Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Workshop_09/15/2005MINUTES OF THE • VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA VILLAGE COUNCIL WORKSHOP THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Village of Tequesta Village Council held a Village Council Workshop meeting at the Tequesta Recreation Center, 399 Seabrook Road, Tequesta, Florida, on Thursday, September 15, 2005. The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Humpage. A roll call was taken by Village Clerk Gwen Carlisle. Council Members present were: Mayor Jim Humpage, Vice Mayor Pat Watkins, Councilmember Geraldine Genco, and Councilmember Tom Paterno. Councihnember Edward D. Resnik was absent due to illness. Also in attendance were Village Attorney Scott Hawkins, Attorney Karen Roselli, Village Manager Michael R. Couzzo, Jr., Village Clerk Gwen Carlisle, and Department Heads. II. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA MOTION: Vice Mayor Watkins moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Conncilmember Genco seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4- 0vote. • III. DISCUSSION OF FIRE STATION #11 Mayor Humpage announced that the Village had received a letter from Fire Chief Brice, Palm Beach County Fire Rescue, requesting renewal of the lease they had with the Village of Fire Station #11 on Seabrook Road for another three years. The lease would expire June 30, 2006. Fire Chief Weinand confirmed that 75% of the calls received by Station # 1 were medical, which was typical, and he was unsure of their call volume. Mayor Humpage noted that this subject was for ' discussion only and no action would be taken on this tonight. Chief Weinand indicated he could work with this either way-if the Council decided to renew the lease that was fine; if they decided not to renew the lease he could work with the county that way. Chief Weinand requested that no matter what the Village Council decided, that they lock the County into an agreement with the Village that provided mutual aid to the Village at no cost. Councilmember Genco asked if this would be outside of the mutual aid agreement the Village akeady had with the county. Fire Chief Weinand stated, that was correct, and he thought it would be in the Village's best interests to have something a little bit more concrete, and he would include an automatic aid agreement for Village of Tequesta, and an initial first response agreement. Not a closest unit response, which was completely separate. This would help everyone • in the Village on their fire insurance rates. "Chief Weinand you have a station, MINUTES OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA VILLAGE COUNCIL WORKSHOP SEPTEMBER 15, 2005 • PAGE 2 even if it's not your station, within 5 miles of your city that you have an automatic aid agreement with, ISO considers it your station, so it is very important when going for a rate change that that station be locked into that agreement " Councihnember Genco asked if Chief Weinand would work with the Village Attorney to come up with proposed language to cover those items. Chief Weinand agreed. Chief Weinand explained that there was a memorandum of understanding negotiated by the Chiefs that went with the current mutual aid agreement, and if negotiations broke down on their level it would all go away; this would solidify the way the Village was going to do business with the county. This would be an additional agreement to go with the lease agreement and would take it out of the Chiefs' hands and move it to a higher level. Vice Mayor Watkins noted number 18 of the old lease, which was the option to renew, stated that the District must have given the right to renew. Chief Weinand responded both parties had to agree to renew. The Village Attorney commented that could be written more clearly. Vice Mayor Watkins commented she had spoken to County Commissioner Karen Marcus' assistant and learned the County was in favor because they understood Tequesta didn't want to participate, and if they did not renew the lease there would be no additional charge to the County. The Vice Mayor asked if the Village did not renew and it became Tequesta's responsibility, if Tequesta would be entitled to some benefit Councihnember Genco commented what they paid for the services on a millage rate basis was less than Village residents ended up paying, so the Village would be providing the service to them for less than they had to charge their own residents, and perhaps a surtax could be charged. Councihnember Paterno commented the lease did not have to be renewed until June of next year, and suggested discussions with legal counsel and staff, and the County Commissioner regarding other things that would come into this, such as annexation, and expressed his opinion that discussions were needed at that level to work this out Village Manager Couzzo clarified the land belonged to the Village but the building did not. The Village Manager explained for the benefit of the audience that this was along-term lease that the Village entered into 30 years ago and there was a question. what to do with the lease at this time. The County had indicated they would close operation at that station. There had been discussion with the county Fire Chief regarding if Tequesta did not renew the lease and it became Tequesta's operation, and there would be a charge for that, so the Council must consider Tequesta's residents paying for that service in the unincorporated area, and there were other Questions such as could the county charge residents in the unincorporated area and not provide the service. Councilmember Genco noted in other situations like this discussed by the League of Cities, the municipalities were able to get