Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 5D_1/12/1989 t. ' 1 oph. 1 VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA ..• -` :iiPost Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive ��,. ,: Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 • (407) 575-6200 FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 15, 1988 I. A meeting of the Finance and Administration Committee of the Village Council was held on Thursday, December 15, 1988, commencing at 9:45 A.M. in the Village Hall. Finance and Administration Committee members present were: Committee Chairman Earl L. Collings and Co- Chairman Joseph N. Capretta. Village Officials present were: Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager; Wendy K. Harrison, Administrative Assistant to the Village Manager; John C. Randolph, Esq. , Village Attorney; Scott D. Ladd, Building Official; and Joann M. Manganiello, Administrative Secretary. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as submitted. III. REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE NO. 377 The first item of business was a review of the proposed Landscaping Ordinance No. 377. However, before overviewing the specifics of said ordinance, a discussion regarding the possibility of adopting a Comprehensive Village Appearance Code Ordinance, inclusive of landscaping, lighting, paving, signage, etc. , and the maintenance and enforcement of the same, ensued. Committee Co-Chairman Capretta made the following inquiries: o To whom does the Ordinance apply? o Is this Ordinance all-inclusive (landscaping, lighting, paving, signage, etc. )? o Can we adopt a Comprehensive Village Appearance Code? o What does an all-inclusive Appearance Code look • like? Mr. Capretta also voiced concern regarding existing "ghost buildings" and their compliance to codes, especially the Old Publix. He would like to assure . that all unoccupied shopping centers, buildings, lots, etc. , are well maintained, safe, and healthy. Furthermore, he expressed the need Finance and Administration Committee Meeting Minutes December 15, 1988 Page Two - for ordinances that would give businessmen reasonable guidelines for standards to maintain, whether buildings are occupied or not. A request for a summarization of Item #3, Enforcement; Item #4, Failure to Comply; and Item #5, Assessment followed. Essentially, Mr. Capretta was in favor of an all- inclusive Comprehensive Village Appearance Code Ordinance, powerful and consistent, which would accommodate Tequesta's interests now and in the future. He also reiterated the need for a Code Enforcement Board to substantiate the ordinances. These inquiries were subsequently addressed by Village Attorney, John Randolph as follows: o Proposed Landscaping Ordinance No. 377 applies to the development of all commercial property: new construction, current construction coming into compliance within a certain period of time, and construction under alteration presently in existence. o Proposed Ordinance No. 377 is for landscaping only. o A Comprehensive Village Appearance Code Ordinance can be adopted, in time. However, he strongly recommended that the Village Council does not abandon the adoption of Landscaping Ordinance No. 377, but instead, move forward simultaneously with other ordinances, and eventually merge into one Comprehensive Village Appearance Code Ordinance. o Boca Raton currently has an all-inclusive Comprehensive Appearance Code Ordinance. Mr. Randolph cited this as reference criterion. It encompasses general landscaping, parking lot lighting, on-going maintenance responsibility, amortization, etc. Relative to "ghost buildings" and their maintenance, Mr. Randolph noted that the Village would have difficulty condemning property on the grounds of aesthetics; a "condemnation" ordinance would be necessary. Fianace and Administration Committee Meeting Minutes December 15, 1988 Page Three - At Mr. Capretta' s request, Mr. Randolph proceeded to summarize Item #3, Enforcement; Item #4, Failure to Comply; and Item #5, Assessment. In consideration of these items, Mr. Randolph agrees that Landscaping Ordinance No. 377 would have more impact and power with regard to compliance, collection of fines, assessments, liens and foreclosures, if backed by a Code Enforcement Board provision. Nevertheless, he noted that the • formation of a Code Enforcement Board should be approached with caution due to the many inherent problems. Committee Chairman Collings made the following observations: o An all-inclusive Village Appearance Code Ordinance is imperative, and should include a building (exterior) aesthetics provision. o At present, the Community Appearance Board is basically controlled by subjectivity rather than code enforcement. o "Ghost properties" should be "top priority" (especially, the Old Publix Shopping Center. ) The public wants the problem addressed, as well. o Proposed Landscaping Ordinance No. 377 does not address abandoned properties. Following review of particular revisions (compliance, accrued interest, performance bonds, buffers) to Landscaping Ordinance No. 377, Chairman Collings asked Mr. Randolph if it was possible, pending review of all specifics at this time, for the Village Council to enact on said Ordinance that evening at the scheduled Village Council Meeting. Village Attorney Randolph advised the Committee that it would be too premature to put Ordinance No. 377 on first reading that evening. Village Manager, Thomas Bradford, questioned the meaning of Item #6, Performance Surety. In effect, he interpreted it as intending to mean that all new projects would provide .a survivability bond. Village Attorney Randolph interpreted it as meaning that, if at the time a Certificate of Occupancy is requested, the Finance and Administration Committee Meeting Minutes December 15, 1988 Page Four - owner has not complied with all landscaping requirements, he must then post a performance surety bond. However, as worded, this may not clearly state "at the outset"; in other words, it doesi.'t automatically require a performance surety bond. Mr. Bradford suggested that the amount of the bond be set "at the outset" and should be a condition of the specific site plan review. As to the question of how long the bond shall last, the standard time period is about 2-3 years. Speaking, in general, of "appearance, " Mr. Bradford suggested that corner lots in the Village, visible from the roadway, be prohibited from putting up a wooden picket fence (perhaps, a CBS wall or hedge instead. ) This could be included within the zoning code of the ordinance, according to Mr. Randolph. Relative to the discussion at hand, Mr. Collings suggested that: 1. All Ordinances be placed in order before directing their attention to a Code Enforcement Board. 2. The Village Council (at a public hearing) dictate compliance time dependent ' on the particular case/violation. 3. At the time that a Certificate of Occupancy is requested, the owner must be in compliance and must post a performance bond. Said bond must be maintained for a year. A public hearing, held at the year's end, would determine: a) if owner is in compliance; bond reduced b) if owner is not in compliance; bond continued for another year Scott Ladd, Building Official, asked that proposed Landscaping Ordinance No. 377 be drafted more clearly if he is expected to enforce it properly and effectively. Finance and Administration Committee Meeting Minutes December 15, 1988 Page Five - It was concluded that there was enough data to date to amend, and ultimately, adopt Landscaping Ordinance No. 377, with the intertion of eventually merging it with other ordinances into one Comprehensive Village Appearance Code Ordinance. Mr. Randolph and Mr. Ladd will set up a meeting after the first of the year to try and "put together" everything scattered throughout the existing Village Code of Ordinances. A synoposis of the same will be submitted to the Finance and Administration Committee, thereafter, for review and recommendations. If satisfactory, Landscaping Ordinance No. 377 could be presented at the second Village Council Meeting in January or the first one in February of 1989, for first reading. IV. ANY OTHER MATTERS None. There being no further business before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:40 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Joann M. Manganiello Administrative Secretary /imm