Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 7A_11/9/1995 f/ 7E' A • f.,, VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive �, '„ 4 Tequesta,Florida 33469-0273 • (407)575-6200 'r ��� Fax: (407)575-6203 F4CN.� .OUM`,� VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA REDEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 1995 I . CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Redevelopment Committee held a regularly scheduled meeting at the Village Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, on Wednesday, October 4, 1995. The meeting was called to order at 9: 17 A.M. by Chairman Ron T. Mackail . A roll call was taken by Betty Laur, Recording Secretary. Councilmembers present were: Chairman Ron T. Mackail, Co- Chair Joseph N. Capretta, and Co-Chair Carl C. Hansen. Also in attendance were: Village Manager Thomas G. Bradford and Village Clerk Joann Manganiello. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Committee approved the agenda as submitted. III. DISCUSSION WITH DEVELOPERS CONCERNING INCENTIVES FOR TEQUESTA DEVELOPMENT Chairman Mackail reported that the Village Council had delayed action on ordinances which would create incentive programs for developers and would expedite the approval process for projects until this meeting could be held to . obtain input from local developers. Developers in attendance were Gary Van Brock and Ed Nelson. Co-Chair Capretta explained that the Village had been slowly Recycled Paper a REDEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 4 , 1995 PAGE 2 going broke for the past ten years; that the assessed value of the town' s property had been relatively flat at . approximately $344, 000, 000, while costs had continued to rise each year. Consequently, the Village had been unable to set aside enough money to improve inadequate and deteriorating municipal facilities, or to pay employees properly, so that very soon positions would no longer be competitive with other municipalities. In addition, vacant land downtown was just sitting, and some property values were declining as a result of residents who did not take care of their property. Co-Chair Capretta suggested placing a sign depicting a large thermometer in front of the Village Hall, showing the present assessed value of the Village at $344, 000, 000 and raising the mercury level as the value went up, with the goal set at $400, 000, 000 . Co-Chair Capretta stated that the Village must make an investment in the town in order to meet the following goals: 1 . Fix drainage problems, install curbs and gutters, add bike paths, improve landscaping. 2 . Replace run-down facilities . • 3 . Purchase and lease land to cultural facilities so that Lighthouse Gallery and BRITT would not leave the Village. 4 . Possibly adopt a plan similar to the Lantana Plan. Mr. Capretta explained that this plan would get rid of eyesores and provide minimum property standard requirements for people to maintain their property at a reasonable level. Co-Chair Capretta explained that in order to accomplish these items that the Village wanted input from the developers as to how growth could be stimulated. Co-Chair Capretta discussed projects proposed by Mr. Van Brock, and stated that the Village Council had been very disappointed in him and in the other landowners of the downtown property since nothing had been built. Another REDEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 4 , 1995 PAGE 3 problem had been that landscaping was needed to improve aesthetics . Five years ago Landscaping Ordinance 377 was passed so that business owners and multi-family dwellings would upgrade their landscaping, but most had made no attempt to comply, and a sign ordinance passed at the same time was also ignored. As an example, Co-Chair Capretta related problems the Village had experienced with Mr. Felhaber, whose shopping center had become an eyesore. Mr. Capretta commented that positive incentives were needed to gain cooperation by the residents, and cited the County' s reduced impact fees offered as an incentive to people to build near the ocean. Incentives considered by the Village Council were waiving impact fees for developments built within a certain time period, and trying to get the County to also waive their impact fees, and speeding the Village' s permitting and approval process to save developers money. Since there seemed to be two types of developers--one that wanted the Village to lead the way by building downtown, like Mr. Van Brock; and the other, like Mr. DiVosta, who wanted the Village to stay out of his way, it had been decided not to put the proposed incentives into effect without input from the developers. Mr. DiVosta had promised to send Mason Simpson to this meeting, however, he did not attend. Another option presented by Co-Chair Capretta was that the Village Council could take the negative position that they had allowed the vacant downtown land to remain empty by making it cheap to hold vacant land, and could raise the tax rate much higher on vacant land. Co-Chair Capretta invited response from the developers of their ideas to encourage development for the downtown area and how the Village could help. Co-Chair Hansen added that the statements presented at this meeting reflected the feelings of the residents of Tequesta, and stated that he believed anyone