Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 01_02/10/2011 . , �� MINUTES VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY January 13, 2011 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Mayor Pat Watkins at 6:00 p.m. A roll call was taken by Village Clerk Lori McWilliams. Present were: Mayor Pat Watkins, Vice Mayor Tom Paterno, Council Member Vince Arena, Council Member Jim Humpage and Council Member Calvin Turnquest. Also in attendance were: Viflage Manager Michael R. Couzzo, Jr., Village Attorney Davis, Village Clerk Lori McWitliams and Department Heads. APPROVAL OF AGENDA M4T{ON: Council Member Turr►quest motioned approval of the agenda; ' seconded by Council Member Humpage, motion carried unanimously 5-D. , NEW BUSINESS II Public Hearing to consider and make recommendations to the Viltage Council , with regard to the fotlowing: 1. Ordinance 1-11 Amending the Village Code of Ordinances at Chapter 78. Zoning. At Article f. In General. Sec. 78-4. Definitions. By Creating an Entirely New Definition for "Rehabilitation Facility" and by Amending the Definition of "Residential Use"; at Article VI. Schedule of District Regufations. Sec. 78-180 MU Mixed Use District. By adding "Rehabilitation Facilities" as a Special Exception Use, by Creating Conditions to be met by all Rehabilitation Facitities and by Limiting the ', Density for such Special Exception Use to 10 Units per Acre; and at Article �I X. Off-street and On-Street Parking and Loading Regutations. By Adding "Rehabilitation Facilities" as a Category and Requiring Rehabilitation Facilities to Provide One Off Street Parking Space Per Patient Bed Attorney Keith Davis offered a synopsis of Ordinance 1-11. Council Member Turnquest referred to a letter received Navember 11, 2010 and questioned verbiage he felt was vague. Fire Chief Weinand, A�ting Director of Community Development responded that Council had added stronger language on December 2, 2010. Attorney Davis noted the specific changes and additions. Gouncil Member Humpage questioned outpatient short term care. Chief Weinand and Village Attorney Davis confirmed that too had been addressed. , , Local Planning Agency January 13, 2011 Page 2 of 4 Vice Mayor Paterno questioned assessing fines for noncompliance issues and monitoring the facility fior conformity within the Village Code. Attorney Davis stated that a monitoring component could be added into the Code and pointed out that Code Compliance could assess fines on violations if need be. Vice Mayor Paterno voiced concern with privacy rulings whieh could obstruct monitoring. Attorney Davis responded that the medical privacy rules could regulate some enforcement requirements and that all occupancies were , regutated by zoning and had the potential for abuse. He pointed out that yearly inspections through Fire and ca11s through the Potice Department woufd authorize investigations which assisted with monitoring. Vice Mayor Paterno voiced concern with moving too quickly with this, running into problems and remedies becoming too difficult. Mayor Watkins believed the Village could only offer so many restrictions to businesses. Chief Weinand stated that the text amendment to the code should be the focus at present and conditions on the project woutd be imptemented during the special exception process. Manager Couzzo confirmed thafi the dialogue was not appropriate untit a special exception application was submitted. Vice Mayor Paterno responded that penalties and rules should be appiied in advance to avoid issues and amendments which would add unwanted chaos in the Village. Mayor Watkins reiterated that the decision at hand was for Council to allow or deny rehabilitation as a use under "special exception use" in the mixed use district and agreed that fine tuning would need to be done. Gouncil Member Humpage felt the Village was well protected through their code and noted any change of ownership must return to Council for approval. He pointed out that there were several hurdles relating to this endeavor which would need to be negotiated following tonight's assessment. Council Member Arena suggested requesting data several times per year from the facility. Attorney Davis responded that information could be obtained without breaking patient/client confidentiality. Manager Couzzo suggested expanding the special exception definition to incorpo�ate additional conditions regarding monitoring and regulations and recommended beginning the process before making a final commitment. Mayor Watkins opened the hearing to the Pubiic for comment. There being none, she brought it back to Counci{. Local Planning Agency January 13, 2011 Page 3 of 4 Council Member Tumquest questioned p�ivately owned and funded rehab facilities and the receipt or use of grant monies. Attorney Davis responded that the facility could not receive government funding and the enforcement of such was a focus. Council Member Turnquest felt the verbiage offered an option for a non-profit to apply for grant funding and utilize if for research, which he believed was a loop hole and offered his experience with the process. Manager Couzzo stated that a not for profit could not be created for this facility because qf its designation. Chief Weinand confirmed that the facility would not be licensed for research. Council Member Turnquest questioned the difference befinreen dwelling units and residential living units. Chief Weinand stated the finro were synonymous. Vice Mayor Paterno asked if each dwelling was limited to one person. Chief Weinand responded that the units were defined to one person per bedroom and considered different from patient beds. He noted room minimums and square footage requirements and that there could be more than one bedroom in a unit. � Vice Mayor Paterno questioned acreage and persons allowed. Attorney Davis explained what was permissible. Chief Weinand responded that some units were dual occupancy. Vice Mayor Patemo felt the rooms correlated with the number of , people allowed and stated his concerns regarding crowding. '' Nilsa Zacarias, Planning Representative for Tequesta, suggested placing minimums and maximums on room sizes to avoid rooms being too large and � overcrowding along with persons allowed in correlation with square footage. Mayor Watkins felt the verbiage now did not preclude the units from an extra bedroom. Manager Couzzo felt it did since he believed the word private meant one. He felt it may need to state single occupant (in parentheses) for clarification and agreed with Ms. Zacarias and listing specifics. Mayor Watkins suggested careful consideration be made when placing restrictions as she believed too many constraints precluded suites and other , desirable options. Manager Couzzo recommended a not to exceed number be specified as well. Chief Weinand stated the square footage per occupant could be addressed since rooms would differ in size and noted the limit concern. Mr. Larry Smith, GMH Tequesta Holdings, LLC Attorney, stated he understood Councils concerns and asked that they, while sitting as the Local Planning Agency, they recommend moving forward and felt there was ample time for ' conditions to be negotiated and Council decisions. Vice Mayor Paterno questioned the maximum number of persons in the group's ultimate model. Mr. Local Planning Agency January 13, 2011 Page 4 of 4 Smith responded that 117 beds, at build out, were outlined in there specifications. He added that that he felt the draft ordinance was fair and his concern with placing too many conditions tonight could conflict with what they were looking for in the long term and reiterated that a recommendation to Council was desired for tonight with modifications thereafter. Mr. Harold Taylor, 13 Chapel Court, voiced his concerns with placing specifics on persons per square foot which could result in having to gut the building entirely as he believed the existing floor plan offered one and finro bedroom units that would not be conforming to such a rule. MOTION: Council Member Humpage motioned recommendation for Council consideration of Ordinance 1-11; seconded by Council Member Tumquest. The � motion carried unanimously 5-0. ADJOURNMENT � MOTION: Council Member Tumquest moved adjoumment; seconded by Council �I Member Humpage. The motion to adjoum carried unanimously 5-0; therefore, the meeting was adjoumed at 6: 56 p. m. RespectFully submitted, , Lori McWilliams, MMC , Village Clerk I Note: These summary minutes are prepared in compliance with 286.011 F.S. �' and are not verbatim transcripts of the meeting. A verbatim audio record is available from the Office of the Village Clerk. All referenced attachments are on file in the Village Clerk's office. i