The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes_Workshop_01/25/2006MINUTES VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA VILLAGE COUNCIL WORKSHOP WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2006 9:00 A.M. I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Tequesta Village Council held a Village Council Workshop Meeting at the Tequesta Recreation Center, 399 Seabrook Road, Tequesta, Florida, on Wednesday, January 25, 2006. The meeting was called to order at 9:03 a.m. A roll call was taken by Village Clerk Gwen Carlisle. Council Members present were: Mayor Jim Humpage, Vice Mayor Pat Watkins, Council Member Geraldine A. Genco, and Council Member Tom Paterno. Also in attendance were: Village Manager Michael R. Couzzo, Jr., Attorney Scott Hawkins, Planning and Zoning Advisory Boazd Attorney Kazen Roselli, Village Clerk Gwen Cazlisle, and Department Heads II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Humpage lead the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Vice Mayor Watkins moved to approve the agenda, as submitted; seconded by Council Member Paterno; motion passed 4-D. • 1) Discussion of General Code Revisions a) Zoning in Progress/C-2 Commercial District Attorney Hawkins stated today's objective was to stimulate a discussion where Council can give input and react to some concepts and the materials that have been presented. He stated he and Attorney Roselli appreciated the opportunity to have this workshop, especially with everyone involved. He commented they have been working with Ms. Catherine Harding, Director of Community Development and Village Manger Couzzo over the last few months, mainly through phone conversations and a few meetings. He stated they have been looking at issues primarily associated with the Planned Commercial District (PCD) Special Exception use permitted under the code in the C-2 zoning district. He stated to put it in perspective, he asked them to recall last fall they had some discussions about the PCD special exception, and the C-2. He indicated some questions azose from various Council members, and everyone had different comments. He remembered comments from Council Member Genco, Council Member Paterno, and Council Member Resnik regarding different questions about the application of the PCD. He commented specifically with regazd to some issues with height and the fact that the PCD special exception of the code lacked some clarity with regazd to the type of acceptable range of uses or the mix of uses that would be appropriate. He stated there were no ratios, for example, residential vs. nonresidential; residential vs. commercial that was expressly contemplated in the code. He remembered that the general discussions • were about there being some vagueness, some questions about height. He stated that was a backdrop which lead to the direction from Council that he understood was that Staff, including the Community Development Director, Mr. Couzzo, himself, and Attorney Minutes -Village Council Workshop January 25, 2006 Page 2 • Roselli, as the Zoning Board Council, should take a look at the PCD special exception and the C-2 zoning code provision in general with a view toward analyzing whether or not there were some things that needed to be clarified, improve, streamline and make less ambiguous or clarified. He pointed out the important point to remember is they aze not talking about one particulaz project; they aze talking about the code section. He commented they aze not looking backwazd, but looking prospectively forwazd with regazd to how Council wants the code to apply and to work in the future. He commented they have been talking principally about C-2. Attorney Hawkins stated the draft ordinance is reflective of the discussions that have occurred between he, Ms. Hazding, and Attorney Roselli. He stated that the definitional section and a couple of other azeas reflect specific recommendations from Ms. Hazding. He explained it is important that they interpret this document in a very specific way. He stated this is not a recommendation, and is submitted to the council for discussion purposes only. He pointed out it does not necessarily reflect an agreement among all on these particulaz issues. He commented, for example, on the height question, turning to page 78-177(f), Attorney Roselli put in the height reference simply as point of reference so that it can be discussed but it does not necessarily reflect their composite agreement that this is how height should be handled. He stated this is a policy question, and that Council, as legislative officials, is charged with the responsibility of making that decision. He .commented this is not a staff decision. Another example of a policy • question he felt would be the whole issue of the acceptable range of uses, and the mix of uses. He noted the code has some terminology, in his opinion that is azchaic for example the word appurtenant, is azchaic. It is not really clear what this word means. He commented that Ms. Harding made a suggestion to him eazlier, that maybe what they need to do is talk in terms of primary and secondary, or primary and subordinate. For example maybe the residential use needs to be subordinate to the commercial use because it is a PCD. He stated there might be even better terminology. For example, they may want to think in terms of there being a requirement that no less than 49% of the non- commercial use be dedicated so that you know that 49% is going to be for non- commercial use and the balance, 51 %, would be for commercial. He stated that would be an even clearer way to do it but this is a policy question. He stated this is not a question that they as staff can determine for them, and that is not really their realm. Attorney Hawkins stated Council needs to discuss these issues, and he is not singling them out for any particulaz reason other than to crystallize the fact that there is a difference between policy and draft. He concluded that these aze his preliminary comments. Attorney Roselli wanted to clarify the height. She asked Council to recall the way the code is written now, the PCD is a special exception use to the C-2. She commented Council has discretion to increase the height beyond what is permitted in C-2, but in the code it allows for an increase, then states a decreased number. She stated because of this problem she felt it would be better to put some heights in the code, so the heights aze consistent, and that they are being increased to something higher. She commented • something they may want to consider is, right now they have the authority to increase the height for the PCD, and that can be viewed as an exception upon an exception. She stated Council might not want the PCD to have increased height, maybe have the PCD and C-2 at the same height as what is allowed in the C-2. 2 Minutes -Village Council Workshop January 25, 2006 Page 3 • Attorney Roselli stated Council is not bound, looking at this overall. She commented what she tried to do in this draft was address certain things that had come up in prior meetings, such as what is the first level use, is this required to be commercial, different things about story heights, a variety of different things, if you count a garage as a story, what do you do with a basement, things like that. She stated it is defmitely not exhaustive. She took basic concepts and if Council does not like them, or wants to change them, they are just in there to start a discussion on what to do with these regulations and how to change the code. She commented that some revisions are necessary because there are some inconsistencies in there right now. She stated at a minimum these needed to be fixed. She suggested that perhaps Council should start out with a discussion about what height they want in the C-2 and what height they want for a PCD and C-2. She stated Attorney Hawkins also raised the point that when this other project came through, it became cleaz they did not have a percentage or ratio in there to define what the commercial residential mix was. Attorney Roselli commented the PCD regulations are where the term appurtenant appeared, and as part of the discussions they had Ms. Harding came up with the definition of appurtenant. They had some discussions since then and thought maybe the word was not right, as Attorney Hawkins mentioned, maybe they need to use a different word and just not define appurtenant at all. She suggested maybe reword the purpose and intent section of the PCD regulations all together and rewrite it so that the legislative • intent of what a PCD is would be cleazer. She explained she tried to summarize briefly in a memo the highlights of what was done in the ordinance and tried to simplify it. She stated just for discussion purposes she put the height in the C-2 at 4 stories/50 feet. She stated right now there is an uncodified ordinance that allows the height in the PCD to be 6 stories/84 feet. She noted from their comments at the prior meeting someone indicated that they felt this might be too high so for discussion purposes she brought this down. She noted the C-2 regulations in the code do not contain a height limitation; they are all in the table, which she did not think was a good idea to have all the regulations just in the table; she thought the information that appeared in the table should also appear somewhere else in the code. Thus, one of the things she did was specifically add was a provision dealing with the height in C-2, and also to appear in another section of the code besides the table. Attorney Hawkins stated this is an opportunity to take a fresh look at an ordinance that has been azound awhile. He stated to put it in sequence, if it was the will of Council to modify the ordinance, he would come back to them with a first reading and then a second reading at a future Council Meeting. He stated this workshop is a precursor to that, and an opportunity to seize their desires in a more focused manner. Council Member Genco questioned Attorney Hawkins as to why they only focused on the C-2 and PCD when there are other areas in the same zoning that have potential inconsistencies. She believed they needed to revise the entire zoning section, not just the one area. Attorney Hawkins stated it was his understanding that the primary direction was to focus on the PCD and • the connection to C-2. He stated he was not disagreeing with Council Member Genco. Council Member Genco stated that was not Council's direction. She stated Council's direction was to get rid of all of the inconsistencies in this section, not dust to limit it to PCD. 3 Minutes -Village Council Workshop January 25, 2006 Page 4 • Council Member Genco stated if you go back to the previous minutes; she felt they need to go forward but before they can consider a first adoption on this they need to address the entire section. Attorney Roselli stated they were a little confused as to what the declaration of zoning in progress encumbered, and to look at the entire zoning code was something they did not do. She stated this came up in the context to the C-2, PCD. Council Member Genco stated it did come up in that context, she did agree with that. Attorney Hawkins stated the zoning in progress was confined to C-2. Council Member Genco agreed, stating the zoning in progress was confined to that but she understood that their workshop and the code revisions was going to apply to the entire thing because they pointed out other areas in the code that were inconsistent. She stated if you point out other areas besides just these two that meant that they needed to address the whole thing. She stated that is how she took it when they had the conversations at the Council meeting. Council Member Paterno thought of it both ways that they were going to tackle one section of it, and then work on doing it all. He felt they needed to do it in pieces. Council Member Genco stated they could only make so many zoning amendments per year. Village Manager Couzzo commented that pertained to the Comprehensive plan. Council Member Genco questioned whether would they have to amend the Comp plan if they make changes to the zoning code. Village Manager Couzzo stated if the zoning change was such that it required an amendment to the Comp plan. Attorney Hawkins felt he is . not sure that is what is happening here. Council Member Paterno noted as long as you do not change the density, per se, in the documents. Vice-Mayor Watkins questioned whether it would not preclude them from discussing this and getting it done today. Council Member Paterno suggested it would not preclude Council from working on this section and keep moving forward. He also stated that besides commercial, it was brought to the attention of the staff, there are some residential inconsistencies. Attorney Roselli stated they could all agree that the rest of the code has problems and needed to be fixed, but this was more immediate and required more attention than some of the others. Village Manager Couzzo stated this relates to the time frame that was set by Council. Attorney Roselli noted she was not sure when the zoning in progress expired, but that it was confined to the C-2, and PCD. She felt this was another reason to get this fixed. Mayor Humpage agreed February is when the zoning in progress would be at an end. Council Member Genco commented she understands they made the zoning in progress relative to the C-2. She noted their general discussions also addressed inconsistencies elsewhere in the code. She felt it made it a little easier for the projects, which were on the table at the time to accept it. She stated now that they are focusing on one area are they not potentially giving others more leverage in the event that these other situations that are on the table decide they do not like what Council does. Mayor Humpage stated he thought the ones that were on the table were waived. Council Member Genco disagreed, • stating they only waived two of them. Mayor Humpage stated they waived three restaurants and Atlantis. Council Member Genco stated they gave a waiver to two of them and went ahead and gave permits and another one is on the table still. 