could be elected to the ' Village Council who promised to do something about the downtown area. Co-Chair Hansen commented that downtown development would stimulate improvements in other areas of the Village, and the developers could help make this a nice town. REDEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 4 , 1995 PAGE 4 Chair Mackail commented that the makeup of the Village population was shifting from seniors to young professionals, and stated that 42 people from Tequesta had gone to Waterford in the past year, clearly illustrating the need for an ACLF in Tequesta. Chair Mackail addressed Mr. Van Brock, reminding him that he had been given the opportunity to option property--for later purchase by the Village in order to provide time for BRITT and Lighthouse Gallery to conduct feasibility studies--and that he understood the option had not been accepted because of price. Chair Mackail stated that other forces were working against the Village in that Juno and Jupiter were both going to try to take those cultural facilities away. Chair Mackail solicited comments from Mr. Van Brock as to the status of that situation, and why nothing had been built, and assured him that he had the support of the Village and of the Council. Gary Van Brock responded by stating that (1) the Village had been involved for four years with a charette concept which had destroyed any incentive for developers to come in--who had laughed at the concept because it was not a marketable concept; and (2) after the charette had subsided, market conditions changed so that values were low and people were not buying because they were unsure of economic conditions . Mr. Van Brock commented that the market had now changed and the Village had been cooperating for the past 1-11 years and had recognized that the charette did not work, and one major developer had purchased property. Mr. Van Brock advised the Committee that the Village should not try to tell developers what to do, but wait until they submitted a plan and then if the Village approved of the plan, to speed the development approval process. Mayor Mackail disagreed with Mr. Van Brock that the charette had been a waste of time, since the whole community had participated. Mr. Van Brock stated he had attended the charette to protect Dorner Trust interests, but, after the first day had noted in a letter to himself • that the theme had been set the first day by the people who ran the charette and they had guided its outcome to what they wanted. Mr. Van Brock stated that his opinion was that the charette had been a waste of time since it had driven development away. Mr. Van Brock explained that he had presented a plan for apartments during that time which was still viable, which he had been changing to meet market REDEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 4 , 1995 PAGE 5 demands, and planned to submit it for approval within the next few months . Mr. Van Brock commented that a plan must make business sense, and the bottom line must be known. He suggested that the Village should revise the timing for placing a new project on the tax rolls so that instead of being placed on the tax rolls at C.O. at full tax value that time would be allowed for the developer to fill a project with tenants so that he would have an income stream. Mayor Mackail stated he wanted to look at every option available and to project tax dollars out five years, since future development, maintaining existing values, and/or annexations would take time. Mayor Mackail questioned Mr. Van Brock as to the status of the Letter of Intent sent to Dorner Trust by the Village on the 7.75-acre parcel as an option for a future or potential planned cultural• center for the Village. Mr. Van Brock suggested that if the Village would buy a smaller piece of land--4 acres--that the Dorner Trust would give an option for 3-3/4 acres. Mr. Van Brock stated he did not agree with the value placed on the property by the MAI Appraiser who had done the appraisal for the Village and explained that the same appraiser had done another appraisal on the property in 1988 with a different value. Mayor Mackail reminded Mr. Van Brock that the market had gone down during that time. Mr. Van Brock stated he was not talking about selling the land at the highest value, but at a reasonable value; and the appraiser had discounted the values. Village Manager Bradford explained that the appraiser had made the following statements in regard to the value he had determined: (1) the land sold had been direct frontage along Old Dixie and land was more valuable along the right of way than the land farther away from the right of way; (2) since the time of the first appraisal referred to by Mr. Van Brock, Indiantown Road had been developed into 6 lanes to the turnpike and was a primary commercial strip, and the Dorner Trust was mistaken in identifying their property as primary commercial, when it was really secondary commercial with a lower value; and (3) the number one comparable sale which the appraiser would stand by in a Court of law was the DiVosta purchase of Lighthouse Plaza at approximately $2 . 