the funds, and what they charged for fire rescue was lower than the Village's cost. The Mayor commented the Village would not have to accept that number. Councilmember Paterno commented that MINUTES OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA VILLAGE COUNCIL WORKSHOP SEPTEMBER 15, 2005 PAGE 3 was looked at as a fire fee, but it was actually a supplemented fire fee, and the money came out of the general fund to pay this. Chief Weinand clarified that the unincorporated area was assessed a fee to pay for this. Councilmember Paterno commented that did not cover all the fire expenses, so the rest came out of the general fund, so there was actually more money being spent than the fee plus the residents of Tequesta were actually paying for it. Mayor Humpage commented that did not mean the Village Council had to accept that millage as accurate, and could use a different rate in negotiations. Councilmember Genco commented there were a lot of things she asked for in February of this year that related to this in the area of long-range planning, and if you looked at the monthly Manager's report you would see that the mutual aid agreement resulted in roughly a 50% increase to the number of calls, time spent on maintenance and public service-everything was reduced in order to supplement and provide the services to the areas not usually serviced, and the net result on number of calls and responses was 50% higher. So if the Village took over an area equal to the size of Station 11 that was a 50% or more increase in the Village's Fire Safety Department, which was huge, and had not been planned for, and needed to be looked at before making decisions on leases. Chief Weinand suggested going back to the Village Manager's report for June and July to see two full months compared to the year before, but advised there were probably also a few calls due to increased volume in the Village. He could determine the number of calls made for the county during that time period. Councilmember Paterno agreed with Councilmember Genco regarding the fees, but stated he had interests in other areas, and this would affect the residents in a lot of different ways, which should be kept in mind, and he would like the Council to take their time in making this decision. The Mayor comme~ed he was sure the county wanted it done right away so they could plan., but that did not mean the Village had to hurry. Chief Weinand reported part of the general taxation paid for dispatch services now, and the county was provided dispatch service at no cost, so the Village was getting a little return on that money. Councihnember Genco stated she had a legal question regarding paragraphs 17 and 19, one was talking about removal or demolition, which she took to mean the building would either revert to the Village or be demolished, and she did not understand why there was another separate paragraph on annexation. The Village Attorney explained that at the tune this was crafted thirty years ago, the property may have been outside the Village, and therefore that language was no longer connected to this document. Regarding paragraph 17, the Village Attorney stated he read it the same way as Councilmember Genco-that the building would either revert to the lessee or be demolished. Courieihnember Genco agreed with Mr. Paterno that more information was needed. 1 ICJ MINUTES OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA VILLAGE COUNCIL WORKSHOP SEPTEMBER 15, 2005 • PAGE 4 Boazd member Paterno questioned paragraph 22~ooperation by the Village Police Department which seemed to him that when this began they had been looking for the Village to police the area. Mayor Humpage commented that back then the only dispatch was the police. Attorney Hawkins commented that was what it meant to him. Councilmember Paterno commented the Village Council needed to make sure the police services were not included. Councilmember Genco recommended asking the County to provide the proposed draft and allow Attorney Hawkins to look at it and work with the Fire Chief to add the other clauses, and when they had a proposed draft and some long-term planning and costs, etc., then to bring it back to Village Council. By the county providing a draft of what they would like, that would save negotiating time. Fire Chief Weinand noted the county had proposed a 5-year term and he had countered with trying 3 years first. Councilmember Genco commented she thought it all depended on cost efficiency. Fire Chief Weinand thought the county really wanted to know if the Village was interested in releasing the land to them. Mayor Humpage commented the county was the one wanting the land, so they needed to come up with a document and then let the Village take that document and make changes. Village Manager Couzzo understood their intent was to extend the term of the lease to either 3 of 5 years with the existing terms and conditions, which • was where the Village had a problem since they were not sure those conditions were any longer in the best interests of the Village. Councihnember Genco advised that the Village Attorney had pointed out that this document was so archaic and out-of--date she did not think the county would be willing to sign an identical document, and they probably already had boilerplate language they had used with other municipalities. Consensus was to put the burden on the county to provide an up-to-date document. Village Manager Couzzo asked if the Council wanted that point expressed to the-that it was not to be the same type of dollaz- per-year agreement. Councihnember Genco responded she did not think it was the money because the Village came out ahead financially right now by the county having this station open and servicing