4 Minutes -Village Council Workshop January 25, 2006 Page 5 • Council Member Paterno stated these were permitted under the old rules. Council Member Genco stated she understood that. She stated they had three pending because of the zoning in progress. Two of them came back to ask and they gave them special exceptions to allow them to go forwazd. She stated that only left one on the table. Mayor Humpage agreed, stating it was not affected by the zoning in progress. Council Member Genco stated their attorneys aze a little more sensitive than the rest of them, when you have identified a group of individuals that cause you to take a certain action then you go ahead and give special dispensation to two of them, and not to one of them. She explained you make changes to the things that only affect them and not the rest of the zoning code; which they admitted publicly was inconsistent. Mayor Humpage stated the ones they were talking about was a licensing issue not a zoning issue. Council Member Genco stated they were affected by the zoning in progress, also. Attorney Roselli commented felt her role was limited to the PCD and C-2. Thus, she did not address any other azeas of the zoning code. She stated she is not in attendance at all of their meetings so she was not necessarily aware. Council Member Genco stated she was awaze of that. Attorney Roselli stated she would be glad to work with everybody to write another ordinance if that was Council's desire. She agreed with them that they should bring another one back to address the remainder of the problem. Council Member Paterno stated the zoning in progress only dealt with C-2 and that is what they aze working on now. He stated they all agreed there were other azeas that needed to be fixed • but the zoning in progress only affected this area, which they made public 3 %Z months ago. He stated they needed to work on this, and they have a lot more work to be done. Attorney Hawkins stated there is a lot of work to be done, but stated Council has to give some expression of its concerns that go beyond C-2. He stated he interpreted their direction to be confined to what they did with the zoning in progress and C-2. He stated he could certainly broaden the assignment. Vice-Mayor Watkins asked whether it would make sense, rather than run up the attorney's fee why not start from squaze one with the code. She suggested giving the code to Planning and Zoning Staff and let them start looking at their codes all along, and get a rough sketch of what really needed addressing, and then go to the attorney's rather than the attorneys doing the groundwork. She felt her understanding was reviewing this and any changes they would make subsequently would not pertain to them because they had already so far through their process so this would be from now forwazd. Mayor Humpage stated that was correct. Ms. Roselli agreed it was not retroactive. Mayor Humpage felt the way to attack this is they have several issues. He stated there were a number of issues when he went through Ms. Roselli's memo with all the recommended thought processes that she had. He stated they probably need to break it down into some kind of categories or else they are going to be overwhelmed. He stated he was thinking about it the other day and he thought the way to start with this, before they jump into heights, densities, green space, etc., what do they want the complexion of C-2 to be. He stated they needed to start at the beginning; they need to have some criteria for C-2. 5 Minutes -Village Council Workshop January 25, 2006 Page 6 • Mayor Humpage noted at a chamber meeting, where Commissioner Karen Marcus was present, it seemed the County's focus was on the workforce housing, but they would like to keep commercial districts available throughout the county. He stated for their purposes and the Village, Council Member Paterno has mentioned this a number of times, what does the Village want C-2 commercial to be; do we want 20-80%, 40-60%, or 50-50%. He asked if they want to maintain their commercial district or do they want it to go residential. He stated that perhaps the way to start this is to ask what is the complexion of C-2 as they see it; where do they want to go with it. In other words, he stated, if someone comes to buy a piece of commercial property in Tequesta and they say it has to be 49-51 %, they may not purchase the property. Council Member Paterno stated one thing they need to realize about the commercial property is how much the Village has. He stated if you look at the zoning map, it is basically above Village Boulevard to County Line, along U.S. 1 down where Publix is. He stated the rest is mixed use; they aze only talking about a small portion at this point. He stated it is only a small portion of this community that is actually C-2. Attorney Hawkins asked if they are talking about less than 5% of the available land. Council Member Paterno stated he never calculated it but it is less than 5%, a very small part. He stated that a lot of it, they do not realize, is mixed use; it gives a lot more availability to redevelopment, which is another whole part. Council Member Genco stated if you take the azea that the Village has as actual commercial, the potential C-2 is very small, than if • you just look at what is still available for development. Council Member Paterno stated the C-2 has the old Publix, the new Publix and the little piece down on the south side of Tequesta Drive, the little strip mall that he knows of. Attorney Roselli pointed out that when you are talking about percentages C-2 is all commercial, but the percentage issue comes when you allow a PCD, which is a special exception so this is where the percentage mix is. Council Member Paterno stated whatever Council does is going to deteriorate their percentage of available commercial to the community. Mayor Humpage stated they have another commercial parcel for sale right now. Council Member Paterno agreed they needed to keep this in mind. Council Member Paterno stated there is no commercial per se. Attorney Roselli agreed, stating if you have redevelopment in C-2 and they come in, the precedent you set for a PCD; if you have redevelopment in C-2 and someone comes in and says they want to do another PCD and you permit a PCD that is predominantly residential, then you aze going to have a problem saying no, you can not have a PCD too. She thought this is something for Council to consider when talking about percentages and what you want to allow in the future. Mayor Humpage stated he thought it was an interesting form of lettering they use, PCD (planned commercial development). He felt what was really going on is a Planned Resident Development (PRD). Attorney Hawkins stated this might be by default based upon a recent event, but he does not know that is what was intended. Mayor Humpage stated he did not think it was. Attorney Hawkins stated that is what the Council that framed this ordinance intended. He stated Council Member Paterno made this point pretty strongly back in September, is that what is intended here when the character is not really commercial. 6 Minutes -Village Council Workshop January 25, 2006 Page 7 • Attorney Hawkins mentioned in his experience the one thing they needed to think about is, and they aze really the only people that can interpret this. He noted often when you get into a situation where you aze studying zoning codes there is an analysis done by planners who advise you on what you have, and what they perceive the demand is going to be. He commented it is almost like a mazket driven analysis. He stated he did not think they had anything like that, but the planners are the people that have the responsibility to interpret the market and apply their common knowledge. He felt they needed to make this a workable code downstream. Mayor Humpage pointed out he certainly did not want to jeopardize the commercial district as they have it now, but that is probably the wave of the future. He questioned when the new Publix opens, what is going to happen to the old Publix. He stated he is sure there aze going to be developers looking at that pazcel if that is opened up. He explained commercial is commercial but felt when talking about the C-2 and PCD, is do they have a preference as to what the ratio should be; would it be 50-50%, 40-60%. He commented then you can get into the geographic of it; does the commercial have to be on the first floor. Mayor Humpage questioned if Cypress Drive was C-2. Village Manager Couzzo stated all of Cypress Drive was C-2. He stated there aze also a couple of sections, U.S. 1, and Gallery Square. Council Member Paterno stated C-1 is Gallery Square, it is a • neighborhood commercial district; it was corrected and called something else. Mayor Humpage asked what Cypress Drive is, where his office is. Village Manager Couzzo questioned the fact that Gallery Squaze is C-l. Mayor Humpage stated behind Rinker. Village Manager Couzzo asked if someone had a map. Council Member Genco stated she thought it was C-3. Council Member Paterno stated he had a map; he said C-3, general commercial district, where Rinker is on both sides, along Dixie Highway. He stated it is C-2 but at Gallery Square it is a neighborhood, so it is also limited on what they can do there, it has to conform to the neighborhood. Mayor Humpage stated with that being said if they stay with C-2 do they have a preference on the complexion of C-2; what do they want to have happen. Attorney Hawkins pointed out when you look at Section 78-251, about purpose and intent of PCD, which is only a special exception permitted in C-2, it is very obvious that the drafters said this was to be a unique commercial azea. He felt commercial being the operative descriptive term here. He suggested one way Council could approach this was to provide clarity as to what they really wanted in terms of complexion. He stated you could strengthen the current terminology to make it cleazer that you want to protect the primary character of the PCD be commercial. He stated that would be one way to approach it, and would still give quite a bit of flexibility. Attorney Roselli stated this is where the term appurtenance is used, and that whole purpose and intent could be rewritten to be more straightforward. Vice-Mayor Watkins felt they would have to nail down that fact, for persons such as her who could not interpret the code one way or another. She felt it needed to be cut and dry. Attorney Roselli agreed, stating it needed to be black or white. Council Member Paterno agreed, stating it needs to be more cut and dry and at the same time they need to keep in mind that at some point they are not going to have any commercial left. 7 Minutes -Village Council Workshop January 25, 2006 Page 8 . Council Member Genco stated she did not think this was ever going to happen; she stated you needed to go back to the history of how this code was written the way that it was. She stated they had done a master plan of the Village anticipating they would need more commercial services for the residents. But their residential population is going to be around 7500 or 8000 people including the seasonal residents and they really do not need the commercial, because right over the bridge you have a lot of commercial. Thus, she stated this was meant to give them a lot of flexibility, which is why the original writers of it gave them this flexibility. She commented thinking of the C-2 district, as Council Members they really need to look at the future in terms of redevelopment, because this is where this rule is going to come into play, much more so than the little bit of vacant property that they can address right now. She commented in thinking about that, she questioned do they really want to encourage heavier use commercial or would they rather have the undertone of the Village to be more skewed toward residential. She stated this is something they have to really weigh in on. She stated U.S. 1 by its complexion alone, a 4-way highway, is going to lend a flavor to having some commercial use regardless of what the Council wants; whoever owns property is going to want to maintain some commercial there. She stated maybe their overall benefit might be residential, better tax base, better turnaround for resales, and maintaining some commercial might be a good idea. She pointed out by tying them down for the people who are going to be sitting here in ten or fifteen years may not be the thing • they want to do. Council Member Paterno stated he understood what she is saying, but at the same time he has been talking to a lot of people they all say that the reason they moved here was because of the feel. He knows Vice-Mayor Watkins has been here some twenty-seven years, and Mayor Humpage has been here a long time. He commented the reason he moved to Tequesta was because of the feel of the community, and he does not want to change that, He noted where he came from where he had a feel of a small town but close to the city, and the change. He commented what you find is everyone moving from Dade, to Broward, to Palm Beach and moving a little further north to get a little more of that original feel they had there. He stated they have a responsibility to the people that are moving here to maintain what everyone bought into, a lifestyle for children, and grandchildren. Council Member Paterno stated what is going to end up happening is that this is going to be a gem, with property values increasing, it is going to maintain our taxes where they are at; he does not want to live in a condo community because if he wanted to he would have moved on the beach; this is why they are here, for the uniqueness of this community. Attorney Roselli stated they might want to consider adding a PRD as a special exception use, in addition to a PCD; mix the PCD so you do not have PRD's coming and calling themselves PCDs; and allow a PRD if, in your discretion, not as permitted by right but as a special exception use, and that way you would have some flexibility to that. She stated also if Scripps comes to north county they may have more of a need for some non-intense commercial, but she does not know what the forecast growth is. Mayor Humpage agreed. Vice-Mayor Watkins stated they have a community that is so defined geographically that growth is pretty well confined. She felt they have an obligation to the residents to have enough commercial here to support their immediate needs. 