3. ARC-23-135 225 WELLS RD. The applicant, LLPB Trust (Andrea Lenczner, Trustee), has filed an application requesting Architectural Commission review and approval for construction of a new twostory single-family residence with final hardscape, landscape and swimming pool.
Public Comment, Town of Palm Beach Admin
admin
over 1 year ago
Received via email 11.17.23:
Dear ARCOM members,
We already submitted full details of our comments and concerns re above on 11/15 but we have had some communication from the architects since then.
As you can see from the emails below, a 6’ perimeter wall will now be built and we welcome this.
However, we still have major concerns on privacy, screening, and noise potential from the large, elevated 2nd story patio and balconies. These concerns have not been addressed to date, except to say that if privacy is provided for their client then it might also benefit us.
We hope our concerns will be discussed on Monday.
Regards
Olive & Liam McCarthy
Received via email 11.15.23:
RE: ARC-23-135 proposed house at 225 Wells Road
Dear ARCOM members,
We live at 209 Wells Road, immediately to the east of the proposed new house at 225 Wells Road. Having lived beside a construction site for the past 2 years, we are very happy to see closure on this property, and we look forward to welcoming new neighbors in the near future.
However, we do have some major concerns on how it will impact our outdoor living space and we hope you will give this some consideration when you are hearing this application on November 20th. We
would have preferred to have dealt with this directly with Menard and La Berge and avoided adding to ARCOM's already heavy workload, but to date our concerns have not been addressed by Mr. Menard. We include our original letter, sent October 20th, and email follow up, including reminders on the importance of receiving feedback with a view to resolving these issues before the ARCOM meeting, and an invitation to visit our property to discuss.
OUR CONCERNS
We have identified 9 sheets in the above ARCOM application which have inaccurate, out of date, or misleading information on our property. When viewed as part of the ARC-23-135 application above, this understates the impact on our outdoor living space, especially at the pool area. We understand that the information was just copied from a previous ARCOM application, but these inaccuracies are easy to visually confirm and correct once identified. (We did list all of these in our letter to Mr Menard and provided an up-to-date Town approved plan of our property) We also include here for reference an enlarged Sheet -001 showing the impact of the patio and balconies on our pool area: Ref: ST-001a.
The planned 2nd story patio and balconies (2,226 sq ft) are larger than the entire upstairs indoor space
(1,855 sq ft). This seems excessive, when you consider that the primary view would be of neighbors' pools, rooftops and gardens. We can understand why this design was chosen, since there is so little open space at ground level, the pool is already at the back of the site, and it allows for a large loggia underneath. However, we feel it is extremely imposing on neighboring properties, particularly ours, a single-story Regency that we have worked diligently to maintain and enhance. Also, with the size of this space there is potential for noise implications with music or social gatherings, and there is no way to mitigate for noise emanating from an open 2nd story patio.
The 2nd story building and patio is not screened in any way to protect the privacy of our living space. When you consider it is at a height of 19' NAVO, then any person standing on this patio would be looking right into our yard and pool with no screening. There is a 10' buttonwood hedge which will do little to mitigate for this, especially when you consider the site will already be 2'6" above our ground level to comply with building regulations. (In fact, in Sheet LP 7, this 10' hedge is rendered closer to 12-14' tall which is misleading but would still not provide adequate screening)
OUR REQUESTS
In our letter to Mr Menard we asked for the following:
1. Screening of the 2nd story element, including the north balconies and patio. This could be
achieved with landscaping and/or building changes. Please note that there is a bedroom balcony
15' from our property line, directly overlooking our pool area.
2. Pool equipment to be moved to the west side of property where it will have less impact on the
neighboring garden, since their pool area is to the front of the property closer to Wells Road.
3. Better overall screening on the property line between 209 and 225 Wells. Currently there is a
plan for a 10' buttonwood hedge - this is too low and is not very opaque. A much taller, more
opaque hedge would be better, possibly with some palms added to help with privacy screening.
4. The proposed ARCOM plans show an existing 5' wall on the property line. This never existed -
we did have a 5' privacy wall situated 1'-3' inside our property line but we had to remove this
because it was undermined by unauthorized excavation by the previous construction firm at 225
Wells. A new 2'6" retaining wall was built by the previous owners on the property line but we
believe this should be increased by an additional 5' to provide privacy and mitigate for noise.