the county residents. Councihnember Paterno commented that was their choice--they could service those county residents from a farther distance rather than the Village doing it, and there were many different options. Mayor Humpage asked what would happen to the closest responder under the mutual aid agreement. Fire Chief Weinand responded that the Village did not have a closest responder agreement with Palm Beach County. The Village had an initial response assignment, the difference was if they had a structure fire in their azea the Village would run automatically with them, and vice versa. A closest response agreement would be, since our unit is closest to the call, we would go, and if the Village did not enter into such an agreement and Station 11 was closed, then Station 18 at Burt Reynolds Park would have to service Bermuda Terrace. Councilmember Genco stated if a county property was burning right next to a MINUTES OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA VILLAGE COUNCIL WORKSHOP SEPTEMBER 15, 2005 PAGE 5 Village property, you would want it taken care of as soon as possible, and although she agreed with Councilmember Paterno, she thought there was a lot of incentive to evaluate the long-term impact of having the station there or not there. Councilmember Paterno stated he agreed, but they needed to do a lot more than in the past and not take the Village for granted and not for them to tell the Village what to do, but the other way azound. Councilmember Genco asked if there were other things Councilmember Paterno would like to see in the agreement. Councilmember Paterno responded there were a lot of issues, other things they could help the Village with, monetarily, to make it even better for the community. Fire Chief Weinand clarified that there was no advantage to go with their purchasing agreements. Village Manager Couzzo summarized that the Village could work with the county, and requested a draft agreement to present to the Council with comparisons of June and July runs this year and a year ago, and the chazges for services that the county had against their assessed valuations. Councilmember Paterno requested also the cost to have the fire department per household. Councilmember Genco suggested cost per residential or commercial unit. Price per $100,000 home. Councilmember Paterno commented also 10% processing fees. Village Manager Couzzo commented one of the concepts was very much • like what the county did for municipalities such as Jupiter, where they combined fire rescue service and charged a fee to do that. If the situation was thrust upon the Village, there should be compensation for that. Those rates would be provided. Village Manager Couzzo agreed to get the county to draft the lease. IV. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ISSUES Village Attorney Hawkins commented 6-8 months ago the Village Council held a workshop where they discussed a number of zoning and chazter-related issues, and issues Staff was then reviewing. At the August meeting questions had been raised regarding growth management issues in question and the integrity of the C2 zoning category. At that time, the Village Council had requested this workshop to continue that discussion, relating to work ongoing by staff since the beginning of the year. Tonight's discussion was to be confined to growth management issues in the context of the C2 zoning category and he cautioned the Village Council not to discuss a particulaz project or a particulaz application; that discussion should be general in nature, and be limited to Council only. Village Attorney Hawkins reminded Council that from time to time they had requested staff to look at issues regarding zoning, which they had done, and it was unfortunate there was not a senior staff person from this department to make a presentation tonight, but it was his understanding the recruiting was ongoing and the position was expected to be filled soon. Again, the Village Attorney cautioned to keep the discussion general and not to focus on a particular project. MINUTES OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA VILLAGE COUNCIL WORKSHOP SEPTEMBER 15, 2005 PAGE 6 Councilmember Genco commented she had missed the August meeting. Mayor Humpage advised there had been conversation about C2 zoning and what the code required, and the Council was all trying to get on the same page regarding C2 zoning. Mayor Humpage commented it was interesting that one of the backups tonight showed an item that was contradictory in the Village ordinances, and it seemed to be the posture of this Council that the Council was really adamant about staying within the guidelines of the ordinances as written. Attorney Hawkins advised the Council was not confined to C2. Councihnember Genco indicated she did not get the backup regarding annexation. Councilmember Paterno commented in reference to 78-177, the first paragraph in reference to commercial C2: the district will serve the community at large and provide a mixture of convenient goods and services that offer a greater variety of uses than permitted in a neighborhood level. Councilmember Paterno stated he had a concern about the PCD designation, that his belief was this was a C2 area, a commercial area, and they should keep that in mind, whatever they did in this area in reference to PCD's. He felt the last sentence was very important to the community and to the way the Village was organized. Councihnember Genco commented that was re-stated several places in the zoning regulations, so she thought that was the underlying basis for the entire Section 78. Councilmember Genco stated she was confused because she was stepping into the middle of this right now, about the purpose of the