8 Minutes -Village Council Workshop January 25, 2006 Page 9 She commented they also were in a time and age where if you needed to get to something you could get to it; she does not ever see the Village having their own Tazget or Bloomingdales, they aze just not large enough for that. She pointed out the Village cannot have, nor do they want that kind of traffic. She explained at the same time Tequesta has its own flavor and personality and she has lived here a long time and the same thing that Council Member Paterno stated that talking to the residents they do not want a 10-story or anything; at the same time she has not had anyone, except for two people, really complain to her about a big residential development. She stated they are pretty comfortable as long as it is relatively small and it has some commercial. She stated Council is right in that there is very limited C-2, and thought she would be most comfortable with Attorney Roselli's suggestion that they add the PRD. She noted then it is up to Council to approve it or not, but at least it gives them the leeway if in ten yeazs that is the direction it is going. She stated if Scripps does come here, every piece of property azound here, the value is going to go up but that is not to say they want them all in Tequesta. She felt they have to find a happy medium, and keep some amount of commercial, but allow some residential along with it. Council Member Genco asked if it was possible, because in anticipation that a lot of this is going to be redevelopment, for future redevelopment that they say any new development must maintain the same amount of commercial squaze footage that any building they tear down has, so that they maintain that commercial. She stated what . could end up happening is something kind of like City Place where you have a bottom floor that would be commercial, and you might have one or two levels of apartments or condos on top of that, so they would maintain the commercial area that they need. She commented that would be their minimum base, and they would have latitude of how many stories of over and above that they would allow to be residential. Attorney Hawkins asked Council Member Genco if she is asking if that is an element of a particulaz zoning district. Council Member Genco stated yes, if they end up doing redevelopment. She stated if they have applications coming in for redevelopment in the C-2 district, any new redevelopment must maintain the initial amount of commercial development that existed at the time that the zoning change was proposed. Attorney Hawkins stated he thought you could have this but you want to have some out, some kind of variance. Attorney Roselli agreed it seemed to her like something that would be better as a condition of approval on a site plan, but since it is redevelopment you cannot do that. Vice-Mayor Watkins asked whether it would come under the percentage business. Council Member Paterno stated he understood what Vice-Mayor Watkins was saying, but places like City Place, big cities small town atmosphere, very controlled, you can walk across the street just like it was Tequesta, even though it is a big city. He stated they have done it in such a way that it has both feels, you have commercial and residential on top but they have a nice mix. He stated the property to him is more valuable redeveloped, to turn it into apartments or condos than it is commercial; that is what it comes down to. He felt when someone buys a piece of property they are looking to convert because the money is in apartments. He explained it is not people coming in and teanng down houses to live there. 9 Minutes -Village Council Workshop January 25, 2006 Page 10 Council Member Paterno stated if Scripps comes here this community is only going to get better, because all these little things. He pointed out he liked Gallery Squaze because it seemed like a downtown area; he would like to see this developed in the commercial area, more of a hometown feeling. Attorney Hawkins stated like a commercial node. Council Member Paterno stated he is not looking for a Target. Mayor Humpage commented he wanted to give an example, because they are going to move forwazd and not look at past projects. He stated about three weeks ago someone gave him a call, a developer. The developer wanted to know what was going to happen with the old Publix when the new Publix opened, and if townhouses or condos could be put in there. Mayor Humpage told him they were doing zoning in progress and they did not know what they were going to allow. He explained here you have the potential where you are going to have a big empty storage. He stated if that came before them and they used this potential project as maybe something to focus on what would they want to happen to that area. He commented suppose the owner of that property was willing to sell off a portion of it; what would they want. Council Member Genco asked, if you take out the Winn Dixie which has a lease issue, how much unrented commercial area does the Village have right now. Mayor Humpage stated only have four spaces up there at the Publix area. Village Manager Couzzo stated that the Winn Dixie does not have the lease issue anymore, it is free now. Council Member Genco stated there aze not a lot of vacant places. Council Member Paterno stated that from what he understood the place on the south side was not very impressive on filling that space. Also, he stated, their roof, it has been two years because they are waiting to see what happens. He stated he wanted to bring that up because he wanted to know if that roof needed to be fixed. He asked if it was a code violation on the south side of Tequesta. Village Manager Couzzo was not sure where he was referring. Council Member Paterno explained U.S. 1 south of the old Publix shopping center, on the east corner. Village Manager Couzzo stated it was the Blockbuster shopping center, and they needed to replace it. Council Member Paterno commented it has been two years since the hurricane. Village Manager Couzzo commented they would not have to fix it unless it was a hazard. Council Member Paterno felt loose tiles in a commercial area would be a hazazd. Village Manager Couzzo commented they might need to be cited for that. Council Member Paterno stated they aze also waiting to see what will happen. Village Manager Couzzo stated the interesting pazt is the unknown of what is happening with the old Publix, and adjacent to the south you have that whole shopping center and somebody may be looking at an opportunity there to combine both of them. Council Member Genco stated she would really like to see them maintaining the amount of commercial buildings they currently have because with their additional population she thought they would be able to support that. Council Member Paterno stated the problem right now is, it is not conducive for somebody to stop and park at Blockbuster and walk • up the street; it is sort of like in pieces; they need to redevelop it in such a way that promotes an atmosphere they want. 10 Minutes -Village Council Workshop January 25, 2006 Page 11 • Attorney Roselli stated perhaps pedestrian friendly; she stated there is a lot of language in codes that require a site plan to be linked with walkways, so you do not have to park and move. Mayor Humpage asked Council if it is their consensus that they would like to see the commercial areas that exist right now to remain commercial. Council Member Genco stated yes, and if they can get a little latitude in the language to allow them a little discretion. Attorney Roselli stated if you keep it if you leave it C-2, and then you decide to revise the PCDs it is still discretionary whether you grant a special exception. She stated you do not have to, you can make them stay commercial. Council Member Genco asked about the intention, so that they understand is the purpose to try and maintain the amount of commercial, but give Council the ability of using this discretion when a project comes in. Mayor Humpage stated he thought they did need to isolate PCD and PRD. Council Member Genco felt that was the next step. Council Member Paterno stated one thing about the PRD, if they allow in a C-2 area, if they allow one of them to go in, does that set a precedent for everyone else. Attorney Roselli stated there is a special exception criteria that should apply to each project. She stated that just because you grant one, does not mean the next one is going to satisfy the criteria. Council Member Genco explained what she was trying to say is they need to address what they are doing, the PCD first, and then after they address what Mayor Humpage was saying, the PRD. She felt they needed to address each of those concepts separately. Mayor Humpage stated they are looking at a project now, in his opinion, that is a PRD but they do not have it. Council Member Genco stated they are discussing the PCD so they need to stay on that topic until they have exhausted it and then they can go on to the next one. Vice-Mayor Watkins asked would it make any sense if you limit it to a given C-2. For example, she stated, take the segment where the new Publix is going to be and north, and say we would allow this is for the future, a PRD in that section but not in any other; some way to isolate the downtown. Attorney Roselli suggested creating an overlay district or something like that. Council Member Paterno stated Publix has done huge studies and they paid big companies to do this. He stated for that area you are going to see somewhat of a transformation of the downtown area. He stated that everyone goes to Publix, but not everyone goes to Blockbuster. They need to preserve commercial, perhaps having two floors of commercial, two floors of residential. Council Member Genco stated she could not see having two stories of commercial; she sees one story. Council Member Paterno stated he did not say things were perfect but things are going to change because they are running out of office space, even if Scripps does not come, at some point it going to be offices. He stated there are going to be people here who need office space. He stated this community is changing to a younger demographic area; professionals who might want an office a little closer to home and • bringing their business in. Vice-Mayor Watkins stated they have the Turtle Beach office's planned, and the Palmieri building. Council Member Paterno stated Palmieri is already sold out. Council Member Genco stated they have the entire downtown. 