Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Regular_03/07/1996VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA Post Office Box 3273 357 Tequesta Drive Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 (407) 575-6200 Fax: (407) 575-6203 VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Tequesta Village Council held a meeting at the Village Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, on Thursday, March 7, 1996. The meeting was called to order at 7:04 P.M. by Mayor Ron T. Mackail. A roll call was taken by Betty Laur, Recording Secretary. Councilmembers present were: Mayor Ron T. Mackail, William E. Burckart, Joseph N. Capretta, Carl C. Hansen, and Elizabeth A. Schauer. Also in attendance were: Village Manager Thomas G. Bradford, Village Attorney John C. Randolph, Village Clerk Joann Manganiello, and Department Heads. II. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Mackail gave the Invocation and led those in attendance in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The following additions to the agenda were requested under Any Other Matters: Councilmember Schauer requested addition of: (1) North County Education Committee (2) Letter received from Treasure Coast Regional +'""~ Planning Council ~. `...•y Kecycled Paper VILLAGE COUNCIL ;, MEETING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 2 ---------------- (3) North County Planning Forum (4) January Meeting with Commissioner Gettig {5) February 22 Premediation meeting regarding regional roadway network issues Councilmember Hansen requested addition of {1) Report to be presented to ENCON at that evening's meeting regarding a sewer system Vice Mayor Burckart requested addition of (1) Project Graduation Village Manager Bradford requested addition of (1) Announcement regarding FEMA funding (2) Recommendation for bid awards to commence construction work associated with FEMA Councilmember Schauer made a motion to approve the Agenda as R-.~ amended. Councilmember Hansen seconded the motion. The vote on the motion-was: Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Joseph N. Capretta - for Carl C. Hansen - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the Agenda was approved as amended. IV. CONSENT AGENDA All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Village Councilmember so requests, in which event, the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda of Business and considered in its normal sequence on the Agenda. The following items were listed on the Consent Agenda: VILLAGE COUNCIL ,,,,~ MEETING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 3 ---------------- V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND REPORTS *A) Community Appearance Board; January 24, 1996 *B) Community Appearance Board; January 30, 1996 *C) Community Appearance Board; February 14, 1996 *D) Tree Board; June 14, 1995 *E) Tree Board; July 12, 1995 *F) Village Council Meeting; February 8, 1996 *G) Village Manager's Report; February 5, 1996 - March 1, 1996 VIII. NEW BUSINESS *A) Consideration of Approval of Estimate & Agreement from Bonded Lightning Protection Systems of Jupiter, Florida, in the Amount of $6,350 for Lightning Protection System for Village Ha11 Complex & Fire Station/Li ving Quarters with Said Funding to be Provided from the General Fund Undesignated Fund Balance ($772,000) and Authorizing Village Manager to Execute the Same (Staff Recommends Approval) *C) Consideration of Ra tifi ca ti on of Proposed Collective Bargaining Agreement Between the Village of Tequesta and the Communications Workers of America 1995-1998. (Staff Recommends Approval) Motion was made by Councilmember Hansen to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Burckart. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Joseph N. Capretta - for Carl C. Hansen - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the Consent VILLAGE COUNCIL _ MEETING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 4 ---------------- Agenda was approved as submitted. VI. COMMITTEE REPORTS Aj Redevelopment Committee Meeting; January 29, 1996 Village Manager Bradford reported that at this meeting the preliminary work of the Gee & Jenson architects relative to a master plan and facility enhancement program had been reviewed, which had consisted of five different schemes presented as alternatives for use of the Village Hall Complex property, which would expand the police and fire/rescue facilities. The committee had directed staff to develop drawings showing the Village administrative facilities on property located in the central business district, and amendments to the submittals which had been presented, all of which was a part of a planning process to determine what alternative, if any, the Village wished to pursue relative to space needs. Village Manager Bradford explained that when the drawings were received that another meeting of the committee would be called. Motion was made by Councilmember Schauer to approve the Redevelopment Committee report for their January 29, 1996 meeting. The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Burckart. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Joseph N. Capretta - for Carl C. Hansen - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. B) Public Safety Committee Meeting; January 31, 1996 Village Manager Bradford reported that staff had suggested changes to the minimum property standards ordinance, which was the Code Enforcement issue which VILLAGE COUNCIL ,,. MEETING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 5 ---------------- had been the subject of past discussions. The Committee had given staff instructions to eliminate all references in the ordinance to painting and consistency of building and trim color; and to specifically list items proposed to be prohibited, such as the use of florescent paint, polka dots, and stripes. The committee had agreed that any driveway deterioration in excess of 25o would constitute a deficiency. The committee decided not to enhance landscape requirements in the ordinance, and to delete the reference to the ability to enter a person's house. The Village Manager explained that the suggested changes would be incorporated into that ordinance, and the Committee recommended that a synopsis of the ordinance be provided in the newsletter, with the information that a full copy of the ordinance would be available at the Village Hall. The Committee had also recommended that the Village adopt the Special Master system for Code Enforcement, and that the Code Enforcement Board members be used as a task force or an advisory body to advise the Village Council relative to code enforcement type issues. The successful foreclosure of the Walters property on Maple Avenue had been announced at the meeting. The Committee had requested that a proposed ordinance dealing with the parking of recreational vehicles providing for a handicap waiver be presented to them at their next meeting. The Village Manager had advised the committee that he was installing a 4-way stop sign at the intersection of Tequesta Drive and Country Club Drive. The Village Manager had recommended that the Village not respond formally to Jupiter's request for proposals and bids for fire rescue service, but that a letter be sent to Jupiter advising them that the Village was willing to work with them in the establishment of a regional fire/rescue delivery system, and that the Village was willing to provide service to their community north of the Loxahatchee River on a contractual basis. The Committee