discussion tonight, if it was relative heights or land use. Mayor Humpage advised it could be about anything. Village Attorney Hawkins advised she was not stepping into the middle of anything; there had not been a discussion. Councilmember Genco stated she did not get the a-mail and the last time the Council talked about this, she was talking about annexation and nobody corrected her, so she didn't know. Councihnember Genco stated she was trying to understand. Mayor Humpage commented it could be height or use. Councilmember Genco stated, but the Council was focusing on C2, not C3, not the PUD, not the MSDU. Mayor Humpage stated it could be any of them. Councihnember Paterno stated what he was speaking to now was the commercial C2, and how it applies to the PCD. Attorney Hawkins clarified for benefit of Councilmember Genco that this popped up in August; questions were raised about growth management, how the Village was growing, and led to discussion about the code in general, and a decision was made to have a workshop. That was what had occurred and this was a very broad forum and was not confined to annexation. Councilmember Genco stated she was trying to figure out what her role here was tonight and if she could not make a contribution she might as well leave; she had not received the a-mail until just now and it was 4 pages. Mayor Humpage indicated that was from Attorney Roselli, and was some observations she had made when she reviewed that particular section. 1J MINUTES OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA VILLAGE COUNCIL WORKSHOP SEPTEMBER 15, 2005 • PAGE 7 Attorney Roselli commented as part of the staff review, as P&Z attorney, this and other provisions of the code had come to her attention. And in looking at, in this case, the handout the Council had dealing with the C2 and the PCD regulations- those were points in the code that she had looked at and found to be problematic-vague, contradictory, or not expressing the intent of the Village Council and how a PCD was supposed to operate. Attorney Roselli advised that the PCD was a special exception in a C2 district, a predominately commercial district; the PCD allowed a mixture of uses, which could be a residentiaUcommercial mix. The code did not articulate how that mix was to be defined. It did say 80% commerciaUresidential mix, and 20% open space requirement. Of that 80% that could be a commercial/residential mix, it did not say 40/40 or 60/20 or whatever, but with the intent being that it was predominately commercial, it seemed it might need to be clarified in the code, because if it were 60% residential and 20% commercial that would really not be fulfilling the intent of the district. That would be something the Council might want to consider in defining how the residentiaUcommercial mix occurs, if they did have a mixed use like that. Attorney Roselli advised that another issue was the height. C2 zoning regulations as she read them did not spell out the height in writing. There was a table, which said that it could be up to 5 stories or 70 feet, and if you looked at the PCD regulations, which was a special exception, it said . the height regulation was what was allowed in C2, but in the discretion of Council it could be increased to a height that was less than what was allowed in the C2. Attorney Roselli stated that needed to be resolved. If you looked at that section, it seemed to imply that the C2 height regulations should be something less than the 4 stories, 50 feet, because it was contemplating an increase from something. Councilmember Genco commented that where you had to look at the table was not seamless, it was not spelled out, and she agreed 100% with Attorney Roselli. Councihnember Genco commented she understood that when the code was re- written, the intent was in the mixed use district, through the PCD and the combination of commercial and residential, to give Council the largest amount of flexibility to allow Council to look at the current needs of the community and make determinations based on the need. Councilmember Genco expressed her belief that was one reason why the language was as undefined as it was, but if you looked at the zoning rules and what the local planning agency was empowered to do, you understood that the planning board was given that flexibility to evaluate community needs. Councihnember Genco commented when she looked at the errors pointed out by Attorney Roselli regarding height, etc., there were two or three areas that needed to be tightened up on heights, to make each section read in accordance with the prior section, but all in all the code really gave the flexibility that she believed the Council wanted to maintain. Attorney Roselli indicated she was sorry Councilmember Genco had not had a • chance to go through her comments, and there was a section in the PCD • MINUTES OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA VILLAGE COUNCIL WORKSHOP SEPTEMBER 15, 2005 PAGE 8 regulations addressing authority of the Village Council to exercise its discretion in deciding whether to increase building height. Attorney Roselli stated she had a problem with that in the sense that there really were no articulated standards for exercise of discretion. Some objective standards were needed to be written into the code make that decision. Attorney Roselli stated her opinion that was a weakness in the current code, because that was a frequent legal challenge in land use law where discretion was being exercised and there were no objective standards. There was a paragraph in the PCD in 78-256 that did authorize Council to modify the regulations for the PCD provided the intent and spirit of the zoning code was complied with in the development of a PCD. Attorney Roselli commented she did not see how you could modify the regulations without giving somebody a variance or a special exception unless you modified the ordinance. You could not be giving a benefit to one applicant just because you thought it would effectuate the zoning code. She saw this as a problem. Councilmember Genco asked what Attorney Roselli meant by use of the term "objective" versus "subjective". Attorney Roselli responded variance criteria consisted of concrete things and those were the type of criteria needed. Whenever a governing body was allowed to exercise discretion, there should be some guidelines so that the applicant knew what they were being evaluated against. . Councilmember Genco stated she thought it gave the Council subjective criteria whereby they would look at the needs of the community versus those of the proposed subject property, and it appeared to her when she read the regulations that what it did was objective. It said you could have the discretion to go to the current zoning level, or to this if you felt it met the subjective needs of the community. Therefore, it was objective. It said you could use 3 stories throughout C2, however, if you felt the community needed a hospital and that served the greater purpose, you were allowed to go to 5 stories. Attorney Roselli agreed that was what the code said, but was suggesting to see whether there was a need to address these things in the code, some were inconsistent, and staff could bring an ordinance which the Council could approve or not. Other things were not addressed and the Council needed to decide if they wanted to address them, such as the percentage mix, how floors were calculated--did you count basements, garages, or me~~nines, etc. Councilmember Paterno added, how high could a floor be. Councilmember Paterno commented the PCD was supposed to be consistent with the needs of the Village, so whatever was developed had to be for the Village--not necessarily for this one particular place, and it should be more commercial than anything because the Village had such little commercial space that if it were not predominately commercial they were going to end up with no commercial. T'he intent of the commercial district C2 was to maintain commercial. The Village was giving people the option to do something a little bit different, but the integrity of the commercial district was to be maintained. Councilmember Paterno commented he thought Attorney Roselli MINUTES OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA VILLAGE COUNCIL WORKSHOP SEPTEMBER 15, 2005 • PAGE 9 was saying the Council should come up with some of these things and staff should work through them so petitioners would have some guidance. Attorney Hawkins read from Section 78-251, the purpose and intent of the PCD, the first and last sentences, and stated the PCD was the exception to C2, that there were. a number of inconsistencies, and for litigation the code was vague. Attorney Roselli commented the wording "pertinent living environment" meant to her that the use should be predominately commercial with a minor percentage of living environment that was pertinent to the commercial use. How to effectuate that balance was not provided for by such things as percentages. Attorney Roselli advised that if the Council consensus was there were inconsistent heights and the PCD regulations needed some work, then a declaration of zoning in progress was appropriate. Councilmember Genco stated she hated the zoning in progress process, and felt if it was made too specific the Council would lose flexibility because if an applicant came in who met the criteria they would cry that they had met the criteria, and she felt the Council needed to maintain flexibility to deal with the community and find out their needs. Vice Mayor Watkins stated the need today might not be the same as ten years from now, but she thought things that were ambiguous or not clearly defined should be corrected. Attorney Roselli commented the PCD was a special exception, not something that anybody was • entitled to by right, and all of the special exception criteria must be met, and then conditions could still be imposed on top of that. Councilmember Genco expressed her opinion that applicants were given the opportunity to plead their cause, but it was not an entitlement, and the conceptual process had been developed to allow applicants to present ideas without spending a fortune so that they could assess the probability of final approval and make changes if needed. Councilmember Paterno commented he believed Councilmember Genco's main point was that it should be a commercial area. Councilmember Genco responded, that was what it was zoned for, and mixed use, and PCD was an overlay. Councilmember Paterno recommended going through commercial to correct the inconsistencies, and at the same time state the intent of the area was commercial in C2 by a minimum percentage for commercial. Councilmember Genco expressed her opinion that automatically made the rest residential, and she did not want to tie her hands that way. Mayor Humpage referred to Section 78-256 where it said, specifically authorize the Village Council to modify the regulations of the PCD; it said that the C2 and PCD's provide for primarily commercial uses, so that the regulations in the code should be tailored to promote commercial uses and limit and regulate the percentage and amount of residential use in a PCD. Mayor Humpage noted that statement indicated the environment was to be commercial along with the PCD. Councilmember Genco commented, maybe it was understanding the emphasis of the code, not necessarily having to apply a . .percentage to it. Mayor Humpage noted that language indicated some of the property needed to be kept as commercial. Attorney Roselli commented if the ' MINUTES OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA VILLAGE COUNCIL WORKSHOP SEPTEMBER 15, 2005 • PAGE 10 intent was to keep it primarily commercial, then it could not be more residential. Mayor Humpage commented an azgument would be that an applicant could say his pazcel was 60/40, but the other pazcels were 30/70, so overall the C2 district is still commercial, so did Section 78-256 relate to C2, or to C2 and the properties within C2-was each property within C2 the same. Attorney Hawkins advised, look at the project as an integral part, look at the mixed uses within the context of the project that was coming within the PCD exception-you did not look at the commerciaUresidential ratio in C2, but at what was coming within the project. Councilmember Genco commented that Councilmember Paterno had already pointed out Council was supposed to look at whatever was occurring in adjacent properties when making the decision. Mayor Humpage commented that was what he was saying-was it the entire C2 district or was it the PCD. Councilmember Paterno commented there should be some number to make it commercial. Mayor Humpage asked, if the percentages were 75/25, was Councilmember Paterno talking the entire C2 district, to which Councilmember Paterno responded, no, just any PCD, and he was just using that number as anexample-that way you knew it was commercial. Councilmember Genco commented what Councilmember Paterno was saying was make the restriction only for the PCD district, which Councilmember Paterno confirmed, stating that the number would give everybody the understanding that it was commercial. Vice Mayor Watkins thought 75/25 • was too high. Councilmember Genco commented that meant something like in City Place where the bottom floor was commercial and the top 2 floors were residential could not happen here. Vice Mayor Watkins agreed, and stated she thought that was too limiting. Councilmember Paterno commented the emphasis in present code was saying, for the whole community, not just the individual PCD. Vice Mayor Watkins stated she understood, but asked him to think about Tequesta, an azea that could not grow exponentially, with limited commercial space, and last yeaz during the time she had gone around and talked to businesses, three were closing because of lack of Village support. Vice Mayor Watkins commented she did not want Council to put a mechanism in place that crippled the Village by demanding it be commercial when maybe the need was to have some residential. Councilmember Genco commented you needed residents to support the commercial, and good restaurants had failed, etc., because of the limited number of residents, and she felt it was important to maintain commercial. Vice Mayor Watkins commented that in the U.S. One azea she liked the idea of setting a minimum squaze footage for residential so the units would not be little cracker boxes that would diminish the azea, but she hesitated to put a mechanism in place that made it so highly commercial that it would be almost impossible to build something else. Mayor Humpage agreed with everyone's logic, and commented Council wanted to maintain the ability to make that call and not to get so restrictive that Council • had no latitude to move one way or the other. Councihnember Genco commented property might end up being so valuable that the shopping centers on U.S. One MINUTES OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA VILLAGE COUNCIL WORKSHOP SEPTEMBER 15, 2005 • PAGE 11 became tear-downs, and what could be put there-the Village did not want condos. Councilmember Paterno commented everyone had moved here because they loved the way the Village was, but the commercial needed a little help, and it was Council's and staff's responsibility to get positive information, bring people in to utilize the services, and he thought with Publix moving to the upper end you would see a lot more traffic going the whole length of U.S. One, and rejuvenation of the commercial district. Vice Mayor Watkins expressed concern what would happen to the traffic in the shopping center Publix was leaving. Councilmember Paterno cautioned, remember it did not have to be stores, it could be offices, it could be jobs, and a lot of things were going to change in this county in the next five years. Councilmember Paterno commented the Council should be long-term thinkers and not just short-time problem solvers. Attorney Roselli suggested as an alternative to the percentages, other municipalities had addressed the mix by stating, for example, the first two floors shall be commercial and then impose a height restriction, which left the remaining stories under the height restriction to be residential. There were different options to regulate this without establishing percentages, but a height restriction was needed. Councilmember Genco commented the height restriction should be a lot more up front than it was currently and that should be corrected as well as one or . two other inconsistencies. Councilmember Genco commented language should be added that elevations should always be shot from natural grade, with the natural grade defined in the code. Councilmember Genco commented she would like to see proposals of how Attorney Roselli recommended addressing the mix, but she personally would like to see flexibility. Council agreed a little latitude was needed. Attorney Hawkins commented the height was in the code, it just was not clear. Councilmember Paterno recommended square footage be defined in minimums so as not to end up with 800 square foot places; and how high or how low a floor could be needed to be clarified. Councilmember Genco proposed stating the total height of the building and the maximum number of floors. Councilmember Paterno noted all the things in Attorney Roselli's memo needed to be addressed in some fashion. Attorney Hawkins asked if it was consensus of Council to direct staff to continue this work to come up with proposed revisions to code for presentation to Council. Mayor Humpage commented he thought that needed to be done, but recommended another workshop first. Attorney Roselli advised it would also have to go to P&Z, so that needed to be considered when thinking of a timetable. Councilmember Paterno commented, zoning in progress would have to occur for this item only, for this to take place. Councilmember Genco stated she thought current code addressed the issues on the table, so she did not think zoning in progress was an issue, and the easiest way to manage this process was to get a red-lined copy of the proposed changes at the same time it went to Planning and • Zoning and that individual Councilmembers should take the time to read that and ' MINUTES OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA VILLAGE COUNCIL WORKSHOP SEPTEMBER 15, 2005 . PAGE 12 then hear the input from P&Z and Council before that red-lined version was taken any further. Attorney Roselli advised it was her opinion this should go to P&Z to notify the public it was in process, and for protection of the Village from a legal standpoint. Attorney Hawkins advised Council should state their intent as a consensus tonight. Councilmember Genco indicated she thought zoning in progress was a proposal to change the zoning. Attorney Roselli commented this was not a re-zoning, but it was changing the zoning regulations by clarifying the procedure. By directing staff to do this, the Council was saying they had zoning in progress occurring. Councilmember Genco commented she had thought of zoning in progress as when there was a material change to the zoning code, and this was just making the language a little simpler. Councilmember Paterno noted the Council was going to have to agree on square footage of a unit. Mayor Humpage commented also, on height and grade. Councilmember Genco then agreed. Attorney Roselli advised that zoning in progress was for the benefit of the public. Councilmember Genco stated she did not want to alarm people with that language. Attorney Hawkins recommended zoning in progress, and clarified that it would delay any applications in process. Attorney Roselli suggested 4 months for staff to try to get this done, and if Council could not agree on it, it would stay the same, so it was not necessarily committing to changing the zoning. It was telling the staff to i bring something back to Council to adjust the problems and what Council decided to keep or throw away was their decision. Attorney Hawkins urged Council to move forward on this if it was their consensus. Mayor Humpage called on Jack Horniman, the Village planner, for comments. Mr. Horniman advised he was one of the authors of the current code, which went back to when the U.S. One property was in the Dorner estate, and Council was trying all kinds of inducements to try to get development going and break up that tract. Direction from Council at that time was to develop regulations in both the residential and commercial zoning districts to open up a realm of possibilities. What came out of that was the planned residential development ordinance, which was a special exception in R2 district, and this PCD district. Also one of the requirements of a PCD was that a minimum of 20% had to be platted in recreation open space, and the remaining 80% could be in any combination of residential and commercial mix. The reason for doing this was to open a window for other development opportunities, and that was done in the mid-1980's and he thought the ordinance had been adopted in 1991. In regazd to the height issue, the conflict between the C2 being 5 stories, 70 feet, and the adopting ordinance being 4 stories and 50 feet, that had been a scrivener's error in transferring the information to the code of ordinance. The adopting ordinance actually read 6 stories, 84 feet. Mayor Humpage commented that Mr. Horniman's input was appreciated, and advised that no public comment was allowed tonight. • MINUTES OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA VILLAGE COUNCIL WORKSHOP SEPTEMBER 15, 2005 • PAGE 13 The meeting was recessed at 7:45 p.m., and reconvened at 7:48 p.m. Mayor Humpage commented it seemed to be consensus of Council to proceed to correct errors and to proceed with staff review of some of the issues the Council had considered-heights, what is finish grade, density issues, what makes up the residential unit, a couple of definitions to be corrected. Attorney Hawkins stated he was hearing consensus of Council to declare zoning in process fora 4-month duration. Attorney Roselli advised it would be effective as of tonight and at the end of 4 months could be renewed if more time was needed. Councilmember Genco requested ared-lined copy at the same time it went to P&Z and another red-lined copy incorporating P&Z changes, at which time another workshop could be held. Attorney Roselli advised that a resolution would be on the next Village Council meeting agenda to memorialize the fact that zoning in progress had been instituted tonight for 4 months duration and that it was limited to C2 and the PCD. III. ANY OTHER MATTERS There were no other matters to come before the Council. IV. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Vice Mayor Watkins, seconded by Councilmember Paterno, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 7:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted. ~-~ Gwen Carlisle Village Clerk