11 Minutes -Village Council Workshop January 25, 2006 Page 12 • Mayor Humpage asked if they can leave the commercial as commercial, and make a commercial PCD 40-60%; and if you made the PCD one of the criteria, it would have to be 40% commercial and abutting U.S. 1. Council Member Genco stated then you aze getting into a situation where if you go to a four-story building you are going to encourage two stories being commercial. Mayor Humpage stated yes, but you can discourage that. Council Member Genco stated this is not what her vision is of the downtown azea. Council Member Paterno stated at the same time it is not his vision to see a smaller azea on the first floor, and doing that to get the PCD in order to build four stories above it. He commented one story commercial, and then you can only have two stories residential, there is a proportion. He stated the more commercial you put in maybe you give them more residential so there is an offset. Vice-Mayor Watkins stated she was okay with the first floor, but has a problem with the second because she does not think the developers are going to do it. Council Member Paterno suggested making it 33%, so you have 3 floors/2 floors. He pointed out if they want height; there is a tradeoff. Council Member Genco stated she really does not want to see more than one floor commercial on developments that are coming into the city. She stated her vision of Tequesta is to maintain the residential atmosphere primary over and above commercial. She stated commercial to her, is an auxiliary use that is a convenience for them. Council Member Paterno stated he mentioned to Village Manager Couzzo the other day that the building that caught his attention is a brand new building on the right hand side • of Indiantown Road just after you cross the railroad tracks from Alternate AIA. He commented it has 2 stories, all commercial office space. He felt it was a beautiful place. He stated he does not like how close it is to the road, but the idea being, there is no more land in Jupiter so they aze going to start to come over here. Council Member Genco stated she does not want this; she said they were allowed to express their personal opinion and she does not want this. Attorney Roselli suggested to get rid of the PCD all together and create something new that you are not stuck with; right now the PCD only exists to be in a C-2, as she recalled. She stated if it does not work then maybe you should scrap the PCD, because it requires it to be predominantly commercial and if you do not want it and want more of a mixed use, more balanced use, then maybe start over and write something else. Council Member Genco stated preserving the amount of commercial space they currently have knowing that they have x number of square feet of unused commercial space right now, she thought if you have new development coming in, there could also be potential where the actual prints of the building may end up being larger. Thus, she stated, they may end up with more commercial in the long run anyway between new development and redevelopment. Attorney Hawkins stated another way to approach this concept would be to make your analysis, and this is a special exception use -they aze asking you to give them a grant of a special exception, which is a special right. He suggested making that analysis more dependent upon market analysis from them demonstrating the sustainability of the project. He suggested this might be a way to get some comfort as to whether or not they • can achieve what they want. 12 Minutes -Village Council Workshop January 25, 2006 Page 13 Council Member Genco stated she has talked with the developers that have come in and they have already done extensive studies such as that. She stated their market analysis is telling them this is what the market is. She stated, generally speaking, that someone that is investing ten or more million dollars in a building is going to do something like that. Council Member Paterno stated one thing he has to mention so that he understands, in the mixed use area which is a large portion between Old Dixie and U.S. 1; they can put condos in, it gives them a lot more latitude right now. Village Manager Couzzo stated not in the large mix use district. Council Member Paterno stated where the bank is, Zuccarelli's property. Council Member Genco asked what part of the code was he referring to. Village Manager Couzzo stated it is Mixed-use zoning. Council Member Paterno stated he could come in and do all condos. Village Manager Couzzo stated that does not affect the C-2 district. Council Member Paterno stated no it does not, but what he was saying was sometimes they are thinking about the mixed use and bringing it into the C-2, it is actually already giving everybody the opportunity to do basically a PRD in the mixed use area. Council Member Genco stated for mixed use he would have to have residential and commercial, as referred on page 78:18. She stated she always understood that was to be a combination; that is why it is called mixed use. Council Member Paterno asked what happened to the north of Tequesta Drive, all those condos. Council Member Genco stated they have been there forever. Village Manager Couzzo stated he did not believe that was mixed use. Mayor Humpage thought the mixed-use district was only created about six or seven years ago. Council Member Genco stated it was a part of the Charette that caused all the zoning regulations that are giving us agony right now. Mayor Humpage recessed the meeting at 9:58 a. m, and reconvened at 10: OS a. m. Mayor Humpage stated they needed to get some direction. He felt it was the consensus of the Council they leave C-2 as C-2, and discuss the PCD. Attorney Roselli stated what she has heard is that Council might want a PCD, but a hybrid of what it is now. She asked do they first want commercial, or do they want to have a mix, or to leave if flexible. She stated right now, the way it is written, the intent is predominantly commercial but you are not going to get that; you are not going to get the first 2 or 3 floors commercial and then the condo on the top. She stated maybe you change that and then later think of adding a PRD in there. Mayor Humpage stated it would still be a special exception. Attorney Roselli agreed. Vice-Mayor Watkins asked if its a mixed use building, does that make sense. Attorney Roselli stated yes, that is what this is intended, but it does not have the stigma of commercial. Vice-Mayor Watkins felt it would not force them to make it predominantly commercial. Attorney Roselli stated you change the purpose and intent language of the PCD and you call it something else so it is reflective of more of what it is, a mixed use development. Council Member Paterno stated when they say mixed use, as his understanding, they can go six stories, and 84 feet. Mayor Humpage stated that is only in a mixed-use zoning. Council Member Paterno stated it could be abutting C-2. Attorney Roselli noted she is not stating to change it to mixed use. 13 Minutes -Village Council Workshop January 25, 2006 • Page 14 Mayor Humpage explained that she is just using the terminology mixed use because it is a combination. Attorney Roselli explained that she is not saying use the mixed use regulations; she said call it something different, it is not going to be mixed use district as in the code, but a different name that really envisions a mixed use. Council Member Genco stated the PCD process allows them the combination and she thought Attorney Roselli's idea of expanding the definition of the PCD, and she does not know if the other members of the Council agree with her. She suggested maintaining the existing amount of commercial area they have in redevelopment is a goal she would like to see incorporated. She stated that once they have the latitude, the next thing they needed to address was how many stories. She thought they have kind of addressed the PCD, in the C-2 district area. She thought the mixed use district is another area they might want to address, and she thought eventually the C-3 district was another area. She felt the C-3 district has a lot of very old buildings that she can also see coming in for redevelopment somewhere down the line. She stated this is what she was thinking when she is looking at a 50-year plan. Mayor Humpage commented on Attorney Roselli's cover letter, looking towards the bottom in the last paragraph. He recalled when Council Member Genco brought up the section in the code where they got into the elevations of stories and heights. He stated if you look where she has large print "this table has been amended" how do they feel about • that. He asked them do you actually reduce the C-2 zoning to make it four stories and fifty feet, which applies strictly to C-2, and then have that provision to reduce the permit and height allowed in the PCD to five stories, seventy feet. He indicated that is where most of them are; four stories/fifty feet, and five stories/seventy feet. He noted when they start going above seventy feet is when all their constituents are uncomfortable. Council Member Genco asked if they have a development already on the table would this rule apply to them. Mayor Humpage stated no, they only have one development on the table. Attorney Hawkins confirmed stating it would not, and liked Council putting a cap at seventy feet. Mayor Humpage stated he would like to see in C-2, four stories/fifty feet, across the board. Council Member Genco stated they are basically talking about seventy feet over what they call natural grade. Mayor Humpage stated once they go to seventy it is a C-2, but now they are talking a PCD. Council Member Paterno asked if they have a PCD that wants to build, under Council Member Genco's scenario, retaining the commercial, where it basically ends up being the first floor and then three floors residential. He asked if they wanted to go up another story, does this mean they ask them to give them something in the community to get the extra story, do they tie it in somehow now at this point. Council Member Genco explained they could do that anyway. Attorney Roselli agreed saying that part of the revisions were guidelines that she added in there. Council Member Paterno commented if they give a special exception; the more they give somehow it is almost like a given that • they are going to give it all. He stated the community is looking for something back. Attorney Roselli stated you request things like that. Council Member Genco felt Attorney Roselli clarified that well on page 7. 14 Minutes -Village Council Workshop January 25, 2006 • Page 15 Attorney Roselli stated you can do things like, the Gazdens has art in public places; there are all kinds of different things you can do. Mayor Humpage stated they mentioned some of these. Council Member Genco stated they always had that ability. Mayor Humpage stated yes, it is a special exception. Council Member Genco stated that is one reason why she has been saying it is very important for them to come in for a conceptual review because it is cost effective to the developer, because he is not going to spend a quarter of a million dollars on final plans. She stated he will come in with a simple elevation, a book print and a little bit more than that with the idea to sell us; then we say okay, or we'll consider that, would you be willing to give us a fountain, and you do not have to say "you're going to do", you say would you be willing to do this. She stated they are going to know we want these things and then when they come back with their site plan they aze going to put it in. Mayor Humpage agreed. Council Member Paterno felt Council could do a little more asking for changes. He stated someone eazlier said that in ten years they realized they had the latitude to ask for a lot more. Mayor Humpage asked if there was a consensus on 4 stories/50 feet for the C-2, and 5 stories/70 feet for the PCD. Consensus of Council agreed. Attorney Hawkins asked for clarification on issue of the concept plan, he believed it was the right approach. He stated when this issue came up a yeaz ago, and the idea of a concept plan presentation eazly on as a general proposition was presented, it was shot down. He felt you create difficulties logistically by not allowing for the development to • do that early on. He felt it is the right approach because eazly on you get an idea of what they want to accomplish, so you begin to give and take. He stated he is not sure the Council fully digested this last yeaz when it came up, but he thought Council Member Genco's concept makes a lot of sense. He stated then you begin a bi-lateral dialogue eazly on; you say this has some potential, have you thought about this, have you thought about that, you start a dialogue. He mentioned right now you do not really get that. Mayor Humpage stated he thought Council Member Genco was right. He stated this is the way to go because the Village does not want to create enemies we want to create something to work with. Vice-Mayor Watkins stated that is fair. Council Member Genco stated South Florida Water Management District, Town of Jupiter, West Palm all see the concept very early on in the process. Mayor Humpage stated as long as the presentation is not someone reading a story, or like a dog and pony show. Attorney Roselli stated in section 78-368, that is the application is she was talking about, that if petitioner was seeking a special exception they have to submit a development concept plan. She noted all the other stuff they are supposed to do is in the code. She stated then Staff could hold them to that code requirement, and extract all the information. Vice-Mayor Watkins stated they needed to have the reputation that they aze good to work with; it is a reasonable step plan of how to do this, and they aze not frustrated by trying to guess what you want. Council Member Paterno asked if Ms. Harding, in her opinion since she is the expert in this area, if she had any input. Vice- Mayor Watkins mentioned conceptual review. Ms. Hazding's felt that was a good idea to • have a conceptual plan presented prior to final site plan approval. Attorney Hawkins stated his experience with the Town of Jupiter, where he has been on the other side, he thought they do this pretty well. 15 Minutes -Village Council Workshop January 25, 2006 • Page 16 He stated you have a conversation very early and they say, `show us what you want to do' and they say `well this is what I had in mind, this