00 per square foot. REDEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 4 , 1995 PAGE 6 Mr. Capretta commented that some people felt Mr. Van Brock might just be sitting on the land with the intention of it becoming more valuable in the future; however, questioned whether the Dorner heirs would want to pay taxes on it each year and not realize a return; so that they might put pressure on Mr. Van Brock to sell or build or to do something to accelerate their income from that property. Mr. Capretta questioned whether Mr. Van Brock was comfortable just collecting fees from the Trust and sitting on the land. Mr. Van Brock responded that he was not receiving fees in that range. In response to Mr. Capretta' s question regarding the status of the ACLF, Mr. Van Brock explained that the ACLF developer had requested a pre-application review; however, Mr. Ladd had informed them that he did not have time to perform the review since he was leaving for a two-week vacation and' did not have the comments back from all of the various departments in order to hold a meeting before he left. Mr. Van Brock explained that the plan was to build 42 units on one parcel on Village Boulevard and that an option on a second parcel would allow another 42 units in the future. In discussing the probability that the ACLF would be built, Mr. Van Brock explained that the same developer had completed preliminary steps for an ACLF in Stuart for which he had seen plans, and that the engineering for the Tequesta project had been completed, and a preliminary plan had been submitted to the Tequesta Building Department. The developer was now waiting for the Village to respond so that they could apply for a site plan review. Mr. Van Brock stated that the reason the developer had requested the $8, 000 in impact fees be waived was because his ACLF facilities in Stuart, Vero Beach and Melborne had not been required to pay impact fees for this type of facility. Co- Chair Capretta stated that was no problem if the developer was serious, and discussed acceleration of the approval process in order to save developers' money. Village Manager Bradford explained the current approval process as follows: Phase I : REDEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 4 , 1995 PAGE 7 1 . Developer submits plans and fees. 2 . All departments make comments prior to a pre-application meeting held between staff and developer to work out problems identified by a first cursory review of plans . 3 . Community Appearance Board reviews the plans. Phase II : 1 . Village Council approves site plan. 2 . Building Official reviews plans for code compliance. 3. Building permit is granted. Under the proposed change, and predicated on the plans containing everything required to be in them, a time frame would be established in which the Building Official must bring a project to the Village Council, and a developer would go to Village Council before going to the Community Appearance Board. Under the normal process it would be guaranteed that a developer would be finished with the process in 60 days. As an option, a 30-day approval process would be offered for an additional $1, 000 fee, which would be accomplished by holding a joint meeting of the Village Council and the Community Appearance Board to obtain their approvals at the same time. Ed Nelson commented that the expedited process should be the norm. Discussion ensued regarding how the Building Official had handled the ACLF application in light of the intent of the proposed ordinances. Village Manager Bradford explained that under the proposed ordinances that a two-week delay would not matter since the process must be finished within 60 days, and that every time Mr. Ladd went on vacation that he heard a similar story. Village Manager Bradford commented that Mr. Ladd was entitled to a vacation, and in order to avoid such situations that the Village needed to hire someone to help him. Mr. Van Brock commented that Mr. Ladd had done his job by distributing the plans to the various department heads for their comments; however, if the comments came back and could be reviewed by someone then two REDEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 4 , 1995 PAGE 8 weeks could be saved. Mr. Nelson commented that he did not believe the charette had been a waste of time. At the time, it was a forward look for the Village, but its timing was unfortunate in that a 5-year real estate slump followed. Mr. Nelson stated he did not believe Mr. DiVosta' s purchase price for Lighthouse Plaza could be used as a basis for an appraisal on the land the Village wished to option. In a recent conversation, a realtor had estimated that Mr. DiVosta' s selling price for the shopping center would now be $3, 000, 000. Mr. Nelson explained that the Village would not want to take the amount DiVosta paid for that land for the tax rolls since it was not a normal sale, and that the $3, 000, 000 was too high--but the appraised value should be somewhere in between. Mr. Nelson commented that it was not fair to value the Dorner Trust property based on a sale which was not a normal sale; and that the agency who had handled the sale wanted to get rid of that parcel because they had had it so long and had violations, fees, and liability on the property. Mr. Nelson commented that he did not believe the Village would get any areas to annex and should concentrate on the downtown development. He stated he had talked to Mr. DiVosta, who was interested in buying property from him but wanted to buy it for dirt value when it had an income stream