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