did not feel the cadence was si milar to the surrounding bu ildings and questioned why all three were identical. A RCOM Meeting Minutes 3-26-2025 12 of 18

Mr. Smith found the buildings unimaginative. He felt the code intended to develop more green space around the buildings, and he felt much landscaping was lost in the proposed plan. Mr. Smith called for public comment. The following people made comments: Attorney Nicholas Bixler of Lewis, Longman, Walker stated he represented the residents of the Regency, which is the building south of the most western building. He said he had recently been retained and would discuss his clients' concerns for the massing and drainage with the developer. Dennis Mazurek, 3200 S. Ocean Blvd., expressed concern about the intercoastal infill. He noted that as time passes and areas continue to be filled in, that would need to be addressed. Attorney Megan Wegerif of Xenick Lebedeker Law Firm, representing 2770 S. Ocean Blvd., stated that her firm could not oppose or support the development but had worked in good faith with the developer. Kathy Hershcopf, 2773 S. Ocean Blvd., stated that residents were excited about possibly redeveloping this property. She was sure the commission would guide the developer, and the residents would like to see the project progress. Attorney Maura Ziska, representing the BeachPoint Condominium, stated that her clients generally supported the project and that she had been working with the developers to address concerns. Mr. Murphy stated that the application did not entail intercoastal infill. He said the fill mentioned was required for an onsite fill. A motion was made by Ms. Catlin and seconded by Ms. Shiverick to defer the project to the May 28, 2025, meeting, with a recommendation that the Town Council review the requested variances and special exception. The motion was carried 4-3, with Messrs. Sammons, Smith, and Ms. Connaughton dissenting. 3. ARC-24-0111 (ZON-24-0067) 175 BRADLEY PL (COMBO) The applicant, DOC PALM BEACH PPLC, has filed an application requesting Architectural Commission review and approval for a new second-floor addition for a new residential unit to an existing one-story commercial building and substantial exterior alterations, including variances from setbacks and parking requirements. This is a combination project that shall also be reviewed by Town Council as it pertains to zoning relief/approval. Ms . Mittner provided staff comments on the project. Several members disclosed ex-pa rte communications. Mr. Sammons declared a conflict of interest and left the dais during the discussion. Jaime Torres of Fairfax and Sammons Architects presented the site's architectural plans . ARCOM Meeting Minutes 3-26-2025 13 of 18

Ms. Mittner stated that the Town Council reviewed the project and returned to the commission with directions to add shade trees to the front of the building and to accommodate one on-site parking space. Mr. Torres discussed the addition of shade trees and parking. Attorney Maura Ziska provided an overview of the project and advocated a positive recommendation to the Town Council. Mr. Torres discussed the traffic engineers who were engaged regarding this site's parking and curb cuts. Ms. Visconti asked about the building's existing parking, to which Mr. Torres responded. A short discussion ensued about potential parking. Ms. Visconti asked about the requirements for landscape open space for the site; Mr. Murphy discussed the requirements. Ms. Visconti asked if native plantings would be required, and Mr. Murphy provided confirmation. Ms. Visconti asked about the window materials, and Mr. Torres said they would be made of mahogany. She also asked about the railing and said she would like to see what it would look like. Mr. Torres said the railing would be metal, and he thought it would be stainless steel. Mr. Smith asked about the owner's willingness to obtain offsite parking. Mr. Murphy explained that the developer would have to present it to the Town Council; they would decide on how to proceed forward , knowing that the design direction provided to them was not followed. Mr. Murphy stated he would make it clear to the Town Council that the applicant did not provide an option showing on-site parking. Ms. Connaughton asked about the width of the parking space, and Mr. Torres said 25 feet. He added that the garage door was approximately 7 feet wide. Ms. Catlin was pleased when she saw a design that enhanced the area. She asked if there was additional space for another tree to be planted. Ms. Patterson liked the design and thought the garage added a nice visual element. She asked about additional greenery on the site. Mr. Phoenix asked about the front elevation on the second floor and wondered whytherewere no windows. Mr. Torres respondedthatanotherwindowcould be added if necessary. Mr. Phoenix asked about the sconces in the rendering, and Mr. Torres confirmed there would be sconces there. Mr. Smith called for public comment. No one indicated a desire to speak. A motion was made by Ms. Catlin and seconded by Mr. Phoenix to approve the project with the following conditions: the building's architecture is superior without a garage, the plan shall be altered to add a walking path on the side of the building and increase the greenspace, a request to the Town Council to allow a planter or tree pit on the Bradley Place fa<;ade, gas lanterns will be added as well as a window to the second floor. The motion carried 6-1, with Mr. Smith dissenting. ARCOM Meeting Minutes 3-26-2025 14 of 18

A motion was made by Ms. Catlin and seconded by Ms. Connaughton that the implementation of the proposed variances based on the commission's recommended design will not cause a negative architectural impact on the subject property. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0. E. MINOR PROJECTS- OLD BUSINESS 1. ARC-24-0137 (ZON-24-0086) 500 S COUNTY RD (COMBO) The applicant, THE EVERGLADES CLUB INC, has filed an application requesting Architectural Commission review and approval for the design of a new concession stand and maintenance and upgrades to the golf course that will require a special exception and site plan review. Town Council shall review the application as it pertains to zoning relief/approval. Ms. Mittner provided staff comments on the project. Several members disclosed ex-parte communications. Jason Drobot of Brasseur and Drobot Architects presented the site's architectural plans, and Dustin Mizell of Environment Design Group presented the site's landscape and hardscape plans. Ms. Visconti thought the louvered pattern was reading too heavily. She did not care for the ratio of stucco to louver. Ms . Connaughton thought the site plan was significantly better. She asked if wood construction was considered. Mr. Drobot said he preferred concrete for longevity purposes. She did not care for the segmented arches and thought the details could be refined. She was in favor of the landscaping. Ms. Patterson liked the project and said that it echoed the existing structure. She thought it fit in perfectly with the club's design. Ms. Shiverick said the green and white tent was already up, and Mr. Drobot said the canvas was already there. Ms. Shiverick asked about the depth of the structure . She did not understand why the other folly was being removed. She did not see the rationale in disposing of something that had been there for a long time and worked well. Ms . Catlin asked what was directly behind the folly . Mr. Drobot said the golf course fairways. Ms. Catlin agreed with Ms. Shive rick that it looked like someone had put up a temporary tent for an event. She did not think it related to what was around it. In contrast, she thought the folly on the golf course was appropriately placed . Ms. Georgas wondered if the tent had to remain green and white. Mr. Smith noted that the Everglades Club was landmarked, and the tent could not be seen from the street. He did not care for the folly up against the existing building. ARCOM Meeting Minutes 3-26-2025 15 of 18

Ms. Shive r ickwondered why the structure was being moved , to which Mr. Drobot said it was due to the tee box and the view. Club Member David Rousseau provided further explanation. Mr. Phoenix asked about the history of the existing bu ilding. Mr. Drobot responded. He asked about the size of the proposed building and questioned the folly next to the older building. Ms . Patterson liked the proposed design but wondered if it could be separated from the build ing more . Ms. Shiverick asked if the path could be moved to preserve the location of the existing building and whethe r that would impact golfers. Mr. Rousseau further explained the design intent of the proposed plan. Ms. Catlin asked about approval for the course upgrade . Mr. Drobot responded . Ms. Mittner discussed the building's approval, even though partial approval was previously made. Mr. Smith called for public comment . No one indicated a desire to speak. A motion was made by Ms. Visconti and seconded by Ms. Catlin to defer the project to the April 23, 2025, meeting, with reconsideration of the location of the structure or considering a reduction in size or an octagonal shape for the structure. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0. 2. ARC-24-0144147 DUNBAR RD. The applicant , Susan Pappas Trust, has filed an application requesting Architectural Commission revi ew and approval for the installation of two vehicular gates. This application has been deferred to the April 23, 2025 meeting. Clerk's note: This item was deferred to the meeting on April 23, 2025, at Item V. Approval of the Agenda. 3. ARC-24-0113 1600 S OCEAN BLVD.The applicant , PB Pavilion Trust (Peter A. Flanagan, Robert G. Simes , & Michael Vineberg as Trustees), have submitted an application requesting Architectural Commission (ARCOM) review and approval for modificat ions to existing landscape and hardscape and modifications to the driveway gates and pedestrian gate at an existing single- family residence with ARCOM approved renovations and additions underway. This application has been deferred to the April 23, 2025 meeting. Clerk's note: This item was deferred to the meeting on April 23, 2025, at Item V. Approval of the Agenda. 4. ARC-24-0125 936 N LAKE WAY The applicant , Pamela Cline, has filed an application requesting Architectural Commission review and approval for new garage door and pedestrian gate designs, driveway material changes, and landscape modificat ions. This application has been deferred to the April 23, 2025 meeting. Clerk's note: This item was deferred to the meeting on April 23, 2025, at Item V. Approval of the Agenda. ARCOM Meeting Minutes 3-26-2 025 16 of 18

