Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2002-05-20 Workshop MeetingCOUNCIL_MINUTES WORKSHOP MEETING - MAY 20. 2002 A Workshop Meeting of the Bal Harbour Village Council was held on Monday, May 20, 2002, in the Council Chambers, at Bal Harbour Village Hall. The meeting was called to order at 5:05 p.m. by Mayor Berlin. The roll was called and those present were: Also present: Mayor Howard J. Berlin Assistant Mayor Daniel Tantleff Councilman Peg E. Gorson Councilman Seymour Roth Alfred J. Treppeda, Village Manager Jeanette Horton, Village Clerk Dan Nieda, Building Official Stephen Helfman, Village Attomey Nancy Stroud, Village Attorney Michael Miller, Village Planner As a quorum was determined to be present, the meeting commenced. Q. DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED OCEAN FRONT ZONING AMENDMENTS: Mayor Berlin explained that at the regular Council meeting, on May 21, 2002, the second reading of a land development regulation ordinance, dealing with oceanfront, is on the agenda. He advised that today's workshop is to allow the Council and staff to discuss the ordinance and to take public comments on the proposed ordinance. Mayor Berlin explained that shortly after being elected to the Council, he leamed of the interest of a number of developers, property owners, and agents of property owners, on the beachfront, who were raising issues with regard to the land development regulations that govern the oceanfront. He stated that they were criticizing the ordinances and suggesting that the ordinance prohibited effective development of the properties. Mayor Berlin reported that he undertook it to review the situation and took a proactive approach. He advised that he contacted the Village Attorneys and Nancy Stroud become the Attorney in charge of this project. 'Mayor Berlin stated that he spoke with Ms. Stroud and advised her that there were people coming in, who are interested in very significant development, and they're concerned about the ordinances that the Village has in place and whether or not they properly reflect appropriate land development regulations in the Village. He advised that the Village Attorneys' office recommended meeting with the Building Official and Village Planner to review the regulations, then decide whether or not something needs to be done. Mayor Berlin reported that began approximately 9 months ago. He advised that, in the middle of the process, another property on the beach came to the Village with some issues dealing with porte-cocheres, which was the Plaza Condominium. Mayor Berlin advised that since that was a land development issue dealing with oceanfront, the Village could either wrap it into this ordinance, or deal with it on a segregated basis. He advised that it dealt with an encroachment on the front setback. Mayor Berlin reported that he spoke with the Village Attorney and they thought the proper thing to do was to carve out that particular piece and move it forward, independently of the other ordinances that the Village was looking at. He advised that was done and the ordinance was brought before two public hearings and was ultimately passed. Mayor Berlin stated that after the study of this ordinance was completed, which was in the Council Workshop Meeting 05/20/2002 1 233 234 early Spring, the Village Attorney advised that it was time to turn it over to the Village. He reported that the Village Manager had been participating in the Study Group and he undertook to do several things. Mayor Berlin stated that, under the direction of the Village Attorney, the Village Manager prepared and sent out notices to the entire Village, advising of this ordinance. He reported that the Village Manager also scheduled meetings with each of the Council members individually, to meet with them and staff to explain and go through the ordinance. Mayor Berlin advised that every Council member, including himself because he participated in the Study Group, had the opportunity to meet with staff, in advance of the first reading, to understand the ordinance. He advised that at the first reading, which took place approximately a month ago, a couple of people made comments. Mayor Berlin advised that one of the comments made was that there should be a height restriction in the PD component of the ordinance. He stated that at the end of that public hearing, he responded to a number of comments. Mayor Berlin stated that one of the property owners on the beach, the Harbour House and their Counsel, had submitted a significant amount of suggested changes/modifications to the ordinance. He stated that it was pro -developer, because they wanted it in connection with their development plans. Mayor Berlin stated that he is not criticizing it any way, but is only explaining what it was. He stated that at the meeting he commented on the record about the suggested changes and advised that he used the word "no" with regard to almost all of their recommendations, because he felt that it would unbalance what he thought was a fairly balanced ordinance, favorable to the Village. Mayor Berlin reported that after the first reading, he was contacted by the Civic Association and Doug Rudolph, President of the Civic Association, indicated that there were a couple of people who live inside of the Security District who were interested in the ordinance and invited the Mayor to go to the Civic Association meeting. He advised that he made a 30-40 minute presentation at their meeting, answered some questions, and then excused himself. Mayor Berlin stated that, at that meeting, there were also a number of representatives from the beach. He advised that he took all the beach representatives into a room and they discussed the ordinance. Mayor Berlin advised that his primary issue was to find out what their concerns were regarding this ordinance. He stated that the issue was height and they made that very clear. Mayor Berlin stated that he clarified with the people there that they want to keep the height in the 20s. He advised that there was a member at that meeting who advised that they have other concerns. Mayor Berlin advised that he passed out his cards at the end of the meeting and requested that anyone call him that has any questions or concerns. Mayor Berlin advised that after that meeting a resident, Ms. Goldberg, called the Village and asked for some clarification. He advised that there is an Omni Point decision that may be discussed today, dealing with some land issues, which was recently decided by an appellate court in South Florida. Mayor Berlin advised that he had Village Attorney Nancy Stroud contact Ms. Goldberg to answer her question. He stated that none of the beach residents that he met with called him or asked him to visit, but he was still hearing chatter that there were some concerns. Mayor Berlin advised that he met with the Village Manager and staff and suggested having a Council Workshop meeting to give the public a better opportunity to comment on this ordinance. He advised that it was scheduled today to make sure that it took place before the second reading of the ordinance. Mayor Berlin advised that he has heard some criticism about the process and the way this has taken place. He reported that the Village law firm attorneys are experts in municipal law, represent several municipalities in South Florida, and have been the Village's Attorneys for many years. Mayor Berlin advised that he turned to the Village Attorneys and had them direct this process, because he knows them, they have a great reputation, they have always done fine work for