of $300, 000 per year. Another issue that was being discussed with Mr. DiVosta was straightening the road to go onto U. S. One, and they were also working together on Mr. Nelson' s rear property line, since Mr. DiVosta' s plans called for a wall between the two properties, however, Mr. Nelson' s shopping center had a perpetual easement for parking on Mr. DiVosta' s property. Mr. Nelson explained that he would not be able to complete landscaping for compliance with Ordinance #377 until that matter was resolved. Mr. Nelson stated that he believed the expedited approval process idea should be the normal process with fees increased $1, 000. Mr. Nelson suggested that the Village could delay placing .a project on the tax rolls for some REDEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 4 , 1995 PAGE 9 period of time, such as 90 days . If a decision was made to waive impact fees as an incentive to developers, Mr. Nelson suggested that a time limit of one year should be established, and commented that some small nuisance taxes were objectionable to people. Mr. Nelson commented that one-stop permitting would be an advantage to developers: that the ACLF would spark more development; that the objectives for offering incentives were good and the concept commendable, but that unity of thinking was needed throughout the process and some items should be happening concurrently. Discussion ensued regarding how to establish leeway and flexibility in the issuance date of a certificate of occupancy, and the Village Manager was requested to research that matter. Mr. Capretta commented that the certificate of occupancy for Cliveden would probably be timed for January to avoid the 1996 tax rolls. Mr. Capretta discussed how the projection of when projects would go on the tax rolls must be considered by the Village before committing to going into debt to improve the Village. Mr. Van Brock commented that he had recommended to the Dorner Trust that if they broke even on building any apartments that they would be better off; and explained that the apartment plans were still viable. Mr. Van Brock questioned whether people could be helped in compliance with Ordinance #377, to which Co-Chair Capretta responded that the Village had changed their parking space sizes and were granting big variances to help people, and discussed Mr. Felhaber' s lack of compliance and his lawsuit against the Village. Chairman Mackail stated that the second reading of the proposed ordinances had been delayed in order to give the developers an opportunity to comment, that the intention was to hold second reading on October 12, and requested that the developers read the ordinances and offer further suggestions. Co-Chair Capretta explained that the intent of the Village Council was to make sure their proposals would really help developers. Mr. Nelson commented that other cities had cooperated with developers by offering a one-stop approval process. Co-Chair Hansen commented that everything done by the REDEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 4 , 1995 PAGE 10 Village Council was done with the intent of improving the Village and that what was best for the majority was the goal . Mr. Hansen cited as examples the Lantana Plan, Ordinance #377, and speeding the development approval process. Mr. Hansen also explained that tax money was needed to continue to provide excellent services for the residents, which was what the Village Council was trying to accomplish. VI. ANY OTHER MATTERS Village Manager Bradford described a scenario in which Cliveden received their certificate of occupancy on January 2, 1996, so that they would not be placed on the tax rolls until 1997 . The Village Manager explained that larger cities had ordinances on their books which required some type of payment for services for police, fire, water, etc. , for the property for that interim period until the property was actually placed on the tax rolls . Village Manager Bradford questioned whether that was what the developers had in mind. Mr. Nelson responded that they had been talking about delaying the date of the certificate of occupancy for some period such as 90 days. Mr. Van Brock stated that a commercial project was different than a project like Cliveden where units were sold and the developer got the money as sales were made and did not pay the taxes; since shopping centers or rental apartments would usually need a year to fill their buildings with tenants to establish an income stream and the developer paid the taxes . Mr. Van Brock commented that the value of a commercial project was greater when the rent had been stabilized. Mr. Capretta stated that it might take several years for an ACLF to fill a building in other areas, and suggested that the time would be much shorter in Tequesta because of the many senior citizens. Mr. Capretta suggested that prospect lists be provided to the ACLF developer from all the clubs in town, since they all reduced fees to seniors age 80 and over, and would have those members listed separately. Mr. Van Brock stated he had provided the developer with three reservations. REDEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 1995 PAGE 11 VII. COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS Wade Griest stated he believed there should be a master plan for the downtown area so that an acre here