5. ARCS-24-0681160 ROYAL PALM WAY(PALM HOUSE HOTEL). The applicant, LR Palm House LLC (Natalie Leclerc, General Manager), has filed an application requesting AR COM review and approval for signage on the hotel's front fa9ade and for the approval of the design of the previously approved bollard lights in the rear courtyard. This application has been deferred to the April 23, 2025, meeting. Clerk's note: This item was deferred to the meeting on April 23, 2025, at Item V. Approval of the Agenda. F. MINOR PROJECTS-NEWBUSINESS 1. ARC-25-0001 640 ISLAND DR.Theapplicant,640FloridaLandTrust,hasfiled an application requesting Architectural Commission review and approval for fenestration changes, modification of entry gates with landscape and hardscape improvements. Ms. Mittner provided staff comments on the project. Several members disclosed ex-parte communications. Cory Meyer of Nievera Williams Design presented the site's landscape and hardscape plans. Mr. Phoenix did not care for the structure's black gate or front door. He felt it looked too contemporary and did not fit in with the neighborhood. Ms. Visconti did not think the solid circles were working on the gate. She also felt the grill work needed to be simplified for the front door. She suggested simple rods with finials. She also felt the chimney cap could be improved. Ms. Shiverick thought everything was okay, but she agreed with the comment about removing the circles and that the front door needed some simplification. Mr. Smith called for public comment. No one indicated a desire to speak. A motion was made by Ms. Shiverick and seconded by Ms. Visconti to approve the design with the following items to return to the meeting on April 23, 2025: the front door, gate, and lanterns. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0. 2. ARCS-24-0622 225 VIA LINDA. The applicant,John and Heather Rogers, have filed an application requesting Architectural Commission review and approval for window and door replacement. Ms . Mittner provided staff comments on the project. Several members disclosed ex-parte communications. Richard Leja, working with SKA Architect + Planner, presented the site's ARCOM Meeting Minutes 3-26-2025 17 of 18

architectural plans , and Dustin Mizell of Environment Design Group presented the site's landscape and hardscape plans. Ms. Catlin thought the home had been overs i mplified and the character had been stripped from the structure. Ms. Connaughton agreed with Ms . Catlin's comments. She felt that the single divided cross-shaped window did not suit the architecture. Ms . Patterson agreed with the previous comments . Ms. Georgas also agreed with everyone else and thought the house's color should be reconsidered. Mr. Smith called for public comment . No one indicated a desire to speak . A motion was made by Ms. Visconti and seconded by Ms. Catlin to defer the project to the April 23, 2025, meeting for a restudy of the mullions and the color of the front door. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0. 3. ARC-25-0005 2252 IBIS ISLE RD. The applicant, Andrew & Gail Marks (Madison Worth Architecture) , has filed an application requesting Architectural Commission r eview and approval for modifications to a vehicular gate with landscape and hardscape mod i fications . This application has been deferred to the April 23, 2025, meeting. Clerk's note: This item was deferred to the meeting on April 23, 2025, at Item V. Approval of the Agenda. XII. UNSCHEDULED ITEMS There were no additional items at this time . XIII. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday , April 23, 2025 XIV. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Mr. Phoenix and seconded by Mr. Sammons to adjourn the meeting at 4:20 PM. The motion was carried unanimously, 7-0. The next meeting will be held on Wednesday , April 23 , 2025, at 9 : 00 a .m . in the Town Council Chambers, 2nd floor , Town Hall , 360 S. County Road . kmc itted, i h, Chairman ECTURAL COMMISSION ARCOM Meeting Minutes 3-26-2025 18 of 18

FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS MISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON 0 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0 ELECTIVE ~ POINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council , commission , authority, or committee. It applies to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with vot in g on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason , please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing and filing the form . INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which would inure to his or her speci al private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also MUST ABSTAIN from knowingly voting on a measure which would inure to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent, subsidiary, or sibling organization of a principal by which he or she is retained}; to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies (CRAs) under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S. , and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). * * ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting ; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. * * APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you are not prohibited by Section 112.3143 from otherwise participating in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN : • You must complete and file this form {before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on page 2) CE FORM 8B- EFF. 11/2013 PAGE 1 Adopted by reference in Rule 34-7.010(1)(f), F.A.C.

APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST 1,- ~-J~~~.-....,--S~~-~M_I)~~=<;,____ , hereby disclose that on __\\A;--'-'~LL-C-~-4_ · ______ , 20 ~ : (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one or more) _lL inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate , ______________________ _ inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, __________________________ _ inured to the special gain or loss of ______________________________ , by whom I am retained ; or inured to the special gain or loss of _____________________________ , which is the parent subsidiary, or sibling organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: f\((_c_- Q..,~-0\ l t_zn,0- 9--~-oo 61-) L-qS ~f)LJ)-1 ~1 ~1tW W"Ll-l, ~1- If disclosure of specific information would violate confidentiality or privilege pursuant to law or rurg governing attorneys, a public officer, who is also an attorney, may comply with the disclosure requirements of this section by disclosing fhe n of the interest in such a way as to provide the public with notice of the conflict. 3 Date Filed / Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317 , A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOTTO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 8B - EFF. 11/2013 PAGE2 Adopted by reference in Rule 34-7.010 (1)(f) , F.A.C.