the Village, and he trusts them. He thinks that they gave the Village the correct advice and directed this process in a totally appropriate and legal manner. Mayor Berlin Council Workshop Meeting 05/20/2002 2 stated that Village Attorney Nancy Stroud participated 100%, directed the process, and made sure that everything was done perfectly in compliance with the law. He thinks that the work product that resulted from this Committee is good. Mayor Berlin advised that it's the work product of the Building Official, Village Planner, and Village Attorney, who have the best interest of the Village at heart. Mayor Berlin stated that the major issue that has been presented is the issue of height. He stated that under the current standards that exist, determining the maximum height that can be built on the oceanfront is formulaic. He advised that, based on the current formulations, the highest that any developer can build on the beachfront now is almost 30 stories. Mayor Berlin stated that when he met with residents, particularly the beach residents, they advised that their concern was that they don't want buildings in the 30s. He stated that one of the key elements of this proposed ordinance is to take the height down across the beach to 275 feet, which would cap the height at 25 stories. Mayor Berlin stated that it's a very material reduction, from what's currently allowed. He advised that if the Village doesn't pass an ordinance, then builders will be able to build up to the 30-story height, assuming they meet all of the other qualifications. Mayor Berlin stated that people questioned the PD because it doesn't have a height restriction. He advised that his opinion is that part of the benefit of the PD was the flexibility that the Village had, but also part of his responsibility is to listen to people's comments and concerns. Mayor Berlin stated that, not withstanding the value of having the flexibility, there were still a number of residents who were concerned about the possibility of excess height. Mayor Berlin thinks that the way that it was drafted was appropriate. He advised that not withstanding that, at the second reading tomorrow, he is going to recommend that the height be capped in the PD District as well, with an additional 22 feet, tops. Mayor Berlin advised that way no matter what is built, whether it's under the PD or regular zoning, there will be no buildings that exceed that height cap. He clarified that there will be no buildings built that are in the 30 or 40 stories. Dan Nieda, Village Building Official, advised that as Building Official he is entrusted with the zoning and building aspects of the Code. He reviewed that his background is as a practicing Architect, with 20 years of experience licensed in Florida, and 12 of those years as a Building & Zoning Official for Key Biscayne, South Miami, Surfside, and Bal Harbour. Mr. Nieda advised that he has devoted 10 years in Bal Harbour and the interests of Bal Harbour are close and dear to his heart. Mr. Nieda agreed with Mayor Berlin in that Bal Harbour is concemed about having appropriate scale, which is in the high 20s, in Bal Harbour. He advised that one of the things that is achieved through this proposed ordinance is that the scale of the Village be maintained intact and respected. Mr. Nieda stated that with the Residential District, they had to have a reactive approach to zoning, because the houses were getting too large and needed to be downsized. He advised that the product they came up with for that was smaller houses that still maintain the quality. He reported that they may appear large to viewers, but they are actually smaller than what the Code used to allow. Mr. Nieda explained that, in the same sense, they are trying to address the realities of the marketplace that Bal Harbour is a desirable community, where developers want to do fine architectural products, so the Village is being proactive in this case. He reported that the Village isn't waiting for the projects to be built to say they're too large or inappropriate; it's being addressed in a proactive manner. Mr. Nieda advised there was a study group, led by the Mayor, and it was a cooperative effort. He reported that sometimes zoning is written by a planner or an attorney, but this was a cooperative effort and a good product was produced that has addressed a multi -discipline approach to zoning. Mr. Council Workshop Meeting 05/20/2002 3 235 236 Nieda thinks that they have crafted a zoning amendment that addresses all of the concerns and is appropriate in all respects. Mr. Nieda explained that the zoning amendments are broken down into two segments. He advised that the first is housekeeping. Mr. Nieda explained that they recognized that the Code was adopted in 1974 and the Village was incorporated in 1946, so some of the definitions have become archaic and they had to contemporize the language and do it in such a way that it stimulates better design. He advised that they have addressed the Oceanfront District and tried to address the housekeeping aspects of the Code, to have a contemporary Code with proper definitions. Mr. Nieda explained that the other aspect dealing with the proactive approach is that they have developed a PD Planning District, which Ms. Stroud will discuss. Mr. Nieda stated that the nature of the zoning amendments is that it results in appropriate developments, stimulates the opportunity for thinking outside the box to promote design excellence and creativity, maintains the scale of the Village, places height restrictions that are actually not in the Code at this time, and maintains the existing density and FAR Floor Area Ratio (these two issues are essential to protect the quality of life, not the height, because they control the amount of people that will occupy a parcel of land). Mr. Nieda reviewed the proposed amendments. He explained that now the height, on a typical 400 foot buildable lot depth, with 315 feet derived after taking out the setbacks, would allow a 319-foot high structure, with 29 stories, at 11 feet per story (17 stories at the 150 foot setback line, with 12 additional stepped stories as the Code dictates). Mr. Nieda reported that in the proposed scenario for the same parcel, it would generate a 275-foot high building, with 25 stories, which is a proposed 14% reduction of what is permitted in the Code now. He clarified that would be a 44 foot reduction, or 4 stories, of what is permitted now. Mr. Nieda advised that it would be unlikely that someone could attain that height, because of site constraints. He explained that they need to have maneuvering and circulation space for driveways, etc. Mr. Nieda stated that would be a theoretical height that someone could attain. He reviewed that they are proposing a 275-foot cap, which is 25 stories, as opposed to the current 29 stories, or 319 feet, that could be derived with an average 315-foot depth building. Mr. Nieda explained that, in the PD District, they are also contemplating capping the height, which would be 297 feet, or 22 feet over the allowed 275 feet in the OF District, which would generate 27 stories. He advised that the stories themselves might vary, if going to a smaller floor -to -floor building height. Mr. Nieda explained that this is based on 11 feet per story, which is a contemporary height for condominiums, because people want more luxurious apartments with higher ceilings. Mr. Nieda advised that the density will remain at 55 units per acre, for apartments units, and 100 units per acre, for hotels. He explained that is consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan that was filed with the State of Florida. Mr. Nieda advised that they believe that the trend in the marketplace is for larger units and they are trying to encourage larger units, which in affect will promote less crowding and more luxurious apartments. He thinks that will happen by itself. He explained that as the units get larger, they become more exclusive and fewer people will take advantage of this opportunity. Mr. Nieda advised that they are maintaining the existing Floor Area Ratio of 2.8 to 1, which is important to the quality of life. He explained that they are changing the definitions of Floor Area Ratio, to exclude certain areas that were previously counted or not clear in the Code. Mr. Nieda reported that they are not counting balconies, because they believe that they encourage a tropical environment that is appropriate for South Florida. He advised that they are not counting emergency stairwells, vertical circulation spaces, or elevator shafts. Mr. Council Workshop Meeting 05/20/2002 4 Nieda explained that these are the changes to the definition to Floor Area Ratio that would tend to maximize the quality of amenities and, as a response, to the marketplace. He stated that luxury buildings currently have private elevators and it's a convenience factor that needs to be addressed in the marketplace. Mr. Nieda stated that it's the same thing for emergency stairwells and they will not be counted, under the new definition, because it promotes a safer building as travel distances to stairwells are minimized and it promotes better and safer construction. Mr. Nieda advised that, regarding parking structures, they are proposing changes to the front setbacks in Section 21-288. He reported that the existing setbacks for parking structures may encroach into the side and rear setbacks. Mr. Nieda explained that the proposed change is to recognize that, as buildings get larger and more luxurious, they often exceed minimum parking requirements and more parking spaces are required for a more luxurious building. He advised that they recognized that existing structures, over the years, have been built in the front yard setbacks and they simply recognize that it's an existing condition that needs to be recognized. Mr. Nieda explained that they are maintaining the parking structure at the platted 100-foot building restriction line, from the right-of-way, so parking structures may occur between the 100-foot restriction line and the 150 foot building setback line. He reported that the idea is to facilitate more parking spaces, which will be concealed in the building base, which they believe is a desirable feature, and parking structures will not be perceived from the right-of-ways, because they will be landscaped and bermed. He advised that there are several buildings in Bal Harbour that are built this way (Bal Harbour Tower has a parking structure underneath the principal approach). Mr. Nieda advised that they are considering changes to side setbacks and parking structures. He explained that, currently the Code requires 25%, or 50 feet, for parking structure setbacks. In addition, the Code requires that the side setbacks be equal. Mr. Nieda stated that they are proposing unequal setbacks and believe that this will promote better design and facilitate more air space, to adjacent structures. He advised that this is part of Section 21-291, in setbacks. Mr. Nieda stated that they believe that creating a different setback for the parking structures will facilitate a better design. Mr. Nieda advised that the setbacks along cabana and parking structures will be maintained, within the side setbacks of the easements, and believe this will facilitate beach access through the side setbacks. He explained that currently cabanas require an existing 0 lot line or 25% lot width setback. Mr. Nieda reported that this is too restrictive and they are proposing that cabanas and parking structures may abut the side lot lines or maintain a minimum 25 foot setback. Mr. Nieda reviewed roof structures and building height restrictions. He explained that the mechanical spaces currently permit 20 feet above the theoretical building height. Mr. Nieda advised that they are proposing that elevators and mechanical spaces may add an additional 5 feet, to provide proper design opportunities, for roof features. Mr. Nieda stated that the proposal they're making will promote creativity and thinking outside the typical design box and believe that it will enhance the Village's zoning opportunities and construction/building environment. Assistant Mayor Tantleff advised that he is going on 7 years serving on the Council and knows that everyone in the room knows that they can trust this Council. He discussed projects that this Council has done. Assistant Mayor Tantleff stated that this Council will always do everything to protect the residents. Councilman Roth stated that the majority members of the Council, in 1999, put in the most Council Workshop Meeting 05/20/2002 5 237 238 strict variance requirements that made it almost impossible to get a variance in the Village. He advised that the Plaza Condominium recently fell into that category and, even though it had a porte cochere and just needed a new one, the Council had to re -pass something that would fit the requirement for the Plaza. Councilman Roth advised that the Bal Harbour Tower is 256 feet high and has 23 stories of living space and most of the apartments are 9 feet. He thinks that with a 297-foot height restriction, he doubts that there will be a building with living space of more than 26 stories, with 11-foot ceilings. Councilman Roth advised that this Council has been rigid on building requirements and on variances, and thinks the residents should worry about who is going to be the Council in the future, because in 1987 the old Council passed that they could re -zone the Club. He advised that this Council fought the re -zoning until it was in criminal contempt. Councilman Roth wants the residents to understand where this Council is coming from. He advised that he has lived in Bal Harbour since 1976, loves the Village, and doesn't want to see it disturbed in any way. Councilman Gorson agreed. Mayor Berlin opened the meeting for public comment. Mr. Helfman advised that this is a workshop and the Council is not going to take any action and will note vote on anything today. He explained that it is simply a workshop to get the public's input into this process and to explain to the public what is going on and what this ordinance is about. Mr. Helfman stated that there will be a public hearing tomorrow, where there will be another full public participation. He advised, at that point, the Council will have an opportunity to take final action. Sy Denon, resident - Tiffany Condominium, is concerned that the Village will become more like Sunny Isles, if the PD is left alone and it gives too much latitude to a developer. He advised that they don't care if someone buys the buildings that are available, tears them down, and puts new ones up, as long as they don't change the present Bal Harbour to one they wouldn't like. Mr. Denon questioned Mr. Nieda about Section 21-288, the exception for accessory parking structures, and advised that bothers him. He advised there's supposed to be a 150-foot front setback. Mr. Denon stated that landscaping covering it, he would assume, would be the purpose that would be used. He advised that it took him 12 minutes to get out of his driveway (with one lane in and one lane out) and he is concerned about what