and there would not be left which it might not be viable to build on. Mr. Griest commented he had always heard Mr. DiVosta planned to build low-cost housing, to which Chairman Mackail responded that he and Village Manager Bradford had met with Mason Simpson during the summer, and he had indicated that Mr. DiVosta' s plan was for a mini Mizner Park and that four very exclusive restaurants had committed. The purpose of the meeting had been to explain the Village option for cultural facilities, to which Mr. Simpson had had no objection. Mr. Simpson had expressed concern about going before Village Boards during the development process, since after he had spent large sums of money hiring the best 'people possible, a Board could delay the process and cost him more money by imposing their ideas. Village Manager Bradford commented that years ago the DiVosta Company had considered the Dorner land to build their traditional town homes, however, that was not the current plan. Co-Chair Hansen left the meeting at 10: 55 A.M. Co-Chair Capretta commented that Mr. Van Brock was planning to build low-cost housing. Chairman Mackail stated that a CRA would have been able to accomplish a master plan, which had been Joe Benjamin' s plan. Village Manager Bradford explained that Mr. Van Brock' s statement that the charette had been predetermined on the first day had been incorrect, and that it had been predetermined by the mission statement of the Downtown Task Force which called for a pedestrian friendly, natural environment where people could live as well as shop in a convenient manner and walk to and from shopping and recreation. The Village Manager commented that Abacoa had used the exact urban design principals that Tequesta had proposed and therefore he did not agree with Mr. Van Brock' s position that the charette was not a marketable concept. Mr. Capretta stated that the difference was that Abacoa had a developer who believed in the concept, and Mr. Van Brock had not had the foresight to believe that concept could become marketable, and that with a primary landowner who did not believe it was marketable the Village • REDEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 4 , 1995 PAGE 12 had no chance of ever succeeding. Discussion ensued regarding how Mr. Van Brock had been the stumbling block for Mr. DiVosta' s concept of developing the area, and that Mr. Benjamin' s plan would have been acceptable if he had had funds instead of relying on a Ponzi scheme. Mr. Griest commented that at meetings citizens were discouraged from speaking, and that since it was last on the agenda everyone was too tired. Village Manager Bradford explained that there was no requirement within the code or charter to have comments from anyone at any Board meeting other than the Village Council; however, it was always on the agenda because the Village believed it was the right thing to do; but when it had been at the beginning of the agenda, residents had dominated the meeting so that there was not time for Village business . Mr. Griest stated that under Robert' s Rules of Order the public must be able to speak unless a curfew was set ahead of time which must be honored. Mr. Griest expressed his concern that the Village depended too much on Mr. Ladd and that someone should be trained to be his assistant. Mr. Capretta suggested that the new development approval process under consideration should be a separate process from the process that Mr. Ladd goes through to assure compliance with laws and codes . Village Manager Bradford commented the department which handles and administers expediting development is fee driven, that now when fees are coming in another employee could be justified to help the whole process. Mr. Capretta suggested that fees from one large project, such as Mr. DiVosta' s project, might generate enough fees to have one person handle just that project; or that one person should handle just the large projects. Mr. Capretta suggested that Mr. Ladd, who could handle the work fast and was more knowledgeable, could work with the Village Council on all of the large projects, and another person could do the rest of Mr. Ladd' s current work. Chair Mackail commented that the Village was understaffed compared to surrounding communities, and that someone was needed in the Community. Development Department who could be trained to take Mr. Ladd' s place when he retired. Village Manager Bradford explained that Mr. Ladd was also in charge of overseeing planning, and that a planner should be hired. Mr. Griest stated he had worked out a reorganization plan for that department four years ago. REDEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 4 , 1995 PAGE 13 Chairman Mackail commented that the Village Council had the best interests of the residents at heart. Opposition to the proposed Lantana Plan and the perception of a police state was discussed, along with the fact that only a handful of people came out to meetings, did their homework, and really understood the issue. People visualized the worst case and talked about issues when they had never read the ordinances and therefore did not really know what they were talking about. TV. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 A.M. Respectfully submitted, 4 0 Betty Laur Recording . Secretary ATTEST: Joann Manganiello Village Clerk DATE APPROVED: