HomeMy WebLinkAboutHandouts_Planning and Zoning_Tab 03_07/07/2011 Tequesta Towers Appeal Request �•�� RECEIVED
r ` w �.
� �` LEWIS
`." ` JUL - 7 2011
!�'�"` LONG1v1AN &
� �- VILLAGE CLERKS OFFICE
�� WALKER � P.A.
; ; �, ;, .� , ,� ,, , , FILED: Village of Tequesta
Helping Shape Florida's Futnre'
Date: � ' � � � I
rme: �'(� a �- �,�
Reply To: West Palm Beach
SENT VIA ELECTROIVIC MAIL
July 7, 2011
Village of Tequesta
Lori McWilliams, Village Clerk
345 Tequesta Drive
Tequesta, FL 33469
Re: Site Plan Review Apptication for 400 Beach Road, Tequesta, FL
(Tequesta Towers)
Dear Mrs. McWilliams:
Please be advised that Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A., ("LLW") has been retained by
Cliveden Jupiter Island Condominium Association, Inc. and LaMar Condominium Association,
Inc., ("the Associations") to address Tequesta Tower's (the "Applicant") Site Plan Review
Application for 400 Beach Road Tequesta, Florida 33469. The Site Plan Review Application is
for the demolition of the current pool building and the expansion and reconstruction of a new
two (2) story pool and fitness building.
Currently, the Staff Report concludes that the Application complies with the Village of
Tequesta Land Developrnen�-Cede-�LBC"). Based-upon�he-determination that appli�ation
is in compliance with the LDC, and our review of the Application documents thus far, the
Associations hereby request an appeal of that determination, pursuant to the Village of
Tequesta's LDC Section 78-63. We received the Staff Report on July 6, 2011; therefore, our
request for appeal is timely. We provide the preliminary basis for our appeal herein. Please note
that our basis is not limited to all of the issues contained within this request, however, as we have
more time to review the Application package and its contents, we may have more issues to
include in the basis for appeal. We respectfully request that this appeal and the proposed Site
Plan Review Application be placed on the next available appropriate meeting agenda.
Helping Shape Florida's Future�
BRADENTON JACKSONVlLLE TALLAHASSEE WE57 PALM BEACH
1001 Third Avenue Wesc 245 Riverside Avenue 2600 Centenniai Place 515 North F agler Dnve
Suite b70 Suite 150 Suite 100 Suite i500
Bradenton, Flor�da 34205 Jacksonville, �lor da 32202 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 West Palm Beach, Florida 3340t
p�941-708-4040 • f�941-706-4024 p �4Q4-353-6410 • f 904-353 7bi9 p 850•222-5702 • f�850-224-9242 p�561 640-0820 • f�561-640-8202
www.11w-law.com
Y. FINDINGS OF THE STAFF REPORT
The Staff Report finds that in terms of code compliance for building height, "two-story
accessory building, Code: Max 2 stories or 20' measured from the average crest of the sand
dune line for main building or structure east of Beach Road, met Code Requirements." For the
reasons set forth below, this interpretation misses some key elements of the Village of
Tequesta's Code, namely, the disrinction between accessory buildings or structures and main
buildings or structures in relarion to the Table Inset contained within Section 78-143. Read in its
proper context, the requirement to measure the height from the average crest of the height of the
sand dune only applies to main buildings or structures and not accessory buildings or structures.
As such, the Application does not meet the LDC building height reyuirements because the Code
only allows two stories (or 20') for accessory structures and the existing pool house is already
two stories since it is located above the Tequesta Towers parking garage.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Property own�rs are entitled to rely upon clear language of municigal ordinances. Nash
v. Fort Lauderdale Bd. of Adjustment, 462 So.2d 88 (Fla.4th DCA, 1985). Generally, to the
interpretation given a statute or ordinance by the agency responsible for its administration has
deference; that deference is not absolute, however, when the agency's construction of a statute
amounts to an unreasonable interpretation, or is clearly eaoneous, it cannot stand. Palm Beach
Polo, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, 918 So.2d 988 (Fla.4th DCA, 2006). Here, applying the
"average crest of the height of the sand dune line" to both main buildings/stractures and
accessory buildings/structures contravenes the plain language and construction of the ordinance.
III. THE STAFF REPORT'S INTERPRETATION AND THE CURRENT CODE
REQUIREMENTS
For two reasons the Staff Report recommendation does not correctly interpret the
—�---rt�aximt�m buildir�g hexght reqt�irements. First, the maximum�eight deftne
requirements for main buildings or structures separate from accessory buildings or structures and
the average crest delineation is only applicable to main buildings or structures. Second, the
interpretation ignores the existing code definitions for building height, grade, elevation and
highest adjacent grade. The legislative history suirounding the adoption of the Table Inset in
Section 78-143 provides support for the fact that height has always been an issue of contention in
relation to the Teyuesta Towers site and that history is no less important when interpreting the
Code today as it was in 1973.
a. The Mazimam I�eight Requirements in R-3
The maximum height requirement in R-3 is as foilows: "11 stories/101 ft. measured from the
average height of the crest of the sand dune line, for main building or structure east of Beach
Road, and measured from grade west of Beach Road. 4[sic] 2 stories/20 ft. for any accessory
building or structure." The staff s interpretation ignores the fact that there are two (2) types of
structures defined in the limitation: (1) main buildings/structure in the first part of the limitation
and (2) accessory buildings/structures in the second sentence of the limitation. The Staffls
interpretation blends these two concepts and applies the "the average height of the crest of the
sand dune line" to both main buildings/ structures and accessory buildings/ structures. Clearly,
this elevation only describes main buildings or structures, and not accessory buildings or
structures, because the "average height of the crest of the sand dune line" is only contained
within the first part of the limitation related to the main buildingslstructures category. If the
ordinance was to be interpreted as applicable to both types of structures, it would have been
written that way.
A statute or ordinance must be given its plain and obvious meaning. See Marion County
Hospital District v. Namer, 225 So.2d 442 (FIa.App. l st 1969). Municipal ordinances are subject
to the same rules of construction as are state statutes. Rose v. Town of Hillsboro Beach, 216
So.2d 258 (FIa.App.4th 1968); Jacksonville v. Ledwith, 26 Fla. 163, 7 So. 885 (Fla. 1890}. Rose
also stands for the substantive proposition that courts generally may not insert words or phrases
in municipal ordinances in order to express intentions which do not appear [emphasis added],
unless it is clear that the omission was inadvertent, and must give to a statute (or ordinance) the
plain and ordinary meaning of the words employed by the legislative body (here the City
Council). Brooks v. Anastasia Mosquito Con�rol District, 148 So.2d 64 (FIa.App.l st 1963). Here
the plain and ordinary language of the statute (and the Code) makes a distinction between "main
building or structure" and "accessory building or structure" in terms of the applying the "average
height of the crest of the sand dune line". Main building/structure and accessory
building/structure are defined differently under the Code. As stated, in its plain meaning, the
maximum height requirement "average height of the crest of the sand dune line" measurement
east Beach Roac�(anc�grade �st of Beach Road) only appliesto "main
"accessory building or structure". Under the case law, that r�uirement cannot be also ascribed
to accessory buildings/structures because that would be expressing an intention clearly not there.
b. Consideration of Two Stories
In the R-3 zoning district an accessory building is limited to two stories not to exceed 20
feet (and the crest of dune language is inapplicable to accessory stivctures for the reasons set
forth above). The Applicant states its project is orily two (2) stories. However, the Applicant's
proposed Project is a two (2) story building that will sit on top of a one story covered garage.
This fact has not changed with the prior, or current, proposal to add another stary to the pool
house in violation of the Code.
c. The Other Requirements for Determining Iieight Under the Code
Ground and natural elevation in the context of tius site plan application is established at
some point under the "center line" of Beach Road which appears to be 9.01' from a previous
analysis completed by our expert October 20, 2009 (attached hereto). The elevation identified at
the entrance to the private garage on the Applicant's documents appears to be 9.4'. Because this
elevation is somewhat higher, but close to the height of the crown of the road, it is evident that
the natural elevation of the ground surface is somewhere close to the 9.01-9.4 range' because the
garage was constructed on top of ground or natural elevation. Based on these calculations, the
follawing Code definitions are relevant:
• Adjacent is defined as "that which lies near or close to, not widely separated or
necessarily touching".
• Building, height of, is defined as "the vertical distance measured from the existing
average elevation of the highest adjacent grade, at the base of the building to the highest
point of the building or roof. Height shall be measured to the highest point of the
following:
1. The coping of a flat roof;
2. The average height level between the eaves and roof ridge or peak with
gable, hip, or gambrel roofs;
3. Deck lines on a mansard roof;
4. For a roof with equipment which exceeds more than four feet above the
highest point of the roof. Stairways, elevator penthouses, and accessory
operating equipment enclosed within the roofline are excluded, as are
screens to conceal facilities on the roof provided that the screen is not
under roof and is less than ten feet in height".
• Elevation is defined as:
1. "The vertical distance above or below a fixed reference level; or
2. A�lat scale drawir�g af the front, reaz, or side of a building or shucture".
• Highest adjacent grade is defined as "the highest natural elevation of the ground surface,
prior to constructioq next to the proposed walls of a structure, if the finished grade is
level. If the finished grade is not entirely level, the grade shall be determined by
averaging the elevation of the ground at each face of the building, or as otherwise
determined by the building official".
• Story is defined as "that portion of a building included between the upper surface of any
floor and the upper surface of the floor or roof next above, or if there is no floor above it,
the space between the floor and the ceiling above it".
In determining the intent of an ordinance, `When the legislative intent is clear from words
used in the enactrnent, courts are bound thereby and may not seek a meaning different from
ordinary or common usage connotation of such words unless, upon a consideration of the act as a
whole and the subject matter to which it relates, the court is necessarily Iead to a determina�ion
that the legislature intended a different meaning to be ascribed to the language adopted by it.'
Gay v. City of Coral Gables, 47 So.2d 529 (Fla. 1950). To determine the act as a whole, it
becomes important to review other provisions of the Code related to building height. As we
have previously noted relative to this project, if the garage is incor�rated into the residential
dwelling of the site (any building or structure designed exclusively for residential occupancy
including the garage), then it must also be included in the height calculation for the accessory
structure because "building height" is calculated as the "vertical distance measured &om the
existing average elevation of the highest adjacent grade at the base of the building [emphasis
addedJ to the highest point of the building or roof." Simply put, a11 of the existing buildings on
the site include the gazage as a story. Further, the base of the building is the point from which
building height is calculated. When applying the Code, the result is that ground and natural
elevation in the context of this site plan application is established at some point likely between
9.01-9.4'. When reading these definitions together, the 20' or two story limitation would need to
be measured from an elevation of somewhere between 9.01-9.4' rather than the 20.1' the
Applicant proposes because the pool house is an accessory building or structure. Strictly
adhering to the Code would prevent the second story from being added from two perspectives:
a) the two-story building would actually be three staries (accounting for the garage) exceeding
the limitation and b) it would exceed the 2U' height requirements because the point of
measurennent would be anywhere from l 1.9'-10.7' lower than proposed.
The definitions in the Code, and these prescribed methods of calculating height, cannot
be discounted. City of Miami Beach v, Arthree, Inc., 269 So.2d 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972),
involved a City of Miami Beach ordinance which allowed ancillary uses in hotels having more
than 100 rooms. The holding was that the definitions in the city code were controlling: `the
definitions provided by the ordinance itself aze a matter of first consideration,' Id. at 702.
Additionally, even the though the Ordinance adopting the building restrictions in Section 78-143
was adopted in 1994, the definitions in the Code relat� to building height, and the interpretation
thereof, remain validly enacted provisions of the Code that must be considered.
IV. INTERPRETATIONS OF ORDINANCES: STANDARD FOR REVIEWING
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
In Maryland Casualty Co. v. Sutherland, 125 Fla. 282, 169 So. 679 (1936), the Court
states the first rule of statutory construction: `The legislative history of an act is important to
courts only when there is doubt as to what is meant by the language employed.' (Emphasis
added.) Where words used in an act, when considered in their ordinary and grammatical sense,
cleazly express the legislative intent, other rules af construction and interpretation aze
unnecessary and unwarranted. Whenever possible, in preference to validating loosely written
statute or ordinance, look to legislative intent of enactment, including legislative history, if
possible, and construe enactment so as to bring it within constitutional bounds; courts should not
distill legislative intent from pure surmise. City of Pompano Beach v. Capalbo, 455 So.2d 468,
(Fla. 4th DCA., 1984). Only if the interpretation of the intent behind Section 78-143 is unclear,
should the legislative intent even be analyzed. Nonetheless, a brief overview follows.
Although, the inquiry on interpreting the maximum height requirements should stop here
because the legislatiye intent is cleaz, the legislative history surrounding the enachnent of various
Code ordinances is instructive. In Ordinance 211 adopting the original Code in 1973, the
definition of "Building, Height of," was the vertical distance frorn grade to the highest fuushed
roof surface over habitable quarters in the case of flat roofs, or to a point at the average height of
roofs having a pitch of more than 1' in 4 1/2'. � Grade was defined as "The crown of the public
street or road at its highest elevation abutting the property...." Finally, the original height
limitation for more than two-family dwellings was six (6) stories or sixty-five (65) feet. It
wasn't until Ordinapce 479 was adopted in 1994 was their more specificity regarding site
requirements for the R-3 category.
In July 1994, the Village completed an inventory study to determine how properties relate
to the Code in effect at the time in comparison to the Palm Be.ach County Code. The result was
that properties in the R-3 category were nonconforming. In September 1994, more discussion of
the issue ensued regarding equalizing the height requirements across the existing structures.
Staff was directed to prepare an ordinance to bring the nonconforming properties into some sori
of compliance with new code provisions.
In October of 1994, when Ordinance 479 was adopted to bring many of the condominium
properties along Beach Road into conformance with the Code, the minutes state, "Mayor
MacKail requested the 105-ft. height be changed to 101 feet, and clarified with Building Official
Ladd that the height was measured 8.5 feet from the water level, finish floor elevation, and all
buildings had used the same formula." [Emphasis added]. The overall goal of the Ordinance
was to assure properties would be measured from a common base in terms of determining
elevation. In this same ordinance, the heighi restrictions for the R-3 category were first
developed. Important to note, Section 1, paragraph 3 of the Ordinance states, "Accessory
ctares�otexceedirrg heigfitrrraybe canstiucted 6� tess�han the minimum
lot depth, with approval of the Village Council." [Emphasis Added]. While this paragraph
chiefly related to a discussion of lot boundaries, it is cleaz that the intent was to limit accessory
structures to 10' if the first story is not counted. But more specifically, the Table Inset of Section
78-143 for R-3 district site requirements (known as"Exhibit A") was also adopted Section 3,
Ordinance # 479 on November 10, 1994 and this included the specific language at issue with this
application, "2 stories/20 ft. for any accessory building or structure". Reading these two
provisions together, and the definitions in effect at the time, it is clear the intent was that the
accessory building or structure be only 10' in height when the first story is not includ� or a total
of 20' / 2 stories when the gazage is included in the overall height calculation. Calculating the
building height of the accessory building/structure from the average crest of the dune line adds
over 10' to the height of the structure from what was originally contemplated in 1994.
Tn December 8, 1994, the minutes describe an agreement between R. Mason Simpson and
`Tequesta Towers' that he deed restrict the rear portion of the property so that "nothing other
than a one-story building" could be built at 425 Beach Road in conjunction with the Site Plan
Review for the Cliveden. While related to the Cliveden and not Tequesta Towers, the intent was
to limit accessory structures to one story.
V. CONCLUSIONS
Coupling the legislative history with the plain and ordinary meaning of the maximum
height limitations in the R-3 category, it is cleaz that the use of the average crest of the height of
the sand dune line does not, and was never intended, to apply to accessory structures. In
adopting the provision, the intent was to have a cammon frame of reference for measuring the
height of both main and accessory structures. Principles of statutory construction and the
consideration of the Code as a whole simply do not permit another fl�r to be added to the pool
house as requested by the Applicant. Nothing has changed in the two (2) years since this project
was last brought forwazd, and any attempt to misapply a maximum building height standard
cleazly intended for main buildings/structures to accessory buildings/structures should be denied.
Based upon the Code, a one story building (above the parking garage) is all that is permitted.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you require any additional information
regarding this request for appeal, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
�����
Erin L. Deady, Esquire
Enclosure(s)
_ _ _
c: Keith Davis, Corbett & White
Trela White, Corbett & White
Conrad Damon
Bob Casey
A W�gher Stantla.0 ot ExcNlmca � � � � �
l��.Jf ���UI� �� ANDRE RAYMAN. P.S.M . G,I.S.�
� i R
r,
,r' group.'inc. ° ' ' � �. � � � ��r:�
October 20, 2009
Erin Deady, Esq., AICP
Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A.
1700 Palm Beach Lakes, 81vd., Suite 1000
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Re: Teqvesta Towers Poo►/Cabana House Site Plan Application
Dear Ms. Deady:
On October 16, 2009 you requested that Engenuity Group, Inc. review some information
related to the Site Plan Application for the demolition and reconstruction of the pool
house/cabana located at 400 Beach Road, Tequesta, Florida. Engenuity Group, Inc. is
a firm of 24 people, providing engineering, surveying, and geographic information
system services for over 31 years in the state of Florida. Our engineers and surveyors are
properly licensed in the state of Florida.
I have been with the firm for 21 years, and am the President of the Company, I have 25
years of surveying experience and I have attached my resume (CV) for your review.
On October 17, 2009, I visited the site to gain a visual understanding of the facts you
described to me the previous day. I collected no topographical data from the site,
and have not verified any elevations shown. Based upon that site visit, the Applicant's
site plan stamped August 13, 2009, and other information you supplied to me on
October 19, 2009, my conclusions are as follows:
1. A topographic survey showing pre-construction conditions of the site was not
available for review to determine natural ground at the garage location.
2. The applicant's survey shows "spot" elevations based on a benchmark D.E.P.
Monument marked "PM BH R-8 1974, Elevation=16.09'. This elevation is based on
the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929.
3. The natural ground elevation on the subject properfy cannot be determined
from the Applicant's submitted survey due the filling and terracing that has
occurred related to the construction of the existing improvements.
4. The elevation identified in the Applicant's site plan at the entrance to the
garage is 10.92'.
5. The elevation at the crown of Beach Road (State Road 707) adjacent to the
parking structure is 9.01'.
6. The elevation difference between the entrance of the garage and the crown of
Beach Road is 1.91 '
� � �� � � 9�; �v��n+Vd E�tGENUITYGROtIP - �+•.�
7. The ground leve! elevations adjoining the parking garage range from 10.92 at
the entrance to 11.82'outside of the retaining wall along the south side of the
property.
8. The property that is northerly and adjacent to the subject property is
undeveloped, and a transect(s) of that property would indicate the
approximate elevation of natural ground on the subject property adjacent to
the garage.
I hope this information answers the questions you have presented. Please do not
hesitate to call me for any other questions you may have. I can be contacted at
561.8i 8.6212.
Sincerely,
C. Andre Rayman, P. S.M., GISP
President
� JI � \,. A Mlgher Standa+d of ExcNlence ■
� g��u�c.
C. ANDRE RAYMAN, P.S.M., G.I.S.P.
PRESIDENT
�� Q � J Mr. Rayman is a Registered Land Surveyor in the State of Florida. in
addition to being a GfS Certified Professional, he has over 25 years of
experience working in the surveying field.
;n:
Educotion
B.S., Surveying 8� Mapping, University of Florida
Registration: State of Florida, Surveying ar�d Mapping #4938
GIS Certified Professional #47072
Experience
Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District
Plat Review
Basemaps for Various Projects
Created Sketch and Descriptions for Easements
GIS Coordination
Village of Norfh Palm Beach
Topographic Survey for Bulkhead Design/Retrofit
Golf Course Boundary Definition for new Golf Course Layout
Plat review
Basemap and Sketch/Description for Carolinda Drive
Town of Lake Clarke Shores
Review Plats
Topographic and Boundary Survey of Town Hall �
X Section of LWDD Canal and Topographic S�rvey of City Park adjacent to Forest Hill Blvd
Develop Property Ownership GIS
Town of Ocean Ridge •
uarious Basemappi�g-Pro}ec#s for Storr�water Design-including Fropicesl Drive, Coconut
Lane, A-1-A corridor
Review of Plats
Town of Highland Beach
Various Sketch crnd Descriptions
Basemapping for GIS for Water Distribution Systems
Town of Manalapan
Boundary Survey of Town Hall
Sketch for Sign Easement
City of Greenacres
Review of Plats
Miscellaneous Sketch and Descriptions
Indian Trails Improvement District
Topographic Survey for Berm Repair
MO Cana! Project
Page 1 of 2
` 1(� ll a Mtyne. sawaro ot E�eenenw ■
�O���nUl�./
gmup inc. .
C. ANDRE RAYMAN, P.S.M., GISP PRESIDENT
Topographic Survey and Datum for STA 2 Ce(I 4 North and South Build Out.
Developed a digitaf map and database for Indian Trai! Improvement District, Town of
Lake Clarke Shores, Town of Ocean Ridge, City of West Palm Beach, and Town of Palm
Beach.
Prepared right-of-way maps and parcel maps for the Port of Palm Beach's, 13m Street,
1 1 fh Street and Avenue "C".
Developed and managed GIS Systems for the Town of Lake Clarke Shores, Town of
Ocean Ridge, Town of Gulfstream, Indian Trail Improvement District and Northern Pafm
Beach County Improvement District.
Coordinated in-house mapping efforts of Lake Worth Drainage District Canals.
Righfi-of-way map preparation for various Palm Beach County projects, including West
Atlantic Avenue, Belvedere Road (Phase I 8� Ilt, Flavor Pict Road (Turnpike to Barvvick), .
and Folsom Road (Okeechobee Blvd. to Southern Blvd.).
Plat Preparation for various projects in Palm Beach County, and Martin County.
Developed base maps for Kissimmee River Restoration Project for SFWMD as well as a
low-pressure sanitary sewer system project for Loxahatchee River District (ENCON).
Orgcnizations & Honors
Florida Surveying and Mapping Society Palm Beach Chapter, Past President
Florida Association of Cadastral Mappers
American Congress on Surveying 8� Mapping
Forest Hill High School Engineering Academy Adviser
FES Mentor Program at Florida Atlantic Universify
Palm Beach County League of Cities, Associate Member
Florida Atlantic University Geomatic Engineer, Executive Chairman
Page 2 of 2
, VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
� Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive
� Tequesta. Florida 33469-0273 • (4� 575-6200
� _ Fax: (40� 575-6203
{
c
o w
VII,LAGE OF TEQUESTA
VILLAGE COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETIl�TG MINUTES
JULY 28, 1994
1 s t.if"" iV �iWaL� ML iCV� C�T•i•
The Tequesta Villaqe Council held a Special Neeting at the
Villaqe Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, on
Thursday, July 28, 1994. The meeting was called to order at
7:00 P.M. by Mayor Ron T. Mackail. A roll call was taken by
Betty Laur, the Recording Secretary. Council members
present were: Hayor Ron T. Mackail, Elizabeth A. Schauer,
Earl L. Collings, and Joseph N. Capretta. Also in
- attendance were: Village Manager Thomas G. Bradford,
Villaqe Attorney John C. Randolph, Village Clerk Joann
Manganiello, and Department Heads. Absent was Vice Mayor
Willism E. Burckart.
II. �PPROV2iI. OF AGSNDA
o Councilmsm�er Collinqs requested addit�on of an item
under Item XI regardinq BRITT.
o Vil�age Manager Bradford requested addition of an item
under Iten XI reqarding update of the water issue.
Co�mci�ae��r Collinqs soved to approve the 2iqenda as
a�ended. Councila�■ber Sc�auer seconded the �tion. The
vote on the �otion was:
Ron T. Mackail - for
$lizabeth Schauer - for
Sarl L. Colli.ngs - for
Joseph N. Capretta - for
The aotion was therefore passed and adopted and the l�lqenda
iaas approv� as aaended.
�
RP .Nf.IC[I P�TJPI
Villaqe Council
4..r Special Keet3ng Minutes
July 28, 1994
Paqe 2
III. RSSOLOTION NO. 20-93/94 - ACCEPTING THE TS[t!!3 A1QD CONDITIONS
o� TxB �tc�rcx �uicaL s�vzcBS ( �rs ) r,wutn �r rrz�s �
PAI�I BS�CH COIINTY 801�iRD OF COUI�I'PY CO?QQSSIO1�i8RRS, P�IaI BBaCH
COUNTY, FIARID�, FOR 1�NY 110NI8S RBCBIVED P'ROM GRAl�1T
APPLICI�TIOli3 COMPLETED FOR 1994, ACCBP'171NCS OF 11HICH WILL
B7�riND AND/OR IIQ�ROVB TAB FIRS DBPPiRTl�NT' S ffi�tGffitCY
l�DIC�L SHRVICSS DIVISION AND WILL NOT 88 OSSD TO SUPPI,�il�i'P
THB VILI.i�iGB' S I�XISTING BUDGEl' ALI�OC�TION; l�iUTRORIZIl�iG TH$
VILI�AGE MAN1�lGffit TO SNTBR II�iTO SQCH �l�i AGRBEl�NT FOR �iNY
GRP►IITS RBCBIVSD . ( Staf f Recoaends l�ipproval )
Village Manager Bradford commented that this resolution
needed to be passed each year for the Village to be eligible
for this grant, which he anticipated to be about $5, 000 this
year, and that if the amount should be a larqe contribution
that it could have the effect of reducing future
expenditures.
Councilmember Schauer moved to approve Resolution Po. 20-
93/94. Councilme�ber Collinqs seconded the motion. The
vote on the aotion vas:
Ron T. Y�ackail - for
$lixabeth Schauer - for
Earl L. Collinqs - for
Joseph N. Capretta - fvr
The motion vas therefore passed and adopted.
IV. C701�iSIDffit�TION OF ST1�iFF RBPORT Ol�i Tii$ R-3 7,ONING DISTRICT
I1�1VSN'PORY STUDY.
Village Manager Bradford stated as a result of Vice Mayor
Burckart's recammendation that changes be made to Section
VII of the Zoning Code for the R-3 Zoning District [which
only applies to properties within the Village of Tequesta on
Beach Road and allows the highest density of any zoning
district under the Village's Zoning Code] to make it more in
keeping with Palm Beach County's similar zoninq district,
the Villaqe Council had directed etaEf to prepare an
inventory study in order to determine how existinq
properties relate to the existinq code in ef€ect for that
area and to Palm Beach County's zoning code for the ad�acent
area. Village l�ianager Bradford reviewed Vice lrlayor
Burckart's suqgestions in regard to amending the R-3 Zoning
Villaqe Council
�.. special lieeting Kinutes
July 28, 1994
Paqe 3
District by changing Section VII of the Zoning Code to
allow:
D Side setback of 40 feet plus 2 feet for each additional
ten feet, and if an R-3 Distriet abutted a single family
district that the setback should be doubled to provide a
proper separation for the two land uses.
4 Front setback of two feet for a one-story garaqe
structure that is landscaped and covered with greenery on
top. Other one-story garaqes would have a front setback
of ten feet from the front property line if there were no
landscaping on top. The main structure front setback
would remain at 6U feet.
b Building height of eleven living levels over one level of
parking. (As described in the existinq code except for
the addition of three additional levels.) Building
height would be changed from 85 feet to lI5 feet to
accommodate the extra three stories.
In the absence of Scott D. Ladd, Building Official, who had
prepared the inventory study, Village Manager Bradford
reviewed Mr. Ladd's report which inc2uded the number of
units, lot area in acres, units per acre, as-built front
yard, side yard, and rear yard setbacks, heiqht in stories
and in feet, percentage of lot coverage, and whether
conforminq or non-conforming to current code. Mr. Ladd had
also prepared a comparative analysis of various zoninq code
ordinances for the Villaqe and for the County and when they
were adopted. The Palm Beach County code was shown to be
more Ziberal than the Village code for front, side and rear
yard setbacks, and allowed building height to increase in
relation to increased setbacks. The net result of Mr.
Ladd's findings was that of all the properties within the R-
3 Zoning District were non-conforming, and that the only
property conforming under current code is Cliveden which was
approved by the Village Council on June 14, 1994. Village
Manager Bradford clarified that "conforming" meant a
property met all requirements under current code and that
"non-conforminq meant a property did not comply with one or
more of the current requirements. Implicit in Mr. Ladd's
report was that these properties became non-conforming as
more restrictive ordinances replaced previous ordinances
over the years. In response to Councilmember Capretta,
Villaqe Council
�--- Special I[eetinq I�.i.nutes
July 28, 1994
Paqe 4
Village Manager Bradford clarified that in January 1973 when
Tequesta Towers was permitted that Che cade then in effect
allowed building h�3ght of 100 �eet, so that they were able
to build an li-story buildinq.
Village Manaqer Bradford responded to Councilmember
Schauer's question of what would happen if the non-
conforminq properties remained non-conforminq, that if there
were a disaster where one of those structures were damaqed
50$ or more, it would have to be rebuilt under the existinq
code, not the code that existed at the time it was built.
Councilmember Capretta suqgested if Tequesta's code were
more consistent with the Palm Beach County code that the
buildings would be conforming and could be rebuilt to their
oriqinal plans, and also would make Tequesta competitive for
people wishing to annex into the Village. Mayor Mackail
questioned the dollar impact to the Village tax base in
liqht of the present inventory and potential annexation.
Village Manager Bradford responded if the Village had
everything from Claridge to Seawatch that there would be a
nice tax base. Councilmember Collings informed the Council
that over the years the Coastal Construction Zone had been
moved back by the County, so that many of these properties
could not be rebuilt in their own footprint if they were
destroyed. Village Manager Bradford commented that the only
undeveloped Beach Road property was the Cliveden
development.
l�i].fred Coyle, 375 Heach Road, stated he was confused by
comments made in a letter he had received from Village
Manager Bradford, which he planned to respond to next week.
He quoted from the letter, `Vice Mayor Burckart and some
members of the Council believe that the Cliveden condominium
project as was originally proposed was a better project for
all parties concerned in terms of design and
amenities......As to the proposed townhomes on the
northernmost parcel, there appears to be unanim.ity that
these units should be avoided if possible.' Mr. Coyle
stated if the original proposal included the townhomes that
these statements appeared to be in direct contradiction, and
wondered if the townhomes had ever been seriously considered
and if they might be a red herring. He further quoted,
"development rights of the developer, and can they be
transferred thereby resolving the concerns". Mr. Coyle
asked what development rights were, whether they guaranteed
Villaqe Council
..__ Special l�eeting 1+Iinutes
July 28, 1994
Paqe 6
I�Iason Sinpson stated he had not made an offer for Mrs.
5endzimir's property. Mr. Simpson stated that, speaking as
a professional, the northern part of the island needed to be
in Tequesta to be able to use Village services and currently
under County regulations buildinqs there could be of
unlimited heiqht. He explained a Conditional Use B permit
was granted by the County Commissfon to construct a building
with no height restrictions except those detenained by
setbacks, which would mean the Sendzimir property could
currently have a buildinq over 20 stories tall. Other
comments by Mr. Simpson included a state�aent that if he were
allowed to build townhomes at the Cliveden project that they
would be built.
Ed Hallberq, 350 Beach Road, requested clarification as to
how the height was determined on the Cliveden project. Mr.
Hallberg stated his belief that the building was 9? feet
high and the code stated 85 feet. Village Manager Bradford
explained the first floor and the elevator tower were
typically not counted in determining height. 1�Ir. Hallberg
stated his belief that since the side yard setback was 40
feet with an additional 2 feet added for each additional
ten, even using the 85-ft. heiqht that the requirement would
be 52 feet and not 50 feet as was approved. Mr. Iiallberg
requested clarification from the Building Department as to
how Cliveden had been determined to be a conforming
property.
l�ierv Crocl�ett, 400 Heach Road, stated he was a 20-year
resident who had been on the Tequesta Towers Board for 18
years, and his comments were in their behalf. Mr. Crockett
stated they were opposed to any change in zoning that would
permit the construction of five townhouses.
Breada Si�pson, 25 Saddleback Road, questioned when the
meeting was held that authorized Mr. Meinken as
representative to speak for all Beach Road residents.
Steve Kennedy, Deputy Building Offiaial, stated that
Building OPficial Ladd had determined the Cliveden property
to be conforming; however, since the criteria in the
inventory study seemed to be contradictory he sugqested this
matter be revisited. Councilmember Collings commented the
study was a general study, while the issue of how heiqht and
setback had been determined for Cliveden was a precise
villaqe Council
. Special lteetinq 1[.i.nutes
July 28, 1994
Paqe 7
___..---------------------------
matter; and recammended revisiting this matter. Councilman
Capretta spoke regarding the Cliveden project and stated the
Beach Road residents had never had the choice of no
condominium being built; their choices were only in regard
to the open or covered parking and whether to increase the
height of the building. He infornted the public that the
laws regarding canflict of interest were very specific, and
that data i�ad not been seen to indicate Mr. Burckart has any
conflict or has been unethical in any way. Village Attorney
Randolph stated any member of the Council wha has an issue
which would inure to his personal financial gain should
recuse himself from voting on any such issue and in the
event of such a conflict he is to declare that conflict at
the public meeting and file a financial disclosure statement
and conflict of interest statement with the Village which
would go to the State. Mr. Capretta stated unless a member
of the public had proof that l�ir. Hurckart had acted
unethically, he would appreciate them not maligning him.
Alfred Coyle stated he did not imply that Mr. Burakart had
done anything unethical, but had stated that a member of the
Council who was in the real estate business probably has a
potential financial gain from approving this type of change
in the zonfng coda.
l�Ir. Graveney stated after listening to Mr. Capretta that he
would like to withdraw his final remark.
ldr. l�ieinken addressed comments to Mr. Capretta that the
people at Lamar, 375 Beach Road, the immediate abutter to
Cliveden, desired a 9-story building with open air parking
rather than a building higher than their existinq buildinq.
He stated Mr. DiVOSta had planned to build a twin tower, and
the original purchasers based their purchases on that
premise. He stated there had been rumors that an 11 or 12-
story building would enhance the value of existing
properties, and stated that statement was untrue, and that
they had been told by real estate people that their property
values wouid go down.
IYIr. Simpson stated the twin tower could not be built since
two parkinq spaces per unit are now required and the site is
physically not large enough for two spaces per unit, and
that if it could be built he would be pleased to build it.
Village Council
�_,. Special 1�Ieetinq Minutes
J�11y 28, 1994
Page 8
-------------------------------
It was the consensus of the Village Council that staff be
directed to gather further information on determining the
height and setbacks in the R-3 zoning district.
Councilmember Schauer directed Deputy Building Official
Steven Kennedy to inform Building Official Scott D. Ladd to
include in his report whether or not on there is a manager�s
apartment on the main level of every existing condo on Beach
Road, and where the electrical facilities are located.
Villaqe Attorney Randolph recapped that direction to staff
was to produce a more complete and precise background report
relating to the R-3 zoning District to include how setbacks
and height are measured on a practical basis to give the
Council a better understanding of how the ordinances are
applied.
Mayor Mackail stated at the original meeting regardinq
Cliveden his impression was Beach Road residents were only
opposed to the amount of time they had available to study
the project and make comments, not that they were opposed to
the actual project. Mayor Mackail stated the Village is in
a lawsuit and he did not see a win for either the Village or
the people who are suing the Village, and felt the real
concern was the five potential townhomes. He informed the
public that when the Council had asked for a special meetinq
to try to work things out in a neighborly fashion there was
no support, therefore, he felt it imperative that staff
provide more information and asked that they include
information as to what would happen in the event of a
disaster to conforming and non-conforminq properties, and
the potential tax base that would be available for the
Village. Councilmember Collings asked that the Beach Road
properties which might annex in the future be listed in the
report with heights, etc., and that the future annexation
impact for all of Beach Road be stated.
Councilmember Capretta informed the public that the Council
could not interfere with or reverse the decision by the
Zoning Hoard of Adjustment.
V. CONSIDI�ItATION OF BID lifii�RD FOR TfiB VPiRIOQS S�T3 OF THE
COUNTRY CLiIB DRIVB I��ROV�@1T PROJEGT, A 1994 BOl�D ISSOB
PRO.7SCT H�iVING DESIGN1�lTBD PROCSSDS OF $172, 000. ( Staf f
Recommends Approval)
�,..� ---__. ,
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
� Post Oft"ice Aox 3273 • 357 Toquasta Drive
'£' Tcquesta, Flarida 33469-0273 • E407) S75-b200
� J � Fax: (407) 575-6203
�
t
CO N
vILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
VILLAGE CUUNCIL
MEETIl�tG N'QNUTES
SEP1'EMBER 7,1994
r. cu.r. �o o�sR �n Ro� c�.
The Tequesta Village Council held a regularly scheduled
meeting at the Villaqe Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta,
Florida, on Wednesday, September 7, 199�. The ffieeting was
called. to order at 7:00 P.M. by Mayor Ron T. Mackail. A
roll call was taken by Betty Laur, Recording Secretary.
Council members present were: Mayor Ron T. Mackail, Vice
Mayor William E. Burckart, Elizabeth A. Schauer, and Earl L.
Collings. Joseph N. Capretta was absent from the meeting.
Also in attendance were: Village Manager Thomas G.
''"" Bradford, Villaqe Clerk Joann Manganiello, Department iieads,
`'� and Village Attorney John C. Randolph.
I�. Z�iVO�iTIOp �iD PLSDGE OF aI.�GIl�il�iCB
c�m�ncil=eaber 81i$abeth l�i. ScLsuer qave the Invocation and
led those in attendance in tbe Pledqe of �.l.leqianoe to the
l�erican F�.aq.
�III. 1�lPPRaV�I. OF 1��1Da
Councila�er Collings aoved that the �genda be ap�ucoved as
su�itted. Councilaesber Schauer seconded the �otion. The
vote on the sotion vas:
Ron T. llackail — for
�iillisn �. �rckart - for
Bli$abeth �i. SGhau�r - for
Sarl L. Collinqe - for
T�tte sotion vas therefore passed and adopted and the Piqenda
was approved as sub�.itted.
IV. PO�BLIC HS�lRING3
r ... �) Review of Proposed Village General Fund, Special Revenue
�, and Debt Serviae Fund. Capital Iaprove�ent Fund, Borfd
Recycied Pape�
� vill�e �buncil
�..., l�eeting ltinutes
Sept�eabeY' 7, 1994
Page 11
hoped to oversee the study knew nothing about the
findings, that he feared another lawBUit. He stated he
hoped that the neighborhoods affected by the possible
sewers could oversee the study. Mayor Mackail agreed,
and stated he felt the roles of the people involved must
be defined. Villaqe Manager Bradford responded to
Councilmem�r Collings that $63,000 had been allocated by
ENCON for the study and that Harbor �eanographics�
$57,000 bid had been accepted by BNCON to do the
engineering. Village Manager Hradford voiced conaern
that ENCON had selected a consulting enqineer to do the
study whi.ch will be overseen by a technical advisory
committee which could possibly consist of
representatives from enviromental regulatory agencies.
Although BNCON had said they wanted a citizen's
committee, their statement that they intended to keep an
arm's lenqth away from the technical advisory committee
could mean SNCON would only go throuqh the motions of
havinq citizen participation while technical bureaucrats
run the study so that nv one can get to them to monitor
their methodoloqy. Whether this scenario is actually
`-•- ahat ENCON plans to do is unknown since no one has
offered any explanation as to how they intend to procaed.
Counailseaber Collin�qs sade a�o�otion that the Villaqe
Council aqrse to have Villaqe 1�[anaqer Bradford �rrite a
letter to ffi[CON in acxordnnce with his suqqesti�s
referenced above to be sent as quickly as possi�le.
Council�er Sahauer seconded the aotion. �e vote on the
aotion was:
Ron T. Msckail - for
Willias $. Bwcckart - for
8lizabeth A. Schauer - for
Barl L. Collinqs - for
T�e aotion t�as tberefore passed and adoptecl.
IX. �tiY O� MAT7.'�tS
Mayor Mackail requested discussion of the R-3 Zoninq
District. Buildinq Official Scott D. Ladd explained that
the inventory study he had been working rca�3 ��v+�sl+�d tl�t sll
of the +e�cisting cond�infu� on th� beaCh, wbri.ch numbar a
total of 12, t�rere aIl non-canfar�ing accarding to the
,- current zvn3nq code. As a result, in the event of a
�„ hurricane which would wipe them out, none of the buildinqs
could bs rebuilt according to their oriqinal plans, but
� villaqe Council
ti... lrieetinq Minutes
September 7, 1994
Paqe 12
would have to comp2y with the current zoning code. In
response to Mayor Mackail's question as to what position
that would place the Village in, Buildinq Official Ladd
stated that FEMA nationally has been fighting development on
the beachfront and were against replacinq beachfront
buildinqs since they had a very qood chance of beinq blown
away again; that both FEMA and the State of Florida were
looking at strengthening their position with regard to not
rebuildinq on the beach--the state by determining where the
Coastal Control Setback line should be. Since the Villaqe�s
own building code would not allow the buildings to be
rebuilt, the Village was really helping FEMA at this poi�t.
Mayor Mackail recvmmended buildings be allowed to equal the
maximum height or stories of the existing buildings, and
that consideration be qiven to altering the setback
requirements to accommodate covered landscaping or parkinq
structures within the front setback of the building to help
the Village take care of non-conforming building for the
existing residents and to help the village in the long-term
approach of attractinq possible annexations into the
Village. Building Official Ladd explained that Palm Beach
°-� County now has an unlimited building height which is site
specific. It was the consensus of the Village Council to
direct staff to consider a xoning change to bring the non-
conforming properties into compliance, lookinq at the best
scenario for the Village, and to properly notify the
residents of Beach Road. Village Attorney Randolph advised
that first a draft ordinance should be considered by the
Village Council and if apprvved then a quarter-paqe ad would
be placed in the newspaper and two public hearings
advertised. Vice Mayor Burckart requested that every
condominium president be sent a copy of the ordinance by
registered mail. He stated the tax increase that would be
needed to compensate for the loss of the buildings along the
beach should also be remembered. After discussion, it was
the consensus of the Village Council that staff prepare a
draft ordinance for Council's review at their next meeting
along with backup information to justify and explain the
ordinance, and that if approved by the Village Council that
copies be sent via registered mail to each of the
condominium presidents. AI �ott stated that there is a
Beach Road Association which represents the other
condominiums, and that they should also receive a copy, to
which the Council agreed.
r -- X. CO�QSONICATIOI�T FROM CITIZBNS
,�
Jack Downey, President of Island House Southwest, updated
� , VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Teques�a Drive
�`� Tequesta, Florida 334b9-0273 • (407) 575-6200
� � � Fax: (40%) 575-6TA3
- o
o �"
y VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
VILLAGE COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
4CTOBER 13, 1994
r. c�.r. To oxu� arm itor.i. c�.
The Tequesta Vil].aqe Council held a regularly scheduled
meeting at the Village Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta,
Florida, on Thursday, October 13, 1994. The meeting was
called to order at 7:29 P.M. by Mayor Ron T. Mackail. A
roll aall was taken by Betty Laur, Recording Secretary.
Councilmembers present were: Mayor Ron T. Mackail, Vice
Mayor William E. Burckart, Elizabeth A. Schauer, and Earl L.
Collings. Also in attendance were: Village Manaqer Thomas
G. Bradford, Department Heads, and Attorney Scott Hawkins
sitting in for Villaqe Attorney John C. Randolph. Council-
.,,...
member Joseph N. Capretta was absent from the meeting.
� II. APPROV�I. OF AGENDA
Under Agenda Item VIII, Any Other Matters, Councilmember
Schauer requested the addition of the Interlocal Agreement
with Palm Beach County School Board. Councilmember Collings
stated his position that Item III (A) which would amend R-3
District zoninq was to have been delayed until the majority
of Beach road residents were in residence, and that he
fntended to move to table this item. Councilmember Collinqs
also requested to speak under Agenda Item VIII, Any Other
Matters, on the garage.
Cauncilmember Collinqs �oved that the Piqenda be approved as
amended. Councilmember Schauer seconcled the motion. The
vote on the a�tion �as:
Ron T. l�tackail - for
�lillisa B. Burckart - for
Slizabeth A. schauer - for
Sarl L. Collinqs - for
The �tion was therefore passed and adopted and the l�iqenda
was approved as amended.
r „' •-
� III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Rir.vrl�d Pnrrr
Village Council
.,_. Keetinq Piinutes
October 13, 1994
Paqe 2
-------------------------------
A) Ordinance - First Readinq - l�endinq Zoninq Ordinance No.
355, as Amended, by A�endinq 3ection IV, Definitions, by
Adding a definition for Ta`rnhouses and Revising the
Definition for Multiple-Faaily Dwel2ing; by r,mendinq
Section VII, Schedule of Regulations and Application of
Regnlations, Sub-Section (C), Schedule of Site
Requirements, by l�lsendinq the R-lA, R-1 and R-2 District
3ite Requiresents by addinq Requirements for Hinimum
Landscaped Open 3pace and by amendinq the R-3 District
Schedule of Site Require�ents in its $ntirety; By
l�iamending Section VII {D), Schedule of District and Dse
Regulations, Sub-Section (4), R--3 Isultiple-Faaily
D�ellinq District, Paragraph (a), Purpose of District,
Chanqinq the l�axiaum Density from Twelve (12) Dwelling
IInits per Gross acre to R�venty-Four (24) D�relling Units
per Gross Acre and by l�,mending Paragraph (b) Per�itted
Oses by Deletinq Single Faaily D�ellinqs; Providinq for
Severability; Providinq for Codification; Providinq an
-.. ..
$ffect3ve Date.
Attorney Scott Hawkins read the above ordinance by title
only, on first reading.
Councilmeaber Collings restated his position on this item
and aoved to table this matter until the preponderance of
Beach Road residents return. Councilmember Schauer asked
Village Manager Bradford if proper notifi��tion had been
sent to all Beach Road residents, to which Village
Manager Bradford replied yes; Councilmember Schauer
asked Village Manager Bradford if the Village would have
to pay another $1,000 in advertisement fees by delaying
this item and scheduling first reading for October 27 and
second reading in November to which the Villaqe Manager
responded that it would cost $750. Councilaenber Schauer
then ststed she �rould second the motion only because of
the nuaber of residents who had contacted her. Mayor
Mackail commented he, too, had received several phone
calls from Beach Road residents and that his own position
was that throuqh an inventory of Beach Road properties it
was learned that all of the condaminiums on Beach Road
were nonconforming and that he �elt it was his
responsibility to the people on Beach Road so that in the
event of a catastrophic event that they have a conforminq
structure since if nonconforming they could not be built
to a previous configuration. Mayor Mackail also
commented there had been a problem with FEMA and the
Villaqe Council
».. Keetinq I�iinutes
October 13, 1944
Paqe 4
-------------------------------
Executive Director of the Beach Road Association who was
in the audience as to when Beach Road residents would
return; she replied approximately 80� would be here in
December. Councilmember Schauer stated that since many
would travel North for the Holidays she would prefer to
wait until after the holidays, when approximately 95$
wouZd be in residence on the island. Councilmember
Collinqs stated he wished to amend his motion to reflect
Councilmeaber Schauer's proposed date. lyiayor Mackail
stated no one could tell him what they were opposing with
this non-conforming issue, and that he had considered the
proposed zoning change in light of potential annexation,
conforming, potential tax base for the village; and that
by asking for a delay the residents were asking the
Council not to run the Village in a prudent manner or to
make proper decisions. Attorney Kollins restated his
position that a catastrophe in the next few months was
very remote and pointed out that even if the proposed
zoning changes were made to bring the bulk of the non-
''✓ conforming buildings into conformity that the Coastal
Construction Control Line would not allow the buildings
to be rebuilt, and that the people wanted an opportunity
to participate in this matter. Attorney Kollins stated
since he had been retained so recently by his clients he
had not had time to prepare a presentation on the
substance of the issue, but if the matter were deferred
to January he would promise the Council they would have
such a presentation.
Both Mr. and Krs. Coyle stated they deferred their
comments to Attorney Kollins' comments.
l�ierv Crockett stated he was a member of the Board of
Tequesta Towers and requested de2ay until October and
November, not January, since in the event of disaster the
Village could not then change the code, and proposed that
height be changed to 11 floors with a height of 101 feet
� instead of the proposed 105 feet. He asked Beach Road
residents to consider that there would be a sharp decline
in property values for all the buildings on the road if
just one building could not be rebuilt. Mr. Crockett
stated Tequesta Towers supported the proposed zoning
amendment because it would bring a majority of buildings
on Beach Road into conformity and because it would
__ eliminate the possibility of townhouses on Beach Road.
Villaqe Council
_ Iieeting lsinutes
October 13, 1994
Paqe 5
Jack Do�mey, President of Island Iiouse Southwest asked
Building Official Scott D. Ladd what percentage of the
buildings would be brought into conformity to which Mr.
Ladd responded approximately 90$. Mr. Downey stated his
people supported the proposed zoning amendment since if
one building burned tomorrow they would sit for months
boarded up and in lawsuits.
Jim �[cSntegart, 400 Beach Road, stated Mr. Crockett had
expressed some of his views and questioned where on the
island the proposed density chanqe from 12 to 24 could be
done and how it would impact traffic. Building Of€icial
Ladd replied that could be done on only one lot, the
Sansimier property, which the County was currently
considerinq for approval of a 15-story building 135 feet
in heiqht. Mr. McEntegart commented it seemed to be a
trend in certain towns that zoning changes were made
periodicaily to accommodate certain parcels; Mayor
Mackail stated this issue was conforming and non-
' conforaiing and had nothing to do with accommodating a
developer.
Kr. Ken Yorke, 19850 Beach Road, stated he was the
President of Beach Road Association and at an attempted
meetinq of the executive committee which did not attain
a quorum, he had heard so many opposing views that he
could n�t rep�rt a unified position among their
residents, however, he stated that hurried action could
result in mistakes and recommended that action be delayed
until more people were in residence.
Bob Shank, 250 Beach Road, stated he was President of the
Association and Chairman of the Board and stated he had
spent time with Village personnel and felt this was an
opportunity to correct somethinq that had needed
correction for a long time. Mr. Shank stated he was also
a director of the Beach Road Association so at this time
he must side with them and at their next meeting this
would be a topic of discussion. He thanked Village staff
for the time they spent with him.
Building OfPicial Ladd commented the reason that this
matter was before the Village Council had nothing to do
with Cliveden, or a developer, or with Mr. Simpson--that
it was the resul.t of researching Beach Road zoning which
showed that the 15 condominiums were non-conforming, and
Villaqe Council
�� Keetinq Minutes
October 13, 1994
Paqe 6
-------------------------------
the Village felt duty-bound ta bring them into compliance
so they would not be helping FEMA or some other agency
who would not allow rebuilding. Mr. Ladd corrected his
earlier statement in regard to County consideratiort of
approving zoning for the Sansmier parcel that they were
considering an 180-story, 185-ft. high building with 17
stories above the dune line with density of 12 units per
acre. He commented that traffic is an automatic factor
of the density, not height. Mr. Ladd stated this
proposed amendment would help residents on Beach Road to
be conforming and that the draft ordinance was similar to
what the code was when the bulk of the condominiums were
built.
Mayor Mackail explained that presently there is on the
books an 8-story proposed approved building with a one-
level parking garage, Cliveden, plus a variance which has
been filed reqarding potential townhomes which the
developer would like to build, and theoretically a
�� developer could alter his plans to come into existinq
code, as changed by the proposed amendment. Building
Official Scott D. Ladd agreed, however, he stated that
this proposed zoning amendment would prohibit townhomes
on Beach Road property. Mayor Mackail asked how the
Village could protect the Beach Road residents on both
sides of the issue--those who oppose townhomes and those
who oppose additional height. Village Manager Bradford
clarified this by inquiring whether there was any
language that could be added to the draft ordinance to
require Mason Simpson to adhere to the promises he had
made, ta which Bailding Official Ladd responded a minimum
lot depth requirement could be worded to exclude anything
excegt an accessory structure limited to 10 feet in
heiqht on the northern parcel of the proposed Cliveden
site. Mr. Ladd explained that the Cliveden parcel
consisted of a great deal of submerged land which could
not be built on, but which was used in computing parcel
size. Mayor Mackail then proposed to delay this item for
two weeks to allow staff time to work on the additional
language. Attorney Kollins aqain urged the Council to
delay longer.
Councilmember Col�ings stated that in light of all the
information that had been brouqht forward at this
_ meeting, he �ved to table t6is aatter for two weeks
until October 27, 1994 and subsequently to see what
Village Council
.�,.. l�eetinq Minutes
October 13, 1994
Paqe 7
-------------------------------
happens then. Vice Mayor Burckart seconded the motion.
Councilmember Schauer stated that most of the people who
had called her regardinq this matter were not present at
the meeting; that this was nat done for Cliveden but that
when that project was approved it was brought to the
Council's attention by Building Official Ladd the number
of Beach Road units that were non-conforminq; that the
Council was not doing anything behind anyone's back and
were trying to do things in the right way; and verified
with Building Official Ladd that if this amendment were
approved that all would then be cvnforming except three
condominiums which would still be non-conforming for
density. Mayor Mackail requested the 105-ft. height be
changed to 101 feet, and clarified with Building Official
Ladd that the height was measured 8.5 feet from the water
level, finish floor elevation, and all buildings had used
the same formula. Village Manager Bradford recapped as
follows: First reading would be postponed until October
27; all changes that were discussed at this meeting wouZd
`�w be made; staff would readvertise and start from scratch.
Village Manager Bradford stated he had a procedural
concern as to the density which he would study and advise
Council on at the next meetinq. T'he vote on the notion
was:
Ron T. �[ackail - for
Willran $. Burckart - for
Blizabeth A. Schauer - for
Earl L. Collirn�s - for
The aotion was therefore passed and adopted.
Al1 items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be
routine and will be enacted by one motion.
8) Resolution Pio. 1-94/95 - Pursuant to Chapter 163.3161,
Et. Seq. F.S., Proposing ta Transmit to the State of
Florida Depart�ent of Coa�unity Affairs, an �ndment to
the Co�prehensive Plan �dopted October 12, 1989, as
Amended, authorizinq the Village Hanqer to Transmit the
Plan Amend�ent to the Departsent of Com�unity Affairs for
Review Pursusnt to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes.
i) Resolution Read by Title:
Attorney Scott Hawkins read Resolution No. 1-94/95