would happen with taking away some of the frontage and using it for parking purposes, even though it's underground. Mr. Denon doesn't know how many driveways some of the hotels or buildings that are being contemplated would have, but the density would be tremendous. He is worried what would be done with the building on the north side of the Harbour House. Mr. Denon stated that his daughter lives at the Kenilworth and he doesn't feel that she will have a view for very long, depending on what the Council permits. Mr. Nieda advised that the idea of parking in the front setback area is really a recognition of the existing conditions that are in the Village. He explained that there are buildings that have been built over the years that are already in that 100-150 foot setback area, with their parking structures. Mr. Nieda stated that the Sea View and the Sheraton are less than 100 feet. He advised that the Plaza is at 100 feet and has a parking structure ramp that commences at the 100-foot setback line. He advised that at the Bal Harbour Tower the parking structure is at the 120-foot setback line and people don't realize that it's there, because it's appropriately bermed. Mr. Nieda explained that it's a proper example of how this can be handled, because it has a building base and a platform that is properly landscaped, there's a water feature in front of it, and nobody realizes that it's the area that the Village is proposing for parking structures. Mr. Nieda stated that at the Bal Harbour 101, the building tower and parking Council Workshop Meeting 05/20/2002 6 structure are at the 125-foot setback line. He advised those are two examples of buildings that are well designed and the parking structure is within the area that the Village is proposing. Mr. Nieda advised that they think that it restricts the height of the parking structure. He explained that nobody wants to see a tower with 5 levels of parking structure, they tend to get dangerous the taller they go, they're harder to maneuver, and they require more space. Mr. Nieda advised that if a larger parking platform is allowed, then it promotes a better - designed and safer building. He stated that they believe that a 100-foot setback from the right-of-way and maintaining the platted 100-foot building restriction line is appropriate and promotes a better design and safer building. Carol Liberman, resident and Board member - Tiffany Condominium, questioned that, since so many things were done with the Council and nothing was safeguarded, who is going to safeguard these buildings and keep them within the structure they're supposed to be in. Mr. Nieda advised that as the Building Official he follows every project in the Village, from design development to the Certificate of Occupancy. He stated that he takes pride in everything he does and his professional reputation is at stake here. Mr. Nieda stated that he gives everything personal attention, including compliance with the Code, because his professional integrity, his livelihood, and his licenses are all at stake. Sheryl Goldberg, resident - Balmoral Condominium, discussed the parking issue and advised that she realizes the 100 foot setback is at the ramp of the Plaza, but it goes to a point where it hides all of the parking or goes underground. She stated that the Village is talking about an individual structure being able to be built, outside the common area of the complex itself, similar to what the Sea View has in front, which was built in 1956. Ms. Goldberg stated that the Sheraton was also built a long time ago. She advised that residents don't want to see something like the Sands Point, the Ocean Point or the Millennium, in Sunny Isles, where there's a huge structure in front of the building that houses all of the parking. Ms. Goldberg advised that she is sad about disputing an issue the residents stood together about in 1995, when a great community effort was created with passion to fight the development of the Beach Club property. She advised that the residents helped elect the candidates that were anti -development (ex -Mayor Hirschl, Daniel Tantleff, Peg Gorson, and Sy Roth). Ms. Goldberg stated that 7 years later, they are on opposite sides. She questioned what and who changed their minds, because it's obvious that something did. Ms. Goldberg stated that as a community they are extremely disappointed and would like to table the ordinance, start over with proper representation from the east side of the street, and get something done that everyone could be happy about. Nancy Stroud, Village Attorney, clarified that under the proposed changes, no portion of a parking structure can go further than 100 feet, from Collins Avenue. She explained that 100 foot line is inviolate; nobody can go forward of that. Ms. Stroud advised that the height is also restricted on the parking structure, so nobody is going to see high parking structures, even for those that are behind the 100-foot line. Charles llvento, resident - Kenilworth Condominium, advised that he is upset with this proposal because it seems to him that it's taking structures, which are straight up in nature (totally vertical on the four sides), and creating a footprint that seems quite large. He stated then the steps occur above the 17th floor. Mr. llvento stated that as he understands it, the 17 stories would fit the total footprint, then they could go to the front as far as 150 feet from Collins. He is not clear from the rear of how far they would be from the high water mark, but he believes it's 45 feet. Mr. llvento is concerned that the Village doesn't have a model to show the residents the worst -case scenario. He stated that some people don't understand the building terminology and he questioned what the footprint would look like from the east, west, Council Workshop Meeting 05/20/2002 7 239 240 south, and north, on a 200-foot wide lot and a 400-foot wide lot. Mr. Nieda explained that a basic building lot has a depth of 400 feet that is within the building restriction lines. He advised that when the setbacks are taken from the 400 feet, they would end up having 150 feet from the front and 55 from the rear, with 315 feet net of building depth. Mr. Nieda stated that building depth will generate, with the current Code, a 29-story structure. He advised that 17 of those stories would be at the 150 foot front yard setback line and from thereon they would commence stepping back 25 feet per story, which would generate another 12 stories. Mr. Nieda explained that this is a theoretical scenario, so somebody could choose to set the building all the way back, but that would generate a very skinny tower that would not be practical. He advised that's what can be developed now. Mr. Ilvento questioned how far it would be from the ocean line. Mr. Nieda stated that there is a 400-foot depth typically, on the lots. He advised that lots do change because the rear building restriction line fluctuates, with the depth of the lot. He advised that 400 feet is a good average to deal with. Mr. Nieda explained that they are proposing a capped height of 275 feet, which calculated the same way, would generate 25 stories, which is a reduction of 14%, or 44 feet less in height, or 4 stories less in height. He clarified that they are proposing a cap and a reduction in height. Mr. Ilvento questioned what it is from the water side. Mr. Nieda advised that from the water side they are maintaining the existing setback, which is 55 feet from the bulkhead line (the Majestic is an example). Mr. Ilvento stated that's an eyesore and that is the residents' concern. Mr. Nieda advised that is the permitted setback and they are proposing to maintain the permitted setback; they're not dealing with it at all. The residents questioned why it's not being corrected. Judith Bockman, resident and President of Kenilworth Condominium Association, discussed side setbacks, Section 21-291, and advised that the paragraphs seem to point to a reduction in side setbacks. She stated that they are talking about giving the Council the power to reduce the side setback by the amount that may seem appropriate, in order to give public beach access. Ms. Bockman stated it would be better for the residents if they established a minimum side setback and stuck to that. She stated that it sounds like a noble thing to allow the people to walk between the buildings to get to beach, but she's not sure that the residents would like that in the first place. Ms. Bockman stated that if it's for the residents that live on the west side and they want to come to the east side, then there should at least be a minimum side setback, because right now the setbacks could virtually disappear. Mr. Nieda advised that Ms. Bockman is referring to Section 21-291(5)(e), where the Council has some discretion, relative to beach easements. He stated that they're maintaining a minimum 50-foot setback, as part of the proposal; however, in the case of an easement providing beach access, not to penalize the developer that is providing that beach access. In other words, not having to have the beach access plus the 50 feet; the beach access can be incorporated within the 50-foot width. Ms. Bockman doesn't think that should be totally left up to the discretion of the Council; there should be specific numbers. Mr. Nieda advised that the idea was not to double jeopardy and penalize the developer twice, for providing a desirable feature to the Village, for beach access. Pat Tumpson, President of the Plaza Condominium Association, advised that in Sunny Isles there were some concessions given in return for pathways to the beach. She stated that the developer saw a good way out, with the pathways to the beach, and gave quite a few of them. Ms. Tumpson explained that they built them, established them and now the building has told the City that the paths are theirs and they have to take care of them. She stated that Sunny Isles is now thinking of closing some of the pathways to the beach, so she thinks the Village should be very careful when it talks about pathways to the beach. Council Workshop Meeting 05/20/2002 8 Aleck Epstein, Bal Harbour 101 Condominium, advised that his concern is that today Bal Harbour has a unique ambiance. He explained that if developers want to take some of the existing buildings, knock them down, and build new ones, and the Council sees it fit, then that's fine, but it's very important to protect the ambiance that Bal Harbour has now. Mr. Epstein thinks that the proposal, to give a height much higher than any existing building, violates that ambiance. He stated that the provision for the minimum floor areas provides, if the builder so wants, to put in many small units. Mr. Epstein stated that it may be fashionable now to have large units, but it's far more profitable to put in many small units and there's nothing in this ordinance to prevent the builder from putting in a maximum number of small units. Mayor Berlin advised just the density cap, which is still in place and cannot be exceeded. Councilman Roth stated it's 55 units an acre. Mayor Berlin advised that the developer is only entitled to do 55 units an acre. He explained that there's no size restriction on the individual units, but the density hasn't been changed. So, whether big or small units are built, they're still limited to 55 units per acre. Mr. Epstein stated that developers and builders are only interested in profit and it's up to the Council to look after the interests of the existing residents and the unique features that the Village now offers. Dina Cellini, resident - 211 Bal Cross Drive, thanked the Council for the opportunity it has afforded the residents to ask questions; however she expressed her concern in that she thinks that this workshop is way too late and should have taken place months ago. She reminded the Council that, in 1999, when certain ordinances were proposed for the residential section, the Council invited Mr. Miller (in February) to present a workshop to the Council and the public at large, explaining in detail how those ordinances would affect the development in the residential section. Ms. Cellini advised that it was after that presentation that the Council directed Mr. Miller to sit down with the Village Attorney and come up with some ordinances. She contrasted that with the way that this ordinance was handled by this Council. Ms. Cellini advised that the first time any of the residents knew about these proposed changes was when they received a postcard in the mail. She stated that the language was very innocuous and she came because she saw that somehow oceanfront zoning was going to be affected and, even though she lives in a home, she enjoys driving down Collins Avenue and the ambiance that she thinks everyone enjoys. Ms. Cellini stated that it wasn't until the April meeting that she was at all aware that a Committee was formed of the Building Official, Mr. Miller, a representative from the Village Attorney's office and one resident, Mr. Rudolph, who was invited to join that Committee. She advised that there was no representation from the oceanfront and this zoning directly impacts the oceanfront. Ms. Cellini hopes that in the future that the Council would be mindful that the Village residents would like to be involved in what happens in the Village. Ms. Cellini advised that it's her understanding that this ordinance has two components: changes to the oceanfront zoning as it exists right now and an overlay ordinance, called Planned Development. She stated that the Planned Development portion of this proposed ordinance never existed before and that component leaves, within the entire discretion of the Council, all of the development parameters that exist in the Code. Ms. Cellini is confident that the Council is looking after the residents' interests and also keeping in mind competing and conflicting interests. She pointed out, however, that the Council as it exists right now is comprised only of 4 members and there's a seat that's vacant. Ms. Cellini advised that she feels very uncomfortable leaving the discretion of the future development of Bal Harbour in the hands of four people, who may change over time, not to mention the fact that they don't know who the fifth seat is, so they're leaving the discretion in the hands of someone who the residents don't even know. She stated that the Planned Development component would apply to property that has a street frontage of 350 feet or more, which right now would mean the Bal Harbour Club, the Harbour House property, and the Sheraton. Ms. Cellini is concerned that Council Workshop Meeting 05/20/2002 9 241 242 none of the development parameters that are being talked about in the oceanfront zoning would apply. She stated that the Village, in its entire discretion, could decide that they are going to modify the development parameters for a certain project. Ms. Cellini advised that she has read the Omni Point Case and has discussed it with many lawyers and she knows that zoning boards all over Dade County have shut down, because the 3`d DCA, which is the appellate court that governs Dade County, has said that ordinances that are so discretionary and so unspecific that don't have strict parameters are illegal and violate the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. She stated that zoning boards all over Dade County have shut down, because of this Omni Point Case. Ms. Cellini advised that Bal Harbour's Council, however, seems to be the only Council that's moving forward on zoning, in Tight of the Omni Point Case. She stated that concerns her. Ms. Cellini reported that she has heard that the Village Attorney doesn't believe that the Omni Point Case governs and it's only limited to Metropolitan Dade County; however, she disagrees and thinks that at the very least the Omni Point Case casts a shadow of doubt on the legality of the Planned Development component of this ordinance. She asked that the Village Attorneys take that in mind as they advise the Council on the propriety of moving forward with the Planned Development component of this oceanfront zoning. Ms. Cellini stated that she is concerned with the liberalization of the side setback and reviewed Section 21.291. Ms. Cellini stated that right now in the oceanfront zoning the side setbacks require that 25% of the width of the property be devoted to a side setback. She advised that right now for a 400-foot property, the Code would require that there be a 100-foot setback on either side of a building. She explained that the Code that is proposed would reduce that side setback from 100 feet to 50 feet. Ms. Cellini stated that subsection (e) would further allow a liberalization of that 50 feet, if a public access was given by the developer. So, the Village would be going from a possible 100-foot setback down to a 50-foot setback, down to something within the discretion of the Council. Ms. Cellini advised that concerns the residents. She explained that they enjoy the space that's between the buildings, especially when there's a large piece of property. Ms. Cellini stated that she understands that the change in the accessory parking feature would now allow it to be in the front setback between 100 feet and 150 feet. She understands that the Tower does have that accessory parking, but the property rises up to the front, so it's not seen. She advised this doesn't require that. Ms. Cellini stated that an accessory parking structure, a separate building, could be placed, according to this proposal, within 100 feet and 150 feet, depending on the developer's discretion. She agreed that it looks nice when it's underground and the property rises up, but this ordinance doesn't require that. Ms. Cellini stated that the definition of Floor Area Ratio would exempt trash chutes, elevators, etc., but it would also exempt balconies. She is concerned that given the fact that balconies are generally very cheap to build and a feature that many people would enjoy, the Village could end up with a building that fits within the proper footprint of the land; however, as it goes up visually a bulk would be created by the projecting balconies. Ms. Cellini is concerned that allowing a 100% exemption for balconies is too liberal. She thinks that a smaller percentage would be fair, but would recommend that the Committee rethink the percentage they would like to give the developers, as an exemption for balcony space. Mr. Nieda advised that Ms. Cellini is interpreting the proposed changes correctly; however she has chosen the most extreme case. He advised that a 400-foot lot would require a 100- foot setback. Mr. Nieda explained that they believed that this would generate design creativity and would afford the opportunity for buildings to have a greater setback on the other side, so if there's a condition where sight lines are not affected or the shape of the structure does not Council Workshop Meeting 05/20/2002 10 cast undesirable shadows or obstruct sight lines to adjacent properties, then that would be a consideration where the project would be reviewed. He advised that it has to be kept in mind that there is an intermediate layer to all of this, which is the Architectural Review Board and is an open forum that is open to the public where feedback is accepted and provided. He stated that the idea here is to stimulate design creativity. Mr. Nieda stated that they recognized that it's better to have an offset building on a site that is large, because that will create more open sight lines and a better visual break. He explained that it's more desirable to have a 200-foot area of open sky, visible from Collins Avenue, than it would be to have a 100-foot corridor of open space. Mr. Nieda stated that the intent is to promote design flexibility. He explained that they believe that the parcels are large enough that an architect in his right mind would not build a tower 50 feet away from an adjacent structure, because the parcels are large enough that they would want to have a desirable configuration that does not obstruct sight lines, has light and air, has proper ventilation, and does not cast obnoxious and negative shadows onto adjacent structures. Mr. Nieda advised that is basically the idea of why they proposed a 50- foot minimum (side yard) setback (in the Ocean Front District). Mr. Nieda stated as far as the access into setbacks, with easements, they felt that was something that should be looked at on a case by case basis, whether the intent is whether it's desirable to have beach access or not, that is not for him to say, but is simply a desirable goal that the Comprehensive Plan says the Village should strive to have beach access in its projects. Mr. Nieda stated that, regarding the balcony structures, the Code limits a maximum cantilever of four feet into the setback area, so there would not be a continuously projecting balcony 8 feet or more, because the Code doesn't permit it and structurally it now becomes feasible to keep cantilevering out, because that would put a burden on the structural shell that is not practical and not cost affective. Stephen Helfman, Village Attorney, addressed the legality of the PD as it relates to the current Omni Point issue. He advised that the Village Attorneys believe that this ordinance is legally sufficient and would not sign off on it if they didn't. Mr. Helfman reported that they are well aware of the Omni Point decision and represent many of those municipalities who are struggling with that decision and what to do with it. He stated that it's a decision that related to only Dade County's ordinance and no other jurisdiction, except a handful of them who have adopted Dade County's rules. Mr. Helfman explained that the decision said that the guidelines that the County was using for granting variances and special exceptions were too vague, and that portion of the County's Code was unconstitutional because those guidelines were vague. He stated that it has upset the Dade County zoning process and they are at somewhat of a standstill, because the County occupies most of the land area within Metropolitan Dade County. Mr. Helfman reported that there are a handful of cities, who are also struggling with this decision, because they had the same standards. He stated that there is nothing that the Village is doing in this Code to change the standards for granting variances or special exceptions. Mr. Helfman explained that the Village is not dealing with anything within the realm of that decision. He advised that there has always been the problem that municipal ordinances, whether they be zoning or any ordinance or law, could be challenged as being too vague. He advised that the concept of challenging an ordinance, because the provisions were vague, is something that has been around forever. Mr. Helfman explained that a judge happened to grab onto the provisions in the Dade County Code, at this point in time and history, and has said that they are too vague. He advised that any ordinance that the Village has and ordinances within the State or Country, are always subject to that kind of challenge. Mr. Helfman stated that the Village is not dealing with special exceptions or variances here, but is dealing with the Planned Development District, which is a re -zoning that somebody Council Workshop Meeting 05/20/2002 11 243 244 could apply for. He explained that if someone is a property owner in the Oceanfront District, then they would go to the guidelines and design a building. Mr. Helfman advised that if for some reason they could not conform with the provisions of the Code, then they might seek a variance, under the Village's variance provision, or they might try to re -zone the property to a Planned Development District. He reported that they would then get involved in a give and take process with the government and negotiate an agreement under this provision, where they would actually have a contract with the government as to what they can build there. Mr. Helfman advised that the agreement would be recorded on the property and it would govern the development of the property. Mayor Berlin explained that this concept was introduced to the Study Group by the Village Attorneys' office, at the same time that the Omni Point decision came out. He advised that when the decision came out, he asked Ms. Stroud if it was going to impact what she recommended. Mayor Berlin reported that Ms. Stroud advised that it was her opinion that it wouldn't. He advised that he doesn't think that the audience understands and questioned if this is a unique thing. Mayor Berlin requested that Ms. Stroud explain why she recommended this, what the benefit is for the community, how many other communities in South Florida have Planned Developments, and if they are going forward with the PD Districts, in light of the Omni Point. Mr. Helfman advised that there are many jurisdictions, within South Florida, that have Planned Development Districts (Dade County as a government, Key Biscayne, Homestead, Aventura, Weston, etc.). He explained that they have become commonplace within these jurisdictions, in order to give government flexibility in dealing with development that may not be conventional. Mr. Helfman reported that it provides the government the flexibility of working with a developer, in trying to create a development that the government wants. He stated that at the end, if the government doesn't want it, then they would say no. Mr. Helfman explained that it's not a special exception process; it's not a set of criteria under which the Village is approving an exception to a set of rules. He stated that the essence of it is to not be rigid, not to have rigid guidelines, but rather to have flexible guidelines. Ms. Stroud explained that it became clear that the Village has a very strict variance process and they started looking at the Oceanfront District, trying to bring it up to more modern standards, because in many senses it was a very anachronistic District. She stated that the possibility was discussed that for large lots, for really unique circumstances, there might need to be more flexibility than even what they were trying to do, in terms of modernizing the existing Code. Ms. Stroud stated that it was to give a little bit more wiggle room, if there were a very good design and extraordinary development that came in and that otherwise just couldn't fit into the current zoning Code. She explained that the PD District is how jurisdictions provide some flexibility. Ms. Stroud reported that the State Growth Management Statute in fact encourages PD Districts; it's listed as something that local governments should look at. She advised that the Village's Comprehensive Plan says that the Village will provide for a PD District and it hasn't yet. Ms. Stroud explained that PD Districts are not bizarre and have become much more accepted standard kinds of zoning districts. She stated that in putting the PD standards together in this ordinance, they looked at 30 different PD Districts to see what other cities are doing and how the Village might try to take the best of those different ordinances. Ms. Stroud stated that they tried to build in some very good standards and at the end make it something that the Village controls completely; even more so than it would control development coming in under the Oceanfront regular district. She reported that it balances out the fact that the Village has a very strict variance standard. Sean Clancy, resident - 211 Bal Cross Drive, questioned if the Village is getting sued by Council Workshop Meeting 05/20/2002 12 developers because of the existing Code and why the Village is rushing into something. He advised that even though the Study Group has been working on this for 9 months in deep secrecy, with only one non -employee of the Village on the Committee, it seems that a lot more is being learned today that wasn't known. Mr. Clancy stated that he has had conversations with Council people and they didn't even know a lot of these facts a few days ago. He questioned why the Village is rushing into a second reading of something that he doesn't think everyone understands. Mr. Clancy suggested pulling back and making sure, before it is passed, that the Village knows what it's doing, because it doesn't want to dig a hole. He advised that when he hears that the train is being driven by developers coming in to Village Hall saying that they need certain things, it's a red flag for him. Mr. Clancy would rather that the citizens come into Village Hall saying they think something needs to be done. He advised that there are only four Council members right now and he thinks it's their responsibility as elected officials to do the right thing for the Village at all times. Mr. Clancy stated that the right thing for the Village, at this point, is to table this discussion and open up the process to the people, in particular from the Oceanfront because they don't have one representative on the Committee. He suggested tabling the second reading at the May 21 st meeting, form a Committee, look into it in detail, get all of the input, make the best decision for the Village, and go forward with that. Mr. Clancy advised then there will be no discussion from anybody that they weren't given a fair chance at discussing it and that they didn't know what was going on. He stated that going forward the Village can then say that this was crafted by the people of the Village for the best of the Village and if the developers can work within it that's great, but if they can't, then that's the way it goes. Mr. Helfman explained that the process was a legal process. He advised at the first Committee meeting, they discussed sunshine law and the appropriateness of the process and to make sure that the process that the Mayor was partaking in and one of the citizens and staff was participating in was legal. Mr. Helfman stated that it was a legal process. He advised that everybody can choose the number of public hearings, who is invited, etc., which is an issue of how the Village wants to run the government, but in terms of a legal process, fundamentally, this process is legal. Mr. Helfman stated that workshops aren't required at all. He advised that the process that was followed and the notice that was sent, the first reading and the second