We would like to point out that most of our suggestions/requests above would also benefit the
owners of 225 as it would provide more privacy for them too. We would ask you to consider all of the above points when you are discussing/considering this application.
Yours sincerely
Liam & Olive McCarthy
Received via email 11.17.23:
Dear ARCOM members,
We already submitted full details of our comments and concerns re above on 11/15 but we have had some communication from the architects since then.
As you can see from the emails below, a 6’ perimeter wall will now be built and we welcome this.
However, we still have major concerns on privacy, screening, and noise potential from the large, elevated 2nd story patio and balconies. These concerns have not been addressed to date, except to say that if privacy is provided for their client then it might also benefit us.
We hope our concerns will be discussed on Monday.
Regards
Olive & Liam McCarthy
Received via email 11.15.23:
RE: ARC-23-135 proposed house at 225 Wells Road
Dear ARCOM members,
We live at 209 Wells Road, immediately to the east of the proposed new house at 225 Wells Road. Having lived beside a construction site for the past 2 years, we are very happy to see closure on this property, and we look forward to welcoming new neighbors in the near future.
However, we do have some major concerns on how it will impact our outdoor living space and we hope you will give this some consideration when you are hearing this application on November 20th. We
would have preferred to have dealt with this directly with Menard and La Berge and avoided adding to ARCOM's already heavy workload, but to date our concerns have not been addressed by Mr. Menard. We include our original letter, sent October 20th, and email follow up, including reminders on the importance of receiving feedback with a view to resolving these issues before the ARCOM meeting, and an invitation to visit our property to discuss.
OUR CONCERNS
We have identified 9 sheets in the above ARCOM application which have inaccurate, out of date, or misleading information on our property. When viewed as part of the ARC-23-135 application above, this understates the impact on our outdoor living space, especially at the pool area. We understand that the information was just copied from a previous ARCOM application, but these inaccuracies are easy to visually confirm and correct once identified. (We did list all of these in our letter to Mr Menard and provided an up-to-date Town approved plan of our property) We also include here for reference an enlarged Sheet -001 showing the impact of the patio and balconies on our pool area: Ref: ST-001a.
The planned 2nd story patio and balconies (2,226 sq ft) are larger than the entire upstairs indoor space
(1,855 sq ft). This seems excessive, when you consider that the primary view would be of neighbors' pools, rooftops and gardens. We can understand why this design was chosen, since there is so little open space at ground level, the pool is already at the back of the site, and it allows for a large loggia underneath. However, we feel it is extremely imposing on neighboring properties, particularly ours, a single-story Regency that we have worked diligently to maintain and enhance. Also, with the size of this space there is potential for noise implications with music or social gatherings, and there is no way to mitigate for noise emanating from an open 2nd story patio.
The 2nd story building and patio is not screened in any way to protect the privacy of our living space. When you consider it is at a height of 19' NAVO, then any person standing on this patio would be looking right into our yard and pool with no screening. There is a 10' buttonwood hedge which will do little to mitigate for this, especially when you consider the site will already be 2'6" above our ground level to comply with building regulations. (In fact, in Sheet LP 7, this 10' hedge is rendered closer to 12-14' tall which is misleading but would still not provide adequate screening)
OUR REQUESTS
In our letter to Mr Menard we asked for the following:
1. Screening of the 2nd story element, including the north balconies and patio. This could be
achieved with landscaping and/or building changes. Please note that there is a bedroom balcony
15' from our property line, directly overlooking our pool area.
2. Pool equipment to be moved to the west side of property where it will have less impact on the
neighboring garden, since their pool area is to the front of the property closer to Wells Road.
3. Better overall screening on the property line between 209 and 225 Wells. Currently there is a
plan for a 10' buttonwood hedge - this is too low and is not very opaque. A much taller, more
opaque hedge would be better, possibly with some palms added to help with privacy screening.
4. The proposed ARCOM plans show an existing 5' wall on the property line. This never existed -
we did have a 5' privacy wall situated 1'-3' inside our property line but we had to remove this
because it was undermined by unauthorized excavation by the previous construction firm at 225
Wells. A new 2'6" retaining wall was built by the previous owners on the property line but we
believe this should be increased by an additional 5' to provide privacy and mitigate for noise.
We would like to point out that most of our suggestions/requests above would also benefit the
owners of 225 as it would provide more privacy for them too. We would ask you to consider all of the above points when you are discussing/considering this application.
Yours sincerely
Liam & Olive McCarthy