is where the building is going to go, this is how the road would lay out. Then the mayor and Council react, and it is a conversation and the landowner or developer walks out of there having some sense of whether it is potentially viable, early on. Mayor Humpage stated they know what they can and cannot do. Attorney Hawkins stated they know who is for and who is against them and where the hot spots are. Council Member Genco stated they did it for Kaplan & Polk and for some reason it fell off when they did it for the Atlantis project. Mayor Humpage stated that happened because they put it in the paper without talking to anyone; they just came up with the scenario and threw it out there. Council Member Genco stated she did not want to put too much on the record but they did not treat them the same as they did the other projects, which they had in the last five-year period and she does not know why. Mayor Humpage asked Ms. Harding's her comments regarding the conceptual. She mentioned an applicant came into her office offering afive-story project. Mayor Humpage asked her if it was a PCD. She stated it was regular commercial Council Member Genco asked where the project was. Ms. Harding said it was just a proposal that he came in to discuss, but no application had been filed. Vice-Mayor Watkins stated it was the old Zaino's property. Ms. Harding stated it was a special part of the code, for Zaino's; she stated if they wanted to add something to the community this is their opportunity to tell them more or less commercial or residential, exactly how they • want to see it. She stated she did not want to see them lose this opportunity by not having this Planned Commercial Development (PCD) section. She stated that when you talk about height you have to consider the mixed-use development and the plan of use and the Planned Residential Development (PRD). She stated at this time it does allow for an option of six stories, eighty-four feet so if they are thinking now in terms of covering the height issue, you need to cover the issue of height in the other two areas. Council Member Genco asked what would they be doing with the PCD regulations. She stated the five stories would not hold for these other areas. Mayor Humpage stated yes, in mixed use. Council Member Genco stated they needed to address this. Ms. Harding stated they needed to look at the big picture; if when you are done with PCD, you have only accomplished limiting story height in one area, you are going to have to be faced with another two areas. She felt they have to address the height in C-2 district, especially in PCD where you allow six stories and eighty-four feet. Council Member Genco's stated that is part of the reason she thought this proposal was going to accomplish a little more, maybe she was just thinking ahead. Attorney Roselli stated what they do here is not going to create conflict with another zoning district; they may later get to evaluate that district and say they are too high too, we want to bring them down but it is not going to create a conflict. She stated that the Village Manager made a suggestion about renaming, keeping the PCD the PCD, but calling it a planned combined development, a combination of residential and commercial; you don't have to change it from a PCD, it contemplates the mix, half and half or more residential. • 16 Minutes -Village Council Workshop January 25, 2006 • Page 17 Council Member Genco stated her confusion flows from the fact that she heard the resolution that was passed in 1990. Attorney Roselli asked if it was the one that was not codified. Council Member Genco stated she did not know if it was codified or not; one of those, but it addressed all these other areas; it addressed mixed use, the C-3. Attorney Roselli stated she thought all those got codified. She stated the only thing that did not get codified from an ordinance was the height of six stories, eighty-four feet. Council Member Genco stated yes, what she is saying is it spoke about the other areas, the planning zones when it was addressing the height so she thought when they did this they had to do all of this at the same time because repealing only one part of a resolution would be difficult. Attorney Roselli stated you are not really doing it that way, you are not repealing the ordinance, you are repealing the code section and even though every ordinance has a repealer clause in it that says it repeals all laws and ordinances in conflict. She stated what you are doing here is taking it surgically and going section by section and fixing it. She felt what she has done in this ordinance is recognize the height, and this amendment will take it down from six stories, eighty-four feet, which should be reflected in the code. Council Member Genco asked if they would repeal that ordinance that was not codified. Attorney Roselli stated it would be repealed by this ordinance. Council Member Genco stated she would like to make sure that on the record that they know that would be repealed. Attorney Roselli stated the reason you do not repeal an ordinance entirely • because you are not necessarily going to repeal everything in that ordinance; all you are repealing is a part of the ordinance; what you are really doing is amending the code section. Council Member Genco stated she understood this but she because of the other zoning districts that were mentioned in there that they also want to address that they do need to repeal it. She stated maybe the next step is they need to address those others but she thought that whole thing needed to be repealed. Council Member Paterno stated if they all agree, if they do this, direct the staff and go through the rest and immediately do the same with the other districts they are speaking about, the mixed use and address that immediately and just go from there until everything becomes the same height. Mayor Humpage stated he is on board with that. He stated they have too many fluctuations here, they need to get down to basics. Attorney Hawkins questioned the concept plan review. He stated he is hearing now they are in favor of it. He reminded Council they voted against it generally about a year and a half ago but they are now in favor of it. He asked them if they are in favor of the concept plan review and he did not understand why they voted against it then because it really is important. He asked them if they are in favor of the concept plan review only as to a PCD request arising under the C-2 district, or are they saving a concept plan review as a general operational principle. Mayor Humpage responded as a general operational principle. Attorney Hawkins stated there is a big difference. Council Member Genco stated it depended on what the project is, R-1 or R-2 no. But, she stated, when it comes to commercial, whether it is C-l, C-2, C-3, and mixed use she thought they want to see • conceptual. Attorney Hawkins just wanted to understand what they want. He stated he tended to agree with them. 17 Minutes -Village Council Workshop January 25, 2006 • Page 18 Council Member Paterno asked anything that comes under them as far as the local planning board has to come conceptual; R-1 does not come in front of them. He wanted to clarify what Attorney Hawkins was saying. Vice-Mayor Watkins recalled, what was happening then they had a lot of issues going on with comments made about private meetings with the developer and all that stuff, and whether or not something should go to Planning and Zoning Board before it came to them. She recalled that is why they said no so that it would go to Planning and Zoning first, and what they are saying here is they want the conceptual review that comes to Council first before it ever gets to planning and zoning. Council Member Genco stated planning and zoning is supposed to do those. Vice-Mayor Watkins just wanted to make sure. Attorney Hawkins reiterated that what they want is anything arising out of C-1, C- 2, C-3 or a special exception use and mixed use, the concept plan is now part of the process. He stated every applicant has to come in and do that. Consensus of Council agreed. Council Member Genco stated this is going to make it easier. Chief Weinand asked if the height was an issue; why not make it the height and not the story because a good architect might be able to put six stories at seventy feet. Council Member Genco stated it is either or, but not to exceed seventy feet. Chief Weinand stated when you gain one story, you gain twenty feet in height; it just did not make sense to him. Attorney Roselli stated it depends on how big your stories are. Council Member Genco stated they need to put the word `not to exceed', that way it will make sure they do not have that issue with someone trying to squeeze something in there. Mayor Humpage stated now they all agree that a conceptual review is part of this. Attorney Hawkins thought Attorney Roselli had a good idea when she suggested that maybe another special exception use available under C-2 should be PRD. 'Then he heard let's not deal with it now and he is not sure he understands why since they are basically revamping this special exception uses available. He just wanted to make sure, and that Council does not want to go down that path. Council Member Genco stated she is not in favor of changing commercial into residential; she is not in favor of changing their existing C-2 or C-3 into residential development. She stated she agreed with Council Member Paterno and the rest of the council that they needed to preserve some commercial area to service them. Mayor Humpage agreed with changing the actual verbiage of PCD to planned combined district. Council Member Genco asked for a definition for it. Attorney Roselli stated what she would do is rewrite the purpose and intent section that would describe what it is and then by virtue of some of these regulations like first floor is commercial, that is built in, it will not necessarily have to have percentages but first floor has to be commercial; after the first floor, whether they do a second floor commercial and then the next two residential as long as the first floor is commercial. Council Member Paterno stated as a minimum. Attorney Roselli agreed. Council Member Paterno stated, like in this case, they need more commercial they wind up with a second story. He asked if the square footage has to be the same as the next floor, not that they make a parking garage half of it, it has to be the same square footage • minimum as the next floor going up. Attorney Roselli stated no, it is not going to be upside down pyramid. Council Member Paterno stated yes, it is all a big courtyard with one little store and then everything is residential. 18 Minutes -Village Council Workshop January 25, 2006 • Page 19 Mayor Humpage stated they are okay now with the conceptual review. Council Member Genco stated she would like to see in the definition Section 78-4, that they have a definition for this new PCD. She did not believe there was one for PCDs currently and they need to put one in. Mayor Humpage stated they agree on 4 stories/50 feet, and 5 stories/70 feet; he just wanted to make sure. He stated 5 stories/70 feet is the maximum, but still a special exception. Attorney Hawkins stated if you want to get 70 feet you have to have special exception permission. Consensus of Council agreed. Attorney Hawkins stated 50 feet is the cap in C-2. Consensus of Council agreed. Council Member Paterno stated you take one PCD, 4 stories/50 feet it still is a special exception. Mayor Humpage stated PCD is a special exception. Attorney Roselli stated it is not another special exception but is another approval on top of the special exception. Attorney Hawkins stated that is one potential thing you can obtain approval for when you get the PCD, and Council is not obligated to give it, is up to 70 feet or an extra story; Council is not obligated to extend that, but that is one thing that the developer could ask for. Mayor Humpage stated like Attorney Roselli said, it is almost like a special exception with a special exception, that is where they used to be; they need to get away from this. Vice-Mayor Watkins stated there is a part in the code that deals with senior facilities. She asked if they could require them to put generators in. Attorney Roselli stated Stuart just did. Vice-Mayor Watkins stated gas stations have generators and they do not shut down. Council Member Genco stated with senior facilities, absolutely. Vice-Mayor Watkins asked Chief Weinand, after Hurricane Jeanne, how many calls did they get. She stated she does not know how they would do that, at what level. Attorney Hawkins stated that is another ordinance, which they can visit later. Vice-Mayor Watkins felt Council needed to do that. Mayor Humpage asked if anyone on Council had any density issues. Council Member Paterno stated the only density issue he saw that Attorney Roselli made reference to was on the percentage of the project as it dictates the density. Council Member Genco asked if they are currently at 80-20% on the C-2. Attorney Roselli stated 80/20% for platted space. Council Member Genco asked if that was the current regulation. Attorney Roselli stated yes. Council Member Paterno stated in reference to the density it is a total residential density. Attorney Roselli agreed, noting she did not change it. Vice-Mayor Watkins stated it is 18 dwellings, which is what they have