Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout03/22/1995CHAIRMAN: VICE CHAIRMAN: BOARD MEMBER: ALTERNATE MEMBER: Joan Orthwein William Lynch Fred Devitt, III Susanna Souder Howard E.N. Wilson R. W. Hopkins Sara Winston March 17, 1995 REGULAR MEETING BEING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA, ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 1995, AT 9:00 A.M. IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. AnP..NDA I. Call to Order. II. Roll Call. III. Swearing-in of New Members. IV. Minutes. A. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing of February 22, 1995. B. Special Meeting & Public Hearing of March 1, 1995. C. Special, Joint Meeting with Town Commission of March 10, 1995. V. Announcements. A. Regular Meeting of ARPB-April 26, 1995 at 9:00 A.M. VI. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. VII. Items by Staff. A. Construction in Progress Report -February, 1995 B. Quasi -Judicial Development Review Process -Town Manager Harrington 1. Applications 2. Notice 3. Review Standards 4. Staff Report 5. Site Visits 6. Use of, and Advise from, Outside Professionals(architects,etc.) 7. Public Hearings a. Swearing-in b. Presentations by Applicant C. Comments by Staff d. Comments by Outside Professionals e. Public Comment f. Final Remarks by Applicant g. Executive Session h. Cross-examination i. Role of the Chair 8. Fact Finding 9. Motions VIII. Items by Board Members IX. Public X. 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 HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLAN- NING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 1995, AT 9:00 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. I. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Orthwein at 9:00 A.M. II. Roll Call. Present and Joan Orthwein Chairman Participating: William Lynch Vice Chairman Fred Devitt, III Board Member Susanna Souder Board Member R. W. Hopkins Alternate Board Member Sara C. Winston Alternate Board Member Absent With Notice: Howard E.N. Wilson Board Member Also Present and E. Scott Harrington Town Manager Participating: Rita Taylor Town Clerk III. Swearing-in of New Members. The Town Clerk administered Oaths of Office to Mrs. Winston and Mr. Devitt. IV. Minutes. A. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing of February 22, 1995. B. Special Meeting & Public Hearing of March 1, 1995. C. Special, Joint Meeting with Town Commission of March 10, 1995. Three separate motions were made by Mr. Lynch to approve the minutes as circulated. The motions were seconded by Mrs. Souder. Roll Call on each motion: Mr. Devitt; AYE, Mrs. Souder; AYE, Mr. Lynch; AYE, and Chairman Orthwein; AYE. V. Announcements. A. Regular Meeting of ARPB-April 26, 1995 at 9:00 A.M. This announcement was made by Chairman Orthwein. VI. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. There were no changes to the agenda. VII. Items by Staff. A. Construction in Progress Report -February, 1995. The report revealed there to be $7,355,348 worth of construction in progress during February, 1995. B. Quasi -Judicial Development Review Process -Town Manager Harrington O1. Applications. Town Manager Harrington distributed copies of the Development Application that is currently being used and explained that he will be upgrading it to incorporate the new review standards in the Design Manual. He went on explain that the review standards are formatted in the application as questions for the applicant to address, placing the burden of proof on the applicant at the beginning of the process. Mr. Harrington then explainer each section of the application, adding that some of it will most likely not be distributed to the Board as it is intended for staff reference in processing the application. Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting -March 22, 1995 page 2 2. Notice. Mr. Harrington stated that in all types of the development approval process, some type of notice is required. He added that the number of property owners receiving notification of the application will vary with the level of review. 3. Review Standards. The Town Manager called attention to the review standards that are listed n in Section 66-144 (b) of the Code of Ordinances, and pointed out that �J the applications must be consistent with all of these standards. He advised that the first eight are more or less cut and dried and then reviewed each of the remaining standards in detail. Mr. Harrington then advised that the variance procedure and standards have not changed, remind- ing that it is very difficult to justify a variance in that the applicant must prove that the property is unique from any others and that there exists a genuine hardship. With that explained, he referred to the sections on Special Exceptions and pointed out that in granting a Special Exception as opposed to a Variance, the mattes of uniqueness and hardship are not a consideration but it is necessary that the Special Exception meet all 9 standards as set out in the Code of Laws and Ordinances as well as those standards both general and specific that are found in the Design Manual, a total of 25 standards altogether. He emphasized that these 25 standards are all that can be considered in deciding the matter of a Special Exception Application, and that when making a motion for or against granting the same, the standard/s should be cited, speaking in the language of the Code. Mr. Harrington then explained that design standards contained in the Design Manual ate either mandatory or discretionary, with the terms "Preferred" and "Discouraged" being discretionary. He pointed out that it clearly states that incorporating preferred items into a design increases the probability of, but does not assure, project approval and incorporating discouraged items into a design decreases the probability of project approval and may result in project denial. He stated that when reviewing a project containing "Discouraged" items, it should be remembered that the code is saying that these items are bad and as such, the burden is on the applicant to show how these "bad" items are acceptable when they are incorporated into the design that is being reviewed. He closed on the item of Review Standards by advising that compliance is mandatory for project approval where "Required" items are involved and the use of "Prohibited" elements mandates project denial. 4. Staff Report. Town Manager Harrington advised that he will address which standards are not met,and why they are not met, in his staff reports. He further advised that he will make a recommendation in each report, and cite which standard/s influenced his recommendation. He emphasized that the Board should not feel obligated to follow his recommendations as information brought forth at the hearing may offer a different prospective. 5. Site Visits. In view of the quasi-judicial nature of the Board, Mr. Harrington advised that there should be no independent fact gathering by individual members as this should be done when sitting as a body in the public hearing. He stated that if an individual member wanted anything in relation to the application, they should contact him and not discuss the project with the applicant or anyone else. He advised that if it was felt to be necessary to visit the site, it must be done as a body in session. 6. Use Of, and Advise From, Outside Professionals (archit., etc.; Mr. Harrington stated that Mr. Skokowski will most likely be called upon to assist with interpretation of the Design Manual as it relates to a specific project. He advised that this may either be in the form of Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting -March 22, 1995 page 3 having him appear at the hearing or having a written report from him to present at the hearing. Mr. Harrington reminded Mr. Skokowski would be commenting only with regard to how the project complies with the Design Manual and he should not be questioned about any thing that is contained in the rest of the Code of Ordinances. The same would apply to other professionals that may be involved. 7. Public Hearings. a. Swearing-in. l ) Mr. Harrington advised that the Town Clerk would swear in all witnesses that would appear at the hearings and that it would be done in a group prior to presentation of the project. b. Presentations by Applicant The Town Manager stated that the applicant should present his project and exhibits at the beginning. C. Comments by Staff Mr. Harrington stated that he would verbally present a summary of his report which will have been delivered to board members with their agenda packets. d. Comments by Outside Professionals The Town Manager then advised that if an outside professional is involved, their remarks should be received at this time, following his report. He once again mentioned that professionals should only be questioned in their area of expertise. e. Public Comment Town Manager Harrington reminded that these are public hearings and as such, the public must be offered an opportunity to be heard and ask questions. f. Final Remarks by Applicant The applicant should be given an opportunity for final comment as there may have been information and comment from those present, Mr. Harrington said. g. Executive Session Mr. Harrington advised that the Board should announce and hold an executive session at this point during which only discussion would be held between the members of the Board and staff with comment from the applicant and public having been cut-off. h. Cross-examination Prior ::to the executive session, an opportunity for cross examination from both sides with the applicant being given the last word, Mr. Harrington said. i. Role of the Chair Town Manager Harrington pointed out that often the applicant/s or persons from the public will branch off the matter at hand and into something that is irrelevant. He suggested that the Chair should cut-off irrelevant remarks and comment so that this would not be construed to have been given any O consideration when making a decision. 8. Fact Finding. 9. Motions. Mr. Harrington advised that his recommendation will be in the form of a motion that contains a finding of fact. He cautioned that all motions that are made should make reference as to which standards apply in the decision; in other words, a reason. VIII. Items by Board Members. There were no items by Board Members. Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting -March 22, 1995 page 4 IX. Public. There was no comment from the public. X. Adjournment. Chairman Orthwein adjourned the meeting at 10:15 A.M. P�7& 1 L Rita L. Tayl r, Town Clerk