recommended to the Village Council that the letter be sent to Jupiter prior to March 15, 1995. In response to Councilmember Schauer's question VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 6 ---------------- regarding when the Special Master proceedings would be held, Village Manager Bradford advised that the Council would need to make that decision. Councilmember Schauer questioned whether Code Enforcement Board members had responded to the Village Manager's letter regarding the proposed ordinance, to which the Village Manager responded that he had received a phone call from Mr. Hartman, who was moving out of town, and one letter from Jim Humpage. Councilmember Schauer requested that Village Manager Bradford forward a copy of the ordinance to each Code Enforcement Board member and request their response. Councilmember Hansen commented that it was his impression that a majority of residents desired the Special Master system, and reported positive comments from conversations with friends in neighboring municipalities who favored the Special Master System because it eliminated the conflict of neighbor judging neighbor. Councilmember Capretta agreed with Councilmember Hansen's comments, and commented that feedback from the newsletter article would assure that the Village Council was on the right track regarding this issue. Vice Mayor Burckart commented that when presenting the proposal to provide fire/rescue services in the area north of the river to Jupiter, that it would be in the Village's best interest to also offer this to the County at the same time. Councilmember Capretta suggested that this be presented in a letter to Commissioner Marcus. Councilmember Schauer requested that the letter specify that the Village had a ladder truck and a fire truck. Mayor Mackail commented that the Village had set the pace for the future, and was providing excellent fire/rescue service for their residents; and that the County would not be able to reduce costs to Jupiter unless they did the same for other municipalities. Councilmember Capretta commented that the County must address lowering the total cost of the system. VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 7 Mayor Mackail requested that Homeowners Associations be advised of the new Code Enforcement ordinance, since it might be helpful to them in dealing with similar problems. Motion was made by Councilmember Hansen to approve the Public Safety Committee report for their meeting of January 31, 1996. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Schauer. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Joseph N. Capretta - for Carl C. Hansen - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. VII. DEVELOPMENT MATTERS A) Modified Site Plan Review for Securities Research, Inc., 390-C Tequesta Drive, for 43" Wall Mounted Satellite Dish. Building Official Scott D. Ladd explained that the satellite dish requested was a communications type used for financial services, and that there were several in the Village in the C-2 commercial district. Mr. Ladd commented that Section O of the Village Code referred to satellite television dishes and not to communications satellite dishes. Mr. Ladd explained that the property where this dish was proposed did abut a residential area in the rear, however, he had looked at the property and did not believe the dish would create a problem for the residents. Mr. Ladd responded to Vice Mayor Burckart's question whether residents had been notified that the residents had not received notification because there was not a process within the Code requiring advertisement for this type of review. VILLAGE COUNCIL :,; MEETING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 8 ---------------- Meredith Jones, Tropical Retail Builders, the contractor, and Paul with Tiffany Communications described the dish. Mayor Mackail commented that this business had been granted temporary permission to use the dish in order to operate their business, and stated that his concerns were that this dish met Code requirements and that the adjoining residents did not have a problem. The representatives presented photographs of the dish showing its location, and explained that it was hidden from view of the nearby residents, and that this type of dish was used to receive online quotes and headline news. Councilmember Hansen questioned whether this size dish would take care of most communication needs or whether the Village could expect applications for larger dishes in the future, to which the response was that this type dish was typically used in the size requested or in a 1.8 meter size; however, technology was moving in the direction of producing smaller dishes. Motion was made by Councilmember Schauer to approve the 43" wall-mounted satellite dish requested by Securities Research, Inc., 390-C Tequesta Drive. The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Burckart. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Joseph N. Capretta - for Carl C. Hansen - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. In response to a question by Village Manager Bradford, Building Official Ladd explained that this application was now completed and did not require review by the Community Appearance Board. B) An Appeal for Relief to the Village Council by Virtue of a Decision Made by the Community Appearance Board VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 9 ---------------- at their Meeting on February 28, 1996, per Section 7- 4{c) of the Village Code of Ordinances. Sterling House, SDR Development; Joseph Capra, P.E., Creech Engineering. Pete Russell, SDR Development, explained that since the last Council meeting where this application had been presented that the applicant had met with the Community Appearance Board, which had reviewed changes which the applicant had made to the plan. The changes consisted of a shallower pitched roof from 8/12 to 5/12, reducing the building height by 4 feet; removal of the dormers; a compromise to the Community Appearance Board request for a the roof by a combination of the on the front and angles to be viewed by the public, and shingles on the other areas, with a very close color match of the two roof materials. Mr. Russell presented renderings depicting the building, and elevations of the roof from all directions. Mr. Russell pointed out that the transition points from the to shingles probably would not be noticed. Mr. Russell presented photographs of the site upon which the building footprint had been superimposed. The photographs showed the K-Mart building at the rear of the subject property, which had no roof at all visible from the applicant's view; and provided a view of the building setback from the front curb. Kevin Donahue, Architect for the project, explained that the Community Appearance Board had expressed concern regarding the intersection of the two different roof materials and commented that was really not an issue because of proposed landscaping that would obscure those points. Mr. Donahue stated that the applicant's position was that the colors of the roof materials were in harmony and textural differences would not be significant. Mr. Russell explained that two motions had been made at the Community Appearance Board meeting. The first motion was that they approve the plan as presented VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE S MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 10 ---------------- except an all-tile roof, which passed 5-0. The second motion was to approve the plan as presented with the exception of adding trees installed at the same height as the ridge line of the roof at the transition points of the two roof materials, which two of the Community Appearance Boardmembers felt would hide the transition, and which was defeated 3-2. Councilmember Schauer commented that there had been a big change in this plan since it was first presented; however, she believed that approval would set a precedent which could cause future problems and expressed her preference for the all the way around the building. Councilmember Hansen commented that he had been present for a part of the Community Appearance Board meeting where the point had been made that putting the on the entire building would cost an additional $70,000, which Mr. Russell verified. _ Councilmember Capretta stated that he saw no reasons given by the applicant to overrule the Community Appearance Board since no changes had been made since their review. Vice Mayor Burckart commented that he would much prefer an entire shingle roof rather than two materials unless the entire portion of the roof viewed by the public were tile, and suggested running the the roof all around the outside edge of the building and using shingles on the portion of the roof around the interior courtyard. The Vice Mayor expressed concern that accepting the applicant's proposal would establish a precedent which could cause problems in the future. Mayor Mackail reported that Mr. Russell had phoned him after the last Village Council presentation of this application and he had told Mr. Russell he would be willing to help him; and that during the course of the conversation it had become clear to Mayor Mackail that the problem was the roof, which had now been addressed from various views except from the view of potential future neighboring buildings. Mayor Mackail explained that he had driven through the area and viewed the shopping centers, which all had the roofs; and reported that he had told Mr. Russell on the telephone that the only way he ,. would support this application was with a full the VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 11 ---------------- roof. Mayor Mackail stated that he was not questioning that the building was pleasing to look at, but expressed concern with setting precedent, and did not support the roofing material being half shingles and half tile. Mr. Russell reported he had been told at a Community Appearance Board meeting that there were areas to compromise, but that all of the compromises had been made by the developer and none by the Board. Mr. Russell explained that precedent had already been set since several buildings had more than one roofing material and the roof of St. Jude's Church had three different materials. Mr. Russell stated he felt the applicant had made a genuine effort to compromise to bring the building to standards appealing to the Village of Tequesta. The Mayor questioned whether other roof materials had been considered. Mr. Russell responded that their budget must be followed and that an additional $75,000 would extend them over their construction budget. Councilmember Capretta commented on a new house in Eastwinds Landing which had a composite the roof and questioned the cost of that type of material. Mr. Russell explained that the applicant had considered some different types of roofing materials, and had felt it would take away from the residential feel they were trying to create. Vice Mayor Burckart questioned the cost difference between the first and second roof proposals, to which the response was that a $5,000 to $6,000 savings would be achieved by shallowing the roof pitch and removing the dormers, however, the difference to use all the would still net out to $70,000. Jay Hunston, Attorney for the developer, commented that he sensed a decision had been made, and stated that the Village Council was sitting as an appellate Board. Attorney Hunston stated that the Community Appearance Board had ruled 5-0 that the style was fine, and had ruled 3-2 that the material used was not fine, and had made no decisions other than approvals ., as far as style, and that now the applicant was faced with the decision by the Community Appearance Board VILLAGE COUNCIL . MEETING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 12 ---------------- that asphalt shingle roofs will not be permitted in Tequesta. Mr. Hunston stated that from a legal perspective, he had pointed out at a previous meeting the various provisions of Chapter 7 which did not permit the Community Appearance Board to make this type of a decision, and stated it was not the function of the Community Appearance Board to decide that one material was better than another material, but that the question was harmony-harmony with surrounding areas. Mr. Hunston stated that the style had been decided to be harmonious, and that the last issue was whether it could be harmonious with some asphalt shingles on the roof. Mr. Hunston referred to the following points: that there should be justice for all, that the Council was to uphold laws, that precedent had been set, and that another applicant had applied and been approved in the vicinity of this project with three different roofing materials, which was the church. Mr. Hunston stated that the church roof had shingles, metal, and tile. Mr. Hunston stated that in administering the law that one applicant should not be preferred over another, that it was not right or proper. Mr. Hunston stated that the precedent was not Sterling House, but was a house on property directly abutting this property with an all-shingle roof; and that through the approval of K- Mart this applicant had been given a blank, warehouse type wall to look at, not a Mediterranean style wall or roof. Attorney Hunston stated that what the applicant had presented to the Community Appearance Board and to the Council on appeal was an effort to meet the desires of the Council and the Community Appearance Board to have harmony in terms of the view, and that this was not an issue of cost, but of harmony, aesthetics, precedent, and whether this applicant was being made to do something that had not been required of others and if so, why. Mr. Hunston asked the Village Council to consider their position as an appellate Board when voting on this application and to think about whether they were doing something different for this applicant than had been done for ~. others and whether that was fair, legal, proper and ,~,~,~, met the Constitution and Statutes, which he submitted VILLAGE COUNCIL ,,,. MEETING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 13 ---------------- that it did not. Village Attorney Randolph noted that the Village Council was sitting in an appellate capacity and therefore was serving in a quasi judicial capacity, acting as judges in determining whether or not the criteria set by the Community Appearance Board were appropriate on this application, and were bound by the criteria set forth in the Community Appearance Board's code. The Village Attorney pointed out that any exparte communications should be made known to the applicant so that the applicant had an opportunity to address those. Attorney Randolph pointed out that the action taken this evening would be to either affirm, affirm with modifications, or reverse the action of the Community Appearance Board. Attorney Randolph stated his understanding that the Community Appearance Board had not disapproved this project, but had approved it with conditions; specifically, the condition that the roof be all the rather than the proposed part the and part asphalt. Attorney Randolph stated that the code said that the Community Appearance Board may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the issuance of a building permit. Attorney Randolph stated that Mr. Hunston had previously gone through the criteria within the ordinance and had advocated that his client had met the criteria; and that the Village Council and the Community Appearance Board had to make a determination whether or not they felt those criteria had been met. Attorney Randolph pointed out some of the specific criteria he believed specifically applicable to this application. Attorney Randolph stated that he believed Mr. Hunston had addressed all of the criteria in his prior presentation, and Attorney Randolph stated that he was in agreement that any action the Village Council took this evening as a quasi judicial body should be based upon the criteria set forth within the ordinance. Councilmember Capretta questioned whether the Community Appearance Board had done anything illegal, to which the Village Attorney ~. responded that he had not been present at their ,,~,,, meetings and had not seen all of the minutes from VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 14 ---------------- those meetings, however, he was not aware of anything they had done which was illegal or against their charter. Attorney Randolph again reviewed the actions which could be taken by the Village Council as a quasi judicial board acting on an appeal--to affirm, to affirm with modifications or to reverse the action of the Community Appearance Board--and also to make a determination as to whether or not the Community Appearance Board was correct in its actions based upon the criteria that they had. Councilmember Capretta then commented that he had heard nothing new to reverse the Community Appearance Board decision and therefore could not support any appeal. Attorney Randolph responded that if Councilmember Capretta believed, based on all of the evidence before him, that the Community Appearance Board acted properly and applied the criteria of the ordinance then it would be appropriate for him to affirm the action of the Community Appearance Board. The action taken by the Community Appearance Board and the motions made were discussed. Vic Strahan, Vice Chairman of the Community Appearance Board, was requested to report what had happened. Mr. Strahan explained that this application had been approved subject to the entire roof being done in tiles as per the sample provided, and that another proposal had been made to accept the application as submitted with additional landscaping, which was defeated 3-2. Gary Van Brock stated that he represented the adjoining property owner, and responded to Mayor Mackail that he represented the landowner of the property which Mr. Russell hoped to acquire. Mr. Van Brock commented that the Community Appearance Board had certain obligations to review as long as disharmony was not created in the Village, but that this applicant had present a nice plan and the Community Appearance Board had said they did not like the dormers or the roof height, and the applicant had revised the structure to meet those dislikes; and ~~.,~ questioned what role the Community Appearance Board had in designing a project. Mr. Van Brock questioned VILLAGE COUNCIL .~,~r. MEETING MINUTE S MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 15 ---------------- whether the Community Appearance Board had the authority to require a developer to change his design. Mr. Van Brock questioned whether all future buildings would be required to have the roofs and if so, what kind. Mr. Van Brock used the library roof as an example, and Building Official Ladd explained that the Village had been required to accept that metal roof. Mr. Van Brock stated that at the Community Appearance Board meeting there had been no comment that the library roof should be changed to tile. Mr. Ladd explained that the Village had approached the County to try to get a less expensive roof material, which had been denied. After further discussion, Mr. Van Brock stated he had only used the library as an example because it had a different type of roof than that in the general area, and questioned what was to be done if a building looked good but the Community Appearance Board did not like it. Councilmember Capretta commented that the Community Appearance Board was supposed to establish a pattern or a look that the Village wanted for the whole commercial development. Councilmember Capretta stated that he hoped the Community Appearance Board had some sort of a master plan of architectural concepts, colors, and patterns in mind so that when individual projects came before them they could try to get them to conform to their plan. Councilmember Capretta expressed his opinion that the Council sitting as a quasi judicial body must rule on the action taken by the Community Appearance Board, whether they had rendered a proper decision within their authority and their charter, and that the Council should not talk about what they liked. Attorney Randolph stated that nor was the Community Appearance Board supposed to talk about what they liked, but were to apply the criteria set forth in the code. Mr. Van Brock stated that was his point, that the Community Appearance Board had said from the beginning they wanted tile. Attorney Randolph stated they may have said they wanted it, but that it was not a matter of what they liked or disliked, it was a matter of whether it fit the criteria within the .. ordinance, which both he and Attorney Hunston had ,,. brought out. VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 16 ---------------- Attorney Hunston commented that he did not believe that Village Attorney Randolph had meant to convey that the Council's job was merely to rubber stamp the Community Appearance Board's decision unless they had done something illegal, but that the purpose of the Council's review was to make sure that the Community Appearance Board applied the ordinances, and quoted from the ordinance that appropriate to surroundings did not mean uniformity in style or subordination to existing buildings. Mr. Hunston discussed the motions made by the Community Appearance Board and questioned whether the Community Appearance Board had made their decision by requiring uniformity in style and subordination to existing buildings. Mr. Hunston stated that the applicant's position was that the Community Appearance Board had required uniformity in roof materials and that was against the ordinance, which was what the applicant was appealing. Mr. Hunston stated the Community Appearance Board had rendered an opinion based on personal preference which was not what the ordinance told them they should do. Mr. Hunston stated the options available to the Council: to affirm the Community Appearance Board decision, to affirm with modifications such as the one suggested by Vice Mayor Burckart, or to reverse the decision of the Community Appearance Board and approve the application as submitted. Mr. Hunston stated he did not believe he had misstated the options available to the Council, which Attorney Randolph verified. After further discussion of exparte communications, Councilmember Schauer stated for the record that she had discussed this application with Reverend Thomas Vingale, the Parish Administrator of St. Jude, Reverend Edward Campbell, Parochial Vicar at St. Jude, and Mr. Earl Collings, former Councilmember of the Village of Tequesta, who had called her to ask her opinion of this project. Councilmember Capretta reported he had not discussed this application with anyone, but believed that the charter for the Community Appearance Board should be reviewed. Attorney Randolph stated that Mr. Hunston in his presentation had pointed out one of the criteria in VILLAGE COUNCIL ,.. MEETING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 17 ---------------- the code and argued that the Community Appearance Board had acted improperly because the code did not require a harmony of building materials, however, Attorney Randolph had read several other portions of the code to the Council, including that materials shall express their function clearly and not appear as material foreign to the rest of the building. Village Attorney Randolph stated that Mr. Hunston had properly argued on behalf of his client, but the Council was not required to take out of context anything he had said, nor should the Council take out of context anything that the Village Attorney had said, but should look at the criteria and make a determination that the Community Appearance Board had acted properly or improperly. Village Attorney Randolph advised that if anyone on the Council had made a decision on this application prior to this evening's hearing that they should not vote this evening, since any opinion should be the result of evidence presented at this public hearing, and further discussed exparte communication. Councilmember Capretta discussed the fact that the applicant had provided no new information at tonight's hearing. Councilmember Capretta commented that two things had come out of this meeting: (1) that the Village Council would take a good look at the instructions they had given to the Community Appearance Board, and (2} he had believed that the Community Appearance Board had given a lot of thought to how residential sections of the Village should look and how commercial sections of the Village should look and had come up with a vision based on the instructions they had been given by the Village Council so that when they saw a specific project they merely judged it in terms of the ordinances, and if that was not clear to the Community Appearance Board then the ordinances would have to be made clear. Village Attorney Randolph commented he did not believe any evidence before the Village Council at tonight's hearing indicated that the Community Appearance Board was not familiar with their role and with the ,, ordinances and with the criteria. After further VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 18 ---------------- discussion the following motion was made: Vice Mayor Burckart made a motion to approve the building with a the roof on the exterior sides of the roof so that asphalt could be used on the interior courtyard area. Councilmember Capretta seconded the motion. Village Attorney Randolph clarified that this motion would be a modification of the action taken by the Community Appearance Board, so that the Village Council was affirming their action with modifications. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - against William E. Burckart - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - abstain Joseph N. Capretta - for Carl C. Hansen - against Councilmember Schauer clarified that her abstention was due to the fact she had arrived at her decision prior to this hearing and had heard nothing at this hearing which had changed her mind. Since the vote was two in favor, two against, and one abstention, Village Attorney Randolph advised that another motion could be made. Vice Mayor Burckart made a motion to continue this hearing to the next meeting so that the Village Council could get better clarification as to how to proceed with this matter. There being no second to the motion, the motion died. Mr. Russell stated that he appreciated the modification suggested by Vice Mayor Burckart and that it was one he would go along with. Mayor Mackail stated that he would pass the gavel and make a motion. Mayor Mackail made a motion to approve the building with either a barrel the roof, or concrete roof as was originally proposed by the Community Appearance Hoard, and stated for the record that the only individual he had spoken to in regard to this had been Mr. Russell, and stated that ,,~:~ he made the motion clearer that the roof either be tile, S- ,, tile, barrel tile, or concrete in order for this project to VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 19 come to the Village of Tequesta. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Hansen. Village Attorney Randolph clarified that this motion would be a modification of the action taken by the Community Appearance Board, so that the Village Council was affirming their action with modifications. Mr. Russell questioned how this was a modification of the Community Appearance Board action. After further discussion, Mr. Hunston questioned whether he was correctly interpreting the motion that it was a motion to affirm under the ordinance the action of the Community Appearance Board. The Vice Mayor responded that was correct but the difference was that the Mayor's motion made it possible for the applicant to use different types of tile. Mayor Mackail stated he did not want to see asphalt, or half the and half asphalt. Village Manager Bradford questioned whether composite the was included, and further discussion described composite the as used on a house in Eastwinds Landing. Mayor Mackail stated he had seen the house. Councilmember Schauer asked Attorney Randolph whether she could now vote, and was advised that she could not vote. The motion was read by the Recording Secretary as follows: Motion that this building have either barrel the roof, concrete roof or a type originally proposed by the Community Appearance Board. Additions to the motion were: or a composite tile, and to be the entire roof. Therefore, the final motion was: A Motion that this building have either barrel the roof, concrete roof, or a type originally proposed by the Community Appearance Hoard, or a composite tile, and to be the entire roof. Mr. Hansen stated he had seconded the motion. Attorney Hunston stated that since the motion had been restated that he wanted to make sure that motion included the material approved by the Community Appearance Board and that, in other words, it was not exclusive but inclusive of that material. Vice Mayor Burckart clarified that Attorney Hunston was correct. Councilmember Capretta expressed confusion that this motion was on what had already been approved 5-0 by the Community Appearance Board rather than on what this appeal was based upon. It was pointed out h VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 20 that this motion was still on the floor. It was requested that the motion be restated for the record by the recording secretary, who restated the motion as follows: The motion is that this building have either a barrel the roof, a concrete the roof as was originally proposed by the Community Appearance Board, or composite tile, and to be the entire roof. Attorney Randolph confirmed with the Village Council that they were affirming with modifications and were basing that on the criteria set forth in the ordinance, so that the Village Council by doing that were stating they felt their Community Appearance Board had properly applied the criteria within the ordinance in making those conditions, and in the Village Council making theirs. Councilmember Hansen questioned that the term used in the motion of "composite tile" was not the same as the composite roof proposed by the applicant. Building Official Ladd confirmed that there were four types of the roofs: metal tile, clay tile, cement tile, and composite tile. Mr. Ladd stated that there were also styles of tile: S, barrel, single, and flat. Mayor Mackail questioned Mr. Ladd regarding whether his motion was clear since he wanted no misunderstanding when the applicant left this hearing. Mr. Ladd commented he believed the applicant knew the motion was for the all around, inside and out, for all roofing, and either cement, clay or composite tile, with more leeway than had provided by Community Appearance Board; and agreed that this was an affirmation with modifications which followed all the parameters set for the Community Appearance Board and that all of the criteria met those parameters. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - abstain Joseph N. Capretta - for Carl C. Hansen - for VILLAGE COUNCIL .;~,~~, MEETING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 21 ---------------- The motion was therefore passed and adopted. VIII. NEW BUSINESS B) Resolution No. 18-95/96 - Approving Addendum No. 1 to the Northern Area Mutual Aid Consortium (NAMAC) Agreement which Provides Specifications for the Fire Hazardous Material Program (HAZMAT) and Authorizing the Mayor to Execute the Same on Behalf of the Village of Tequesto. (Staff Recommends Approval) Fire Chief Weinand stated this action would provide a legal basis for funds to be collected from other municipalities as well as their expenditure and control. Chief Weinand verified that at the last NAMAC meeting the material provided by the attorneys had been accepted by all municipalities.; Councilmember Hansen questioned the cost for the Village, to which Chief Weinand responded that the Village's cost would be $16, 000 over two years, the same amount as provided by each of the other municipalities. Chief Weinand explained that training would be provided primarily by Palm Beach Gardens and Tequesta, with Tequesta taking the lead, however, Palm Beach Gardens was a larger city with more firefighters to draw from; and explained that by taking the lead that Tequesta would be collecting from the other municipalities, and that these contributions would provide for startup equipment. Vice Mayor Burckart commented that this process would provide a big cost savings to all participating municipalities' fire departments, by basically creating one huge fire department, which would have a better asset base than Palm Beach County had in the north county. Village Manager Bradford explained that Tequesta's portion of this money was already in the budget, and that the remainder would be budgeted next year; and the HAZMAT supplies would be split between the Village and Palm Beach Gardens. ``~ Village Attorney Randolph read Resolution No. 18-95/96 VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 22 ---------------- by title only. Councilmember Schauer made a motion to approve Resolution 18-95/96. Councilmember Hansen seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Joseph N. Capretta - for Carl C. Hansen - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. D) Consideration of Proposal from Gabriel, Roeder, Smith and Company of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, in the Amount of $4,350 for Preparation of a Tequesta Early Retirement Incentive Program (ERIP) with Funding to be Provided from the General Fund Undesignated Fund Balance ($772,000) and Authorizing the Village Manager to Execute the Same. (Staff Recommends Approval) Village Manager Bradford reported that this matter had been discussed at the December 7, 1995 public hearing regarding opting out of the Florida Retirement System, and that the goal of the early retirement incentive program was to replace employees who chose to accept the incentive to retire with employees earning lower compensation, and that the savings in payroll should exceed the value of the incentives provided so that the employer would receive a net financial benefit. Village Manager Bradford explained that the total cost of the project was $3,000 for the consultant, that the number of eligible employees was estimated at 15 out of approximately 65, and that the FRS had indicated they would perform the calculations, however $90 per person might have to be paid to have calculations performed by someone who would do them in a more timely fashion. The Village Manager stated that an additional $1,000 might be needed for the health ;•~~, insurance consultant, Black Ink, Associates, in the event that the incentive needed to provide for health VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 23 ---------------- insurance options. The Village Manager stated that the bottom line was that not all eligible employees would take advantage of the offer, that the Village would not partake of the program if it did not make economic sense for the Village, but that it needed to be offered, and that other municipalities did offer early retirement to their employees. Councilmember Capretta commented on the current economic anxiety and cautioned that the incentive program must be carefully presented so that age discrimination did not become an issue. Councilmember Hansen stated this was not really a downsizing program, but would offer some employees an opportunity to retire early, as was done by many foreign governments to replace their employees with younger people. Councilmember Hansen made a motion to approve the Proposal from Gabriel, Roeder, Smith and Company of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, in the Amount of $4,350 for Preparation of a Tequesta Early Retirement Incentive Program (ERIP) with Funding to be Provided from the General Fund Undesignated Fund Balance (772,000) and Authorizing the Village Manager to Execute the Same. Vice Mayor Burckart seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Joseph N. Capretta - for Carl C. Hansen - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. E) Resolution No. 19-95/96 - Pertaining to Mangrove Trimming and Alteration; Requesting the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection to Delegate to the Village of Tequesta the Department's Authority to Administer and Enforce the Regulation of Mangroves; Authorizing and Directing the Village Manager to File a Written Request for Delegation and -, Provide Supporting Information. (Staff Recommends VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 24 ---------------- Approval) Village Attorney Randolph read Resolution No. 19-95/96 by title only. Vice Mayor Burckart expressed his favor of this Resolution which would parallel proposed State legislation to replace some of the authority regarding mangrove trimming. Councilmember Capretta related his experience with trimming mangroves on his property. Village Manager Bradford advised that there were three types of trimming under the Village proposal: (1) trimming associated with the riparian mangrove fringe requiring no fee or permit, (2) another area which required a permit, and (3) removing, defoliate, destroying mangroves, etc., which required a permit and a $500 fee. Village Manager Bradford explained that any trimming was very risky because only one mistake could result in a fine from the State, so that it would be prudent--in the opinion of the Village Manager--to hire a professional trimmer even for cases where a permit was not required. Vice Mayor Burckart made a motion to approve Resolution No. 19-95/96. Councilmember Hansen seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Joseph N. Capretta - for Carl C. Hansen - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. F) Resolution No. 20-95/96 - Approving a Non-Ad Valorem Assessment Agreement with the Tax Collector of Palm Beach County for Implementation of the Non-Ad Valorem Assessment Billing and Collection Associated with the Stormwater Utility within the Village of Tequesta. (Staff Recommends Approval) ~"- VILLAGE COUNCIL ,, MEETING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 25 ---------------- Village Attorney Randolph read Resolution No. 20-95/96 by title only. Village Manager Bradford explained that agenda item H needed to be deleted because there had been no agreement reached with the Palm Beach County Department of Information Services, but Resolutions 20 and 21 still needed to be approved in order to facilitate stormwater utility charges by way of the tax bill; however, the option of billing on the tax bill might not come to pass since the Department of Information Services had refused to provide the information in a format satisfactory to the Property Appraiser's Office. Councilmember Hansen made a motion to approve Resolution No. 20-95/96. Councilmember Schauer seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Joseph N. Capretta - for Carl C. Hansen - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. G) Resolution No. 21-95/96 - Approving an Agreement with the Property Appraiser of Palm Beach County for Assistance in the Preparation of the Assessment Roll to be Used by the Tax Collector for Collecting Assessments Associated with the Collection Services for the stormwater Utility within the Village of Tequesta. (Staff Recommends Approval) Village Attorney Randolph read Resolution No. 21-95/96 by title only. Councilmember Schauer made a motion to approve Resolution No. 21-95/96. Councilmember Hansen seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: VILLAGE COUNCIL HI MEETING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 26 ---------------- Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Joseph N. Capretta - for Carl C. Hansen - for IX. The motion was therefore passed and adopted. Councilmember Schauer questioned whether the regard to Resolution 19-95/96 needed to Village Manager Bradford explained that staff hear from the State before submitting it t Council for approval. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Ordinance in be approved. would wait to o the Village There was no unfinished business to come before the Village Council. X. ANY OTHER MATTERS Councilmember Schauer reported that the North County Education Committee had reached sunset under the Interlocal agreement with the School Board, and that Resolution No. 1- 96 passed by the Town of Jupiter would provide the power for the Committee to continue operation without connection with the School Board. The purpose of the Committee was discussed. Councilmember Schauer requested that the Village Council provide approval for the Village Manager and Village Attorney to draft a resolution similar to that passed by Jupiter. Councilmember Schauer announced that a reception was planned for the new school Superintendent for Thursday, April 18, 1996 from 4:30 to 6:30, which would be partially funded from monies which the North County Education Committee had not used, and additional funding was needed for food, invitations, and postage. Councilmember Schauer explained that the County would provide postage, Jupiter would provide VILLAGE COUNCIL p, MEETING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 27 ---------------- food and a meeting place, and the Village was requested to provide invitations, which she expected to cost approximately $300, and would report the cost when it had been determined how many invitations would be sent. It was the consensus of the Village Council to participate as long as the amount was reasonable. Councilmember Hansen commented on how hard Councilmember Schauer had worked for education. During discussion, Mayor Mackail expressed his opinion that funding was needed to be directed to lobbyists in Tallahassee to address school problems, and commented that he hoped the new Superintendent would undertake that. Councilmember Schauer commented regarding the School Board's lack of funds, and reported the Education Subcommittee had approved splitting the districts and this would now go to Tallahassee. Councilmember Schauer reported that a letter received from Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council had contained their statement on education, and explained that she had learned that there were two statutes which might need to be added to the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Schauer reported the North County Planning Forum had met and voted that the Forum's time would be devoted 90% to education and loo to government. Councilmember Schauer offered to distribute copies of other participating municipalities' comprehensive plans to the Councilmembers. Councilmember Schauer reported that a copy of the tape from the January meeting with Commissioner Gettig had been delayed since the person in charge of the tape had passed away and it had only been located the previous day, however, she would be getting a copy to provide to Village Manager Bradford. Councilmember Schauer questioned whether Gary Collins and Tim Goldsbury would be present at the next Premediation meeting regarding regional roadway network issues, to which Mayor Mackail responded that it had been brought out that people within Tequesta had not been invited and that ~~ hopefully they would be able to get information in the ,,~„ future and attend the meetings. VILLAGE COUNCIL ~,,, MEETING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 2 8 ---------------- Councilmember Hansen reported that ENCON was meeting that evening and that the study done by Harbor Branch would be discussed. Councilmember Hansen reported that Dr. Stan Jacobs had requested that he read a report which would be presented at the ENCON meeting concerning the test results of samples taken from ten irrigation wells scattered throughout the area and tested at a lab. Councilmember Hansen read from the report as follows: "On February 26, 1996, Dr. Stan Jacobs and Vince Amy collected water samples from ten wells Located throughout the Country Club Community. The list of wells sampled and the addresses are attached. The samples were collected from home irrigation wells by disinfecting the sampling points, hose bibs, prior to collecting in accordance with instructions furnished by VOC Analytical Laboratories, West Palm Beach Office and Lab. The samples were collected in sterile containers furnished by the lab, refrigerated in a cooler and delivered to the lab by Dr. Jacobs. Analyses were performed to determine the presence or absence of coliform bacteria. No coliform bacteria were z~resent in any of the water samples." Councilmember Hansen reported that the lab was the same one used by the Tequesta Water Department. The water was taken from wells which were located between 27 and 50 feet away from septic tanks and leach fields. Councilmember Hansen stated he was not taking a stand on this issue, but merely making a presentation, and reported that some people had said that the Harbor Branch study, which cost $60,000, could have been done by taking samples from the 300 irrigation wells located throughout the area for approximately $6,000. Councilmember Capretta commented that he fully expected a lawsuit to be filed by Sterling House regarding this evening's proceedings, and that it was clear that the Village Council should remind the Council of their proper role, and that the Council should have a workshop with the Community Appearance Board to clarify that the ordinances which the Council believed to be in place were interpreted the same way by the Community Appearance Board to make sure that both had the same vision for the downtown area. Councilmember Capretta stated that the quasijudicial role should also be made clear. Councilmember Capretta also commented he believed Sterling House had slipped through a VILLAGE COUNCIL ,,~ MEETING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 29 ---------------- loophole which allowed an Extended Care Facility which the Council had not been aware of, and requested that the ordinance be changed so that ECFs would not be allowed. Village Attorney Randolph stated that the ordinance had been referred to him and that he was working on a revision. The Village Attorney requested that an agenda item be scheduled for a discussion for him to address the Village Council on their role as a quasijudicial body. Vice Mayor Burckart commented that when the Council reviewed the mixed use ordinance they had not made it detailed, and now were being very specific as to what was wanted, so that should be addressed quickly; and also the Council had adopted a flexible ordinance and the Community Appearance Board had gotten specific, and the two would have to come to consensus. Councilmember Capretta recalled that the ordinance had been intended to be specific but developers had protested, which had resulted in the flexible ordinance. Councilmember Hansen stated that he felt bad about the Sterling House application since it was the first of the expedited reviews for which the applicant paid an extra $1, 000. Vice Mayor Burckart recommended that the Village make a donation to Project Graduation, as had been done the prior year. Councilmember Capretta made a motion that the Village donate $1,000 to Project Graduation. Vice Mayor Burckart seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Joseph N. Capretta - for Carl C. Hansen - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. Village Manager Bradford reported the Village had received ., $200,819 to repair damage from the October flood which was 75~ of the amount needed, and the remaining 25o would come VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 30 ---------------- from the State if they decided to participate, which would be known before March 31st. Village Manager Bradford stated that the most pressing problem was the intersection of Tequesta Drive and Seabrook Road, where drainpipes were collapsing, and explained that the road would have to be closed and the work done on a weekend, and must be done immediately. The Village Manager recommended the Village Council award the work for the drainage as recommended by staff: (1) Bid award to County Contractor D. S. Eakins Construction Corporation of Riviera Beach, FL, in the amount of $126,336 to repair 339 River Drive, 1 to 15 Bunker Place, River Drive at Fairway North Intersection, 58 Golfview Drive, 67 River Drive, and Dover Circle. (2) Bid award to Dawson-Williams, Inc., Jupiter, FL, in the amount of $13,000 to replace 60 lineal feet of 24" corrugated metal pipe with 24" reinforced concrete pipe at west side intersection of Seabrook Road/Tequesta Drive. (3) Bid award to County Contractor Hardrives, Inc., Delray Beach, FL, in the amount of $65,009 to asphalt overlay and/or rebuild the roadway sections at 195 to 211 River Drive, 209 to 239 Golfview Drive, 204 to 239 Fairway East, 329 to 333 Fairway North, and 1 Bunker Place. Village Manager Bradford explained that the worst case scenario if the State did not participate would be $40,000 from the Undesignated Fund balance; however, if the State approved the disaster relief funding, this money would be returned to the Village and replaced in the Undesignated Fund balance. The Village Manager stated that work was expected to commence the next Monday morning. Discussion ensued regarding roadway repairs. Councilmember Hansen made a motion to approve the bid awards as stated by Village Manager Bradford. Councilmember VILLAGE COUNCIL `-~,.~ MEETING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 31 ---------------- Schauer seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Joseph N. Capretta - for Carl C. Hansen - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. XI. COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS Tom Little, 486 Dover Road, expressed his opinion that the meeting that same evening in regard to the ENCON septic tank study had been very unfair to the Village of Tequesta because the Council meeting was the same night, and stated that he believed the Village Council should request in writing that the subject be discussed in the Village Hall at meetings where Tequesta residents could participate. Mayor Mackail agreed, but stated that a Village representative had attended the meeting. Wade Griest, Dover Road, stressed the importance of the Public Safety meeting where the Special Master system had been discussed, and commented that everyone should get a copy of the minutes of that meeting. Mr. Griest discussed item 8C on the agenda in regard to the collective bargaining agreement and questioned each councilmember's opinion regarding the employees who had joined the union. Councilmember Capretta explained that the negotiations had not been required to be public under the Sunshine law, therefore, the negotiations had been private, and the Council had tried to keep this union consistent with the other union. Village Manager Bradford stated that it would not be appropriate for Councilmembers to give their personal opinions regarding people's personal decisions whether or not to join the union. Mr. Griest expressed concern that a picket line could occur in front of the Village Hall; and stated he had read the contract and did not see that much ~~, difference in it and the benefits of other employees who had not joined a union, and so did not understand why some VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 32 ---------------- employees had joined. Mayor Mackail explained that for whatever reason an employee had decided to join that they had felt they could do better, however, after he had reviewed the situation, he believed those employees who had joined the union did not really gain anything and were now paying union dues. Councilmember Capretta expressed the opinion that unions were on the way back because people were worried about job security. Mr. Griest stated that he would talk to someone who had joined the union to find out why they had joined. Vice Mayor Burckart questioned whether the Public Safety meeting had been properly posted, to which the Village Manager responded that it had been posted in the Palm Beach Post, in the newsletter, and on the board in front of Village Hall. XII. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Hansen moved that the meeting be adjourned. Councilmember Capretta seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Joseph N. Capretta - for Carl C. Hansen - for the motion was therefore passed and adopted and the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Betty Laur Recording Secretary C] VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 33 ATTEST: L - ~~~ ~ _ _~ x.31 L Y ~/ Joann Mangani~lo Village Clerk DATE APPROVED: _____p_. // . /9 ~ ~ ,Y