now. She stated it is gross acre, and the upper residential floors would have more density. Council Member Paterno noted denser, because you have commercial on the bottom. He stated he just wanted to make sure somehow they are addressing that, so they do not end up with a bunch of efficiencies. Attorney Roselli stated she did 1,200 square feet they are all aware. Vice- Mayor Watkins stated 1,200 square feet was a good minimum, because one bedroom one bath in Abacoa was 600, so 1,200 is probably two bedrooms. • Mayor Humpage referred to Page 5, Schedule of site requirements. He stated in the graph at the top where you have the minimum living area, what are the other headers supposed to be. Attorney Roselli stated she was looking them up, that she did not change them. 19 Minutes -Village Council Workshop January 25, 2006 Page 20 Mayor Humpage thought one of them was the ten-foot rear setback. Attorney Roselli reviewed the table requirements. She stated she did not look at those closely and she does not know if that is something they needed to address. Mayor Humpage asked if these are the site requirements as they exist. Attorney Roselli stated for C-2 currently. Mayor Humpage asked on Page 11, where the platted open space is 20% of the gross land area. Attorney Roselli stated that would not necessarily change it is 80% commercial and 20% open space, so it does not say it has to be 40% commercial and 40% residential, it has to be 20% open space. Council Member Genco stated they are actually changing the 20% on Page 5. Council Member Paterno stated they want to keep it at 40%. Mayor Humpage stated it is at 40% now so they can cover 60% of the lot or back here they can cover 80% of the lot so do they want to keep it at 40%. Council Member Genco stated she wanted to keep that part the way it is. Mayor Humpage agreed they are going to leave the graph on Page 5, and amend Page 11. Attorney Roselli noted the graph in the code now only applies to C-2, but if they wanted to apply it to `PCD special exception uses', you can say 40% for C-2, and then 80% for PCD. Mayor Humpage stated he does not want 80% of the property covered. Attorney Roselli stated then they needed to change it on Page 11. Council Member Genco asked Attorney Roselli to explain the difference between gross and net because they talk about gross areas vs. net areas. Attorney Roselli deferred to Ms. Harding. Ms. Harding's' noted the differences in gross and net areas. Village Manager Couzzo commented it might be easements and right-of--ways taken out also; it is buildable area with green space. Mayor Humpage wanted to make sure everyone was on the same page; 40% of the property must remain green space. Council Member Genco stated maximum lot coverage. Attorney Hawkins interpreted it as 50% of the property must remain open. Council Member Genco stated 25% open. Attorney Roselli stated the table said 40% so it seemed to her that 40% was the most you could cover the lot. Mayor Humpage stated that 40% represents the building, the footprint of the structure; thus they are really saying that 60% of it is green space. Attorney Roselli agreed but stated that seems like a lot. Vice-Mayor Watkins agreed. Council Member Genco stated 25% is the minimum landscaped open space. Mayor Humpage asked where it referred to that. Council Member Genco stated she is looking in Section 78-143. Village Manager Couzzo stated it is important to give definitions. Council Member Genco stated she thought they should maintain the 25% open space, which they currently have in the code. She stated if you look in the top right hand side, Section 78-143, which is the chart. Mayor Humpage asked if that was just green space, not driveways or parking lots. Council Member Genco stated it was grass, and drainage areas. She indicated that is what Water Management requires anyway. She stated if they were to make it to a lesser amount they are going to create a problem for whoever brings in a site plan. Attorney Roselli referred to page 11, the platted commercial and residential percentage of gross land area. She commented the way it looks now in the PCD regulations on Page 11, was 20% platted open space, which may be different than minimum landscape open space. Vice-Mayor Watkins felt they needed to look at that. Council Member Genco asked if they needed to add sections that they maintain a minimum landscape open space of 25%, would that clarify it. 20 Minutes -Village Council Workshop January 25, 2006 • Page 21 Attorney Roselli stated it would be helpful because some of it is only found in the tables and it would actually be better to be in the code, and not just in the table. She explained she would add some of the text to the code and not just in the table. Council Member Genco stated that was her understanding and if 25% is good with all of them. Vice-Mayor Watkins referred to Page 8, Number 9, `the request will be compatible with existing and potential land uses adjacent to the development site'. She asked how would someone know the potential land use. Attorney Roselli stated you know what the permitted use is by right in the C-2 districts so you could possibly have a restaurant next door or whatever else there is. Council Member Paterno stated there was a business in an area that was zoned for twenty years. He stated residential moved up to it because they allowed it; all of a sudden the PCD people had a change and got it kicked out of where they were. He stated they no longer could be there and they made a big deal out of it. He knows that they were referring to an applicant that was there and they mentioned to him that they have the water plant behind them. He thought to himself that was apre-existing thing that you cannot make them change or do something because you want to build next to it. He stated you cannot put undue burden on your neighbors. Council Member Genco stated that when you look at where the new Publix is going, and say someone comes in from Winn Dixie and they are going to look at the fact that all of that is commercial around there and they are not going to say it is residential; it is up to them, of course, but it gives them a discretion of limiting what they will allow based on what is immediately adjacent to that property. Mayor Humpage stated looking at the buildings they spoke about, first floor commercial, on the same page that Vice-Mayor Watkins was on, he noticed that number lOb and lOc where they actually come in with heights; does Council really want to get involved with that. He stated they are just guidelines but he did not think they need to dictate to architects and developers. Attorney Roselli stated Council can stay out of that, they are just examples. Council Member Genco stated she liked it. Mayor Humpage commented look at Abacoa, there are different elevations on the first floor. Council Member Genco stated this does give four feet of latitude. Council Member Paterno stated 12 to 16, they go up and down. Mayor Humpage stated it says sidewalk level shall be no less than 12 feet in height. Council Member Paterno stated it should not exceed 16. Vice-Mayor Watkins stated it could only have four floors. Mayor Humpage explained it can only have four floors but now all of a sudden if the first one has to be 12 feet they are limiting them the ability to get to the four stories. Attorney Hawkins mentioned 38 feet. Mayor Humpage stated now you only have 38 feet; now try to get three residential sections with your floors in between; it could be a problem. He stated if he has an eight foot high or ten-foot high commercial district below, what do they care, like One Main Street. Vice-Mayor Watkins Pointed out if you have a nail shop, you do not need twelve-foot • ceilings. She stated she understood; she thought twelve was high. Council Member Paterno stated in his vision is to accent the bottom floor and the rest to be ancillary built on top. Council Member Genco stated this is what this regulation is about. 21 Minutes -Village Council Workshop January 25, 2006 • Page 22 Council Member Paterno stated what it does, it makes it look bigger, and the commercial stands out. Mayor Humpage agreed with him but he thought they were limiting the developer, and cutting down on the possibility of them coming in. He does not think it is a good idea to tell them it has to be twelve feet high. Council Member Paterno stated three more stories, three into thirty-eight, you have a lot of room there. Council Member Genco agreed. Council Member Paterno stated the developer has over twelve feet per story, and what he was saying is three into thirty-eight you are over twelve feet per floor on the way up, so everything is going to be twelve, twelve, twelve is forty-eight. Mayor Humpage stated it is still a special exception; they have to come to them to get approval. Attorney Roselli stated they could always take it out of the code and just make it a condition of the approval for a particular project. Council Member Genco agreed, stating that when they come in they would like to see their ground floor be higher. Attorney Hawkins stated there might be some commercial uses for it because it really does not make sense to demand it but you may want some artistic feelings. Council Member Genco stated it depends where. Attorney Hawkins asked if the ceiling height was ten feet in the Council Chambers. Mayor Humpage stated the door was seven feet, so probably nine feet. Mayor Humpage pointed out go four feet above that. Attorney Hawkins stated it was higher than he realized. Council Member Genco indicated Council has already limited the number of floors, and have limited the height, so they really do not need items 10 b and c. Consensus of Council agreed to remove items l Ob and l Oc on Page 8. • Mayor Humpage referred to Page 9 Item 4, `Building use". He commented the sidewalk level story (first story) and the second story of any building in a PCD shall be limited to permissible commercial uses.' Attorney Roselli suggested Council could take out `second story.' Consensus of Council agreed. Vice-Mayor Watkins referred to page 13, Item 4, which she does not understand. It stated `no commercial facility shall maintain frontage or direct view of physical access on any arterial or collector bordering or traversing the PCD'. She asked what are they trying to say. Attorney Roselli stated she did not write that. Vice-Mayor Watkins stated if they cannot understand it, it should not be in there, or needed to be reworded. Attorney Hawkins stated `cannot maintain direct view of physical access'. Council Member Genco stated this has to do with the garbage collection. Attorney Roselli stated she would rather take it out. Vice-Mayor Watkins stated they are basically saying they need to be able to access the facilities. Mayor Humpage suggested putting a period at the end of PCD. Attorney Roselli stated after the first sentence. Mayor Humpage agreed. Council Member Genco stated it was also like U.S. 1 that the access to the commercial development would be off of the main road, so you do not have to drive through the development in order to get to the commercial. Vice-Mayor Watkins stated she was okay with that but felt this does not say that. Mayor Humpage agreed. He stated it said direct view. Council Member Genco stated that was what this was supposed to mean. Vice- Mayor Watkins suggested eliminating this and figure how to say that they want them to access from U.S. 1 without driving through the community. Council Member Genco • stated she thought they wanted access from the primary collector road, which services the building. 22 Minutes -Village Council Workshop January 25, 2006 • Page 23 Attorney Hawkins stated yes, as opposed to, and he did not know what the term was, you do not want people turning in off U.S. 1; they are coming into the PCD and maneuver their way toward where they want to go. Mayor Humpage agreed. Attorney Roselli stated it might be better to just have it on the site plan; as far as site planning it did not even get into the code. Council Member Genco thought they needed something that addressed it in the code. Attorney Hawkins clarified they meant no access from a primary road. Council Member Genco stated they want access to the commercial areas from a primary road; they do not want them to have to go through the development to get to the commercial area. She stated they are going to have little sub roads coming into the development. Mayor Humpage disagreed, stating you would not want Costa Del Sol people pulling in off of U.S. 1 right in front of those commercial buildings. Council Member Genco stated that is what she was saying. Mayor Humpage stated they would have to pull in to the PCD. Council Member Genco clarified they do not want them pulling into the residential area. Mayor Humpage misunderstood, thinking they wanted them to come directly off U.S. 1. Council Member Genco stated they want commercial area to be serviced from a main road. Vice-Mayor Watkins felt the commercial component parking should be in front, and the residents would go behind to the garage. Council Member Paterno pointed out another thing would be if there was a road behind the property, and it is on U.S. 1, you have to make the commercial entrance on the backside, U.S. 1 would be the primary road to enter. Vice-Mayor Watkins confirmed that U.S. 1 would be access road to enter for commercial. Mayor Humpage stated it is all a • part of the PCD. Council Member Genco stated she thought they needed to put that in the code for the applicants. Vice-Mayor Watkins questioned the visibility triangles; she did not understand them. Council Member Genco used St. Jude's as an example, where they need 25 feet for the triangle. Ms. Harding stated the visibility triangle is in the ordinance, under the fence ordinance, on a corner it says that you should not plant anything higher than 2 %z feet. She stated in another section of the ordinance, describing the road layouts, the corner, they describe a visibility triangle, which is the line of sight from the corner so when you approach a corner you can clearly see traffic or pedestrians from either direction. She stated what she has done to clean it up because they are now working with Public Works and they are enforcing this line of sight; she wanted to be sure she had one coherent definition, so that is why she took it from the odd sections and combined it into one. She commented when you approach a corner there is a line of sight, it is 25 foot if you were to triangulate the corner, it is 25 foot from this street, 25 foot from this street and you draw a triangle this area has to be clear sight, and no bushes can be higher than 2 %2 feet. She stated they have gone around now ahead of all this and located the lines of sight where they were blocked. She stated Public Works is working to clear them. She mentioned Code enforcement Staff has notified the homeowners where they have an area where the line of sight is obstructed. She stated she is just making it very simple when people call her and ask her what it means she can give them the definition. • Council Member Paterno stated there are places where the road curves because of the river or different areas where you come around a curve, and people have let their hedges grow all the way up to their mailbox and it is not on a corner. 23 Minutes -Village Council Workshop January 25, 2006 • Page 24 He asked if is there anything they can do. Ms. Harding stated they could do enforcement on that also. She stated their first approach was to get their line of sight on the corner. She stated the next approach is to go into the rights of way and make sure there is nothing in the right of way higher than 2 '/Z feet. She stated some people are catching on and cutting their bushes down at their mailboxes; that is what we need to do so people. She stated as they see progress they begin to do it themselves, and those that fail to do it, they will notify them, so gradually this is all going to happen. She stated they are just looking to make safer streets and sidewalks. Vice-Mayor Watkins stated this is a common sense thing for everybody's safety. Ms. Harding stated nobody ever objects. She stated they had a big line of sight campaign down in Key West and no one objected. Ms. Harding suggested addressing a couple of other things. She stated they are addressing mezzanines, not withstanding building code. Council Member Genco asked what Page she was on. Ms. Harding stated Page 8, item d. She stated as a building official she wanted to say the mezzanine has a specific legal definition in the building codes; if they build a me7~anine according to the area permitted and provide the stairways; she did not think they should be addressing the me7~as~e at all in anything other than a mezzanine; it should not be counted as a floor. She stated what she would like to see is this taken out, because it is contrary to the building code, and you are limiting artistic creativity by having someone not be able to do some type of atrium • entrance with a mezzanine that is perfectly legal under the building code. She stated if you call that a story, they are going to want to capitalize on that space. She stated they are not going to be overly creative and you worry about the height of the fast floor, the appearance and all. She stated this is part of that appearance that someone can do a mezzanine with usable space on it that complies with the building codes and have the height and area that they want for dramatic perception. She reiterated she does not think they should call a mezzanine, a story; otherwise it is going to become a floor. She felt they would never have any me~~anines. Council Member Genco asked since they have taken out the height limitation on the stories, have they not really addressed that issue. Ms. Harding stated no, if you are calling a mezzanine a floor that is one of the four floors they are permitted so they are not going to develop it as a mezzanine and artistic feature. She stated they would make it one slab and get as much usable space out of it as possible. Consensus of Council was to eliminate it. Council Member Paterno asked what she was calling a mezzanine. Ms. Harding stated a mezzanine is a balcony. Council Member Paterno stated it would be off the second floor. Ms. Harding stated no, the first floor could have a balcony at the ceiling height and that is the creative part the architect uses; you walk into a lobby and you see those wonderfully decorated balconies and it is allowed in the codes which are basically restricted by fire, how to protect it, and access to it, so if you call a me~~arLn_e a floor you will not have any more me7~anines in Tequesta. Council Member Paterno asked if the whole second floor is a me7~anine. Ms. Harding stated the whole second floor could not be a mezzanine. Fire Chief James Weinand stated it is less than 50% of the floor area. • Council Member Paterno stated as an open lobby, but that would be on the floor so it would count as a floor. Ms. Harding stated what they are doing here is counting it as a floor; a me~~,anine should not count as a floor in the building codes if it is under a certain area and the area is determined by fire safety. 24 Minutes -Village Council Workshop January 25, 2006 • Page 25 Vice-Mayor Watkins reiterated they should not conflict with building codes. Attorney Hawkins stated they should not conflict, but if you have a cap of fifty feet or up to seventy feet in the context of a PCD where you have created it; do you not want to limit what they can basically do. He stated if they want to reconfigure their building to allow for a me7~anine so be it; they cannot go above seventy feet. He stated she would be able to look at it and speak to it as part of the concept plan review. Council Member Genco asked if they could put a definition for mezzanine under definitions. Ms. Harding stated yes, they could just take the building code definition. Attorney Roselli stated these are all suggestions for you and these are what other jurisdictions have done. Council Member Genco suggested they put in a definition for what a me~~anine is. Ms. Harding stated they may decide three stories with a great mezzanine is what they want, the impact they want on the community, so they need to leave them that discretion. Ms. Harding reviewed the next item, (e) Parking garages. She stated in the current zoning the definition of floor has in it that parking garages are not considered a floor so they are getting into a little conflict here. Council Member Genco asked parking garages below natural ground elements. Ms. Harding agreed. Attorney Roselli stated she eliminated the definition of floor in this ordinance because the definition of floor and story and all that conflicted. She stated since they are going back, they are not talking about floors, they are talking about stories or overall height, you do not need floor in this • part of the code, so you are only talking in terms of height, story or overall height. Vice- Mayor Watkins asked if you have underground parking would that not count as a story. Ms. Harding stated they needed to make that clear; parking below grade is not a story, not a floor. Vice-Mayor Watkins stated they could have afour-story building and two stories of parking underground if they wanted. Ms. Harding stated yes, they can and they should want that because what they do not want is their open space clogged up with parking that never gets maintained. She explained the height of the building is determined by the average grade; she stated let them do the parking below ground. She stated it is a very expensive thing that they do and it is extremely beneficial to the community. Council Member Paterno reiterated that below would not count and if they go above it does count. Mayor Humpage stated yes. Ms. Harding felt no one would go above. Attorney Hawkins wanted to make sure everyone was clear. He asked if you had atwo- story garage, where you have two level garage below ground, and 40% of your below grade structure is being used for storage, no problem right? Vice-Mayor Watkins stated it is below ground. Council Member Paterno stated he saw something in there. Mayor Humpage stated you still have the height restriction. Attorney Hawkins stated you covered it on the above ground mass. Vice-Mayor Watkins stated the storage is really important to the marketability of these units, and it is below ground so you are not going to see it from the street. Attorney Hawkins stated he knows some people on Council feel strongly about it. Vice-Mayor Watkins stated that is a good point to bring up. Attorney Roselli stated you do not want to have commercial uses down on the bottom. Vice- Mayor Watkins stated if you had storage they could put their bikes or their luggage. Ms. i Harding stated yes, it is an accessory to the use. Attorney Hawkins stated storage is associated with individual owners. 25 Minutes -Village Council Workshop January 25, 2006 • Page 26 Council Member Paterno asked them to go back to item 3, which says in reference to basements, which is not really what they are looking for, storage basement. He commented he does not want to see the commercial people using it as something that it is not intended for. He knows that some underground you have the pazking spot and a little storage in front of it. Vice-Mayor Watkins stated for individual use. Attorney Roselli stated not for commercial storage. Council Member Paterno stated not for commercial but you do not see all storage bins underneath; it is just storage in their individual pazking azea. Attorney Hawkins stated if you have a retailer who is dealing with carpets, or something, he is going to need some place to store and he ought to be entitled to store on the property; that would encourage that development. Vice-Mayor Watkins stated based upon the square footage of his unit. Council Member Genco suggested why don't they limit the amount of storage in the subterranean structure based upon the squaze footage. Council Member Paterno stated the other thing about that is the underground has to be under the building to be considered underground pazking. Ms. Hazding commented below grade. Council Member Paterno stated it cannot be bigger than the building's footprint. Attorney Roselli agreed. Council Member Paterno stated as soon as you get the storage in, they would start putting in underground parking in order to make it all storage underneath to get two more floors. Ms. Harding stated architecturally she did not think they are not going to see any • structure like that. Council Member Genco felt they needed to limit the amount of storage. Attorney Roselli stated it would probably be limited based on the uses and mix of the building and the pazking needs. Vice-Mayor Watkins asked if it could be tied to the square footage of the individual units. Attorney Roselli stated if it is part residential and each one gets assigned one or two places, then what is left is for commercial and there may not be much left. Ms. Harding stated in the Development Review there is a required pazking space for each type of tenant. She stated they would see that all those tenants would get adequate pazking they aze supposed to have that they would have had above grade. She stated they could not make it all storage and market it that way; they have to provide adequate pazking for the site under that building if that is what they aze doing. She stated if there is any extra space it is not going to be much; first comes the parking, then comes any accessory storage. Council Member Paterno stated what could ultimately happen is that they could have underground storage for all the units pazking outside. Ms. Hazding stated no, if they aze going to do underground parking. Council Member Paterno stated it was a scenario. Ms. Harding stated that would be a basement/storage and that is different. Attorney Hawkins stated a PCD approval would require the subterranean structure to accommodate required pazking and required storage; that would be your approval. Council Member Paterno stated he did not want to see it become underground storage and pazking outside; the idea of being underground is to get the parking there. Ms. Hazding stated they aze calling it underground pazking, and they have to accommodate all of their needs underground. Attorney Hawkins asked whether the parking garage concept requires a ratio to units • above ground so by design it can only be a certain size. Ms. Harding stated yes, if they are providing for that site, whatever the required parking is. 26 Minutes -Village Council Workshop January 25, 2006 • Page 27 Attorney Hawkins stated that by design they are only permitted to build a subterranean structure for parking or whatever that is in ratio to accommodate the above ground living space, so they could not build a massive garage floor, renting out spaces. Council Member Paterno stated no, but they could build a garage and still hold a whole floor of storage besides. Attorney Hawkins questioned if he wanted that. Council Member Paterno stated, no, he did not want them to build one floor of all storage for the people upstairs and still park half the cars outside because they ran out of storage. Council Member Genco stated why don't they just limit storage to 10 or 15% of any underground space. Mayor Humpage stated he thought they could do that in the review; he said they could say you cannot just throw all of this above ground parking out there because they want storage areas. Vice-Mayor Watkins stated it is expensive to do all that underground; she cannot imagine a developer wanting to spend the money to do a whole floor of warehouse underground. Ms. Harding stated Council would have the ultimate review. Attorney Hawkins stated to preserve the character of the development your real estate value is going to climb. Consensus of Council agreed on Page 3 to tighten up the language regarding basements. Ms. Harding stated the other comment she had dealt with stories. She stated the basement should not be considered a story, it is below grade; anything below grade, be it basement, parking area, should not be considered a story. She stated in the current • ordinance it is a story and what she did was take it out and everyone found it in the definitions and that has to be clear. She stated now they have permitted parking and storage below grade, basement below grade and anything below grade does not affect the height of the structure. Council Member Genco suggested they needed to add to that, that it should not be considered a part of the overall building height; she stated they needed to refine that because the language was inconsistent. She questioned the four feet six inches above grade, would that count towards the building height. Mayor Humpage stated yes, the 70 feet. Ms. Harding asked if Attorney Roselli got that from the building codes. Attorney Roselli stated it is existing language in the code. Council Member Genco stated that whole thing needed to get cleaned up. Attorney Roselli stated if you say four feet six inches above grade you are saying that should be counted toward a story and she agreed with that. She stated that sometimes basements do stick up so she is not sure if they want to mess with it. Council Member Genco stated she felt it should be counted. Attorney Roselli agreed, stating any part of a basement that is above grade gets counted. Council Member Genco stated basements, which were a story, would not count toward the total stories above grade. Mayor Humpage stated if the basement or parking garage does come above grade, it counts towards the building height. Council Member Genco agreed, stating it is all a question of whether it is above grade, which they tightened up in the other section, they just need to tighten it up in this section. Attorney Hawkins stated this workshop has gone exceptionally well, because this is democracy at its best, they clearly know what their interest is; what the Village Manager and himself talked about was that Attorney Roselli • would craft a new ordinance addressing their concerns and bring for first reading at the February meeting. 27 Minutes -Village Council Workshop January 25, 2006 • Page 28 Council Member Genco asked for that a week ahead of time. Council Member Paterno wanted to bring something up that may be controversial on Page 10, item 4, and is to be a part of a PCD, the adult congregate living facility. He stated the only reason he is bringing it up is if they have more in their community, and he is all for it, is if they can get people to start building these; he stated it really draws on their fire department and their police efforts and it really draws on the use. Mayor Humpage stated they could require them to assist them; if they want to put in another one then Council can say they need another ambulance and two more firefighters. Council Member Genco stated you cannot forget the development they already have on Village Boulevard was all being adult living facility. Council Member Paterno stated that 25% of the calls go to the nursing homes and 50% of the commercial go to the nursing homes. Attorney Roselli asked if they wanted to delete that as a permitted use. Council Member Paterno stated if it was a possibility if they could do it, so they do not end up with just high-rises and taxing their infrastructure. Mayor Humpage stated they can require them to look at it with them but the fire department is not equipped for their facility, so do they want to contribute to the fire department being expanded, they are good with it. Council Member Genco stated if they get to that point, yes but they looked at how many units and rid of units so they are actually going to be better off now with this new development that is coming now than they were before. Council Member Paterno stated yes, but the system is still statistically getting hit this hard. • Vice-Mayor Watkins asked what is available that could be converted into that use. Council Member Paterno mentioned PCD and above grade adult living facility. Vice- Mayor Watkins stated as PCD it still has to come to them for approval. Mayor Humpage agreed. Council Member Genco stated they have to address this in the conceptual. Chief Weinand stated they might want to address their concerns on the impact fees; you make the impact fees so high for an adult congregate living facility it may defray from putting them in. Council Member Genco stated they really needed to revise most of their impact fees, and that is another workshop they might want to have. Council Member Paterno stated he just wanted to bring it up. Council Member Genco agreed about the impact fees and she did not know if that was one of the workshop items but they definitely needed to evaluate that soon. Village Manager Couzzo stated all the departments are currently evaluating their fee structures. Mayor Humpage commented he wanted to bring up one more issue on Page 15, Section 78-282. He read "chimneys, water tanks, elevator lofts, church spires, flagpoles, parapet walls and turrets may be erected above the height limits established by this chapter." He stated now you are going to find aseventy-foot building with the fourteen-foot turrets on top. Council Member Genco stated they did this with the Village hall. Mayor Humpage stated yes, but they are not at seventy feet. Council Member Paterno stated they are only one story. Council Member Genco stated it is an architectural feature that makes the building aesthetic and she thought this was something that you address when you do a building or site plan review. Attorney Hawkins stated you could choose not to approve • it. Vice-Mayor Watkins stated she did not want afifty-foot building with aflat-topped roof. Ms. Harding stated you could limit it at the Development Review Committee (DRC) level, saying the turret is too high. 28 Minutes -Village Council Workshop January 25, 2006 Page 29 Mayor Humpage stated he does not want to see another building coming in with a big turret. Vice-Mayor Watkins stated she would not want atwenty-foot turret either but she would like to see something that looks pretty on a fifty-foot building. Council Member Genco stated she thought it lends to the aesthetic complexion of the building. Attorney Hawkins stated you could also use turrets to hide some mechanical structures. Council Member Paterno stated he liked the idea that if they want to start using some of that architectural design they can stagger floors and put it on top but they do not need a big box that is 70 feet and is square, and put four cones on top and say it is architectural. Vice-Mayor Watkins stated if they bring you something that is actually very pretty she would have no problem entertaining it. Mayor Humpage stated he just wanted the developers to know that they are going to take a look at that; they are not going to pick up an extra twenty feet because you make Moorish towers. Council Member Paterno suggested why not exempt them, and if they do allow it they have to show them proof. Vice-Mayor Watkins stated they have the conceptual. Village Manager Couzzo stated they consider language to the effect where in no instance it will exceed 15% of the maximum building height so if you have a seven story building you cannot go over 10 %s or 11 feet. Attorney Roselli stated that would be for any architectural feature. Village Manager Couzzo stated they would have limitations. Vice- Mayor Watkins suggested put a limit on it, but do not eliminate it. Mayor Humpage asked Council if they were okay with that. He stated it is a special exception so it has to meet then approval but can they do something m an effort to keep it down, like it was suggested 15% of the building height. Council Member Genco stated they already hedged it by using the word `may', which is what the word "may" means. Mayor Humpage stated it does not say that on Page 15, it says `shall not be'. Village Manager Couzzo stated it says, "may" but that is only in a PCD; in a C-2 that may not come to you for a special exception. He stated you might want to have some specific guidelines that it does not exceed a certain percentage of the building height. Mayor Humpage stated that was true but what happens if it is straight C-2, and is 50 feet. Council Member Genco asked if `may' was sufficient. Mayor Humpage stated straight commercial, they are at 4 stories/50 feet and they put atwenty-foot turret on top of that building. Council Member Genco asked if it was only under the PCD section. Vice- Mayor Watkins stated it was too expensive to build. Council Member Genco stated it is only under the PCD section. Attorney Roselli stated it is under supplementary district regulations. Council Member Genco stated she would just leave it alone, it addressed the issue, and they have the discretion. Council Member Paterno stated how do they address this, a straight C-2 commercial building. Attorney Roselli stated Section 78-282 applies to all district regulations. Village Manager Couzzo asked how they would defend the `may' at a staff level, at DRC. Mayor Humpage added in a straight C-2, it does not come in a PCD. Village • Manager Couzzo asked what the criteria would be if you have a four story building and the guy wants to put in a twenty-foot turret. Council Member Genco stated they already said it would come to them for a conceptual for C-2. 29 Minutes -Village Council Workshop January 25, 2006 • Page 30 Mayor Humpage stated no, not if it is C-2 at 50 feet, you have no say. Village Manager Couzzo stated they said they were going to bring it conceptually, all the commercial, however he did not know if you are going to have a mechanism for denial because he thought it was vague enough; he stated they are just bringing it up for their consideration. Council Member Genco stated right now they are allowed to put in an air conditioner up on top of a roof, which is not a problem. She stated if they want to put a screen around that are they going to call that a turret. She stated they have to use common sense but not be so restricted. Vice-Mayor Watkins stated let them create something and then let Council tell them they do not like it. Mayor Humpage had only one concern in C-2 at fifty feet. For example, he stated, he builds this building and calls it Trump Tower, and on top of the fifty feet he has an elevator that is eight feet high but he puts afifteen-foot turret over it. Council Member Genco stated this applies to every C-2, C-3, and they already said `may'. Village Manager Couzzo stated you have to have something to back up your decision for denial otherwise there is going to be a challenge to your `may' being arbitrary. He stated Attorney Roselli did one in Boca where on a building they put a spire and they put a communication tower inside to generate the revenue for it and the tower goes up thirty or forty feet and if there is no mechanism to control it, you are right in that it says `may' and you may have the discretion, but when you get the people who are going to challenge it and sue us, and say we have no basis for denial, at this point when you are crafting it if you want to do it fine; if you want to leave it as `may' that is fine but it could be challenged. Council Member Genco stated `may' gives them the discretion. Mayor Humpage asked if they put `may' at the discretion of Village Council and then it absolutely says that they are the discretionary. Council Member Genco stated frankly the whole code is at their discretion. Mayor Humpage stated the developer knows coming in, which is all he cares about. He clarified that they are throwing that in there, `may' at the discretion of the Village Council which says it is up to them, not the attorneys; even though they have that discretion at least the developer reads it, and he does not say to his attorney, it says `may' or during the site plan approval process. Village Manager Couzzo agreed they would put that in. III. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Vice-Mayor Watkins moved to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Council Member Paterno; motion passed 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 a.m. r. i (' Gwen Carlisle Village Clerk 30