reading are intended to evoke the public participation, so those notices that went out did their job. The public disagreed. Mr. Helfman stated that the purpose of the notice was to disseminate information to the public to let them come in and understand what is happening. He advised that everyone can have a different idea of what they would do if they were on the Council, but in terms of the legality of the process, they want to make sure that if and when an ordinance is passed, it is legal and won't be challenged. Mr. Helfman stated that the Village Attorneys think it is legally sufficient. He advised that the meeting today is a workshop and is not intended to be a Council hearing; it wasn't advertised as a hearing on the ordinance. Mr. Helfman stated that the Council can do whatever it wants tomorrow at the hearing (continue it, vote on it, deny it, modify it, etc.). He advised that the Council can modify it and make changes consistent to what they have heard today. Mr. Helfman reported that the notices provided are broad enough legally so that they have the ability to change the ordinance tomorrow. He advised that it's not set in stone the way that it's drafted. Mr. Helfman reported that the Mayor is going to propose at least one change, which he has discussed. Steve Sorenson, Director of Development for Charles E. Smith Realty Residential Company out of Washington D.C. — owners of Harbour House (10275/95 Collins Avenue), advised that they bought the Harbour House in November 2000 and are very excited about the investment, because they are excited about what Bal Harbour is all about. He explained that everything that brought the residents here is what brought them here. Mr. Sorenson reported that they have an investment approaching $100 million and they Council Workshop Meeting 05/20/2002 13 245 246 understand that good planning and development ultimately build value, so they're a part of the process here. He advised that they want to make sure that the community likes what they're doing, because ultimately the market has to buy to it and that's how it depends on what they can charge what they're selling. Mr. Sorenson explained that when everything is over and done with, they're still staying here. He explained that they are in the rental apartment business and they will be the largest single landowner, with the exception of the Bal Harbour Shops and Sheraton, and they're here and are long-term owners. Mr. Sorenson reported that they're not just coming in and buying and leaving. They are coming in, they want to improve the neighborhood, and stay Tong -term. He advised that the first thing that hit them when they bought this investment was that it was a first class property with a second-class entrance. Mr. Sorenson explained that coming into the Village of Bal Harbour, there is a wall, which is a big ugly building. He advised that they came to the Village of Bal Harbour with the hopes of inspiring this community to do something better; to come in and build something exciting architecturally; something that could redefine what Bal Harbour is all about. Mr. Sorenson thinks that what the Village has now, coming in, doesn't make that statement. He advised that to trust a developer is tough to do. Mr. Sorenson explained that they have been in business for 50 years, are the largest high rise developer in the United States, multi -family developer, they won the national development award for the multi -family developer from the National Homebuilders Association last year, and do very high quality work. He advised that they think that they can make Bal Harbour better. Mr. Sorenson reported that this ordinance will help everybody to have a better Bal Harbour, which is what they are trying to do for everybody because a rising tide floats all boats and they think that this is a rising tide. He advised that he lives in Jupiter and comes down to Bal Harbour on a weekly basis. Mr. Sorenson advised that he lives in Jupiter, because it has some of the strongest land development regulations in the State of Florida; they have very current development ordinances. He explained that this is going to make Bal Harbour a current planning environment, where something exciting can be done for the community. Mr. Sorenson advised that if they're going to maintain the existing codes, then Bal Harbour will maintain the kind of architecture that's at its front door presently, which is a big ugly building. He explained that they don't want it and he doesn't think that the Village wants it and when they see the proposals that they hope to bring forward to this community, then they will be stunned by how the front entrance of Bal Harbour can be redefined forever, or at least the next 30-40 years. Mr. Sorenson requested that the residents not foreclose the Village's possibilities of what Bal Harbour could be, because they're afraid of change. Janna Lhota, Attorney for Holland & Knight on behalf of Charles E. Smith Residential Realty, thanked everyone for the work that they have done and the residents for showing up today to show how much they care about the community. She thinks that the proposed changes to the Oceanfront District will in fact help those existing buildings, because she believes that it's probably true that some of those existing buildings that Mr. Nieda pointed out are currently not conforming to the Code, based upon the setbacks. She advised that has serious ramifications in the event of a casualty, which she is sure the Village Attorney can discuss further. Ms. Lhota thinks that would only help existing residents, as far as a reduction on some of the side setback issues. She advised that when they received the draft ordinance last week and reviewed it, they noticed one provision that they think has an unintended result. Ms. Lhota explained that Section 21-299(f), under the PD District regulations, relates to maximum density and has a provision in it that provides for cumulative density. She reported that means that the cumulative density of the entire PD is limited to the underlying Oceanfront District density, which they agree with. Ms. Lhota stated that as the PD ordinance is currently worded, it does require, because it has a minimum street frontage requirement of 350 feet, that they band together what is known as Harbour House North with Harbour House South. She advised that as Mr. Sorenson has explained, Charles E. Smith is excited about the Council Workshop Meeting 05/20/2002 14 possibility of redeveloping Harbour House North into a new exciting structure that would be the entranceway into the Village of Bal Harbour. Ms. Lhota advised that since the PD must encompass both the North and South tower, their concern is that the cumulative nature contained in subsection (f) will restrict the total density that can be built under the current Code, of 55 units per acre, on the North parcel. She explained that is because the South tower is currently a legal non -conforming use, as to density. Ms. Lhota advised that their proposal would be to include a sentence in this section that provides that where a planned development is being developed with multiple lots or phases, and in their case it would be Harbour House North and Harbour House South (the existing platted lots), that the existing structure that is built as legal non -conforming as to density, i.e. the South Tower, would be able to remain in its non -conforming state and that the North Tower piece, which is a 5 acre platted lot, would be able to be redeveloped under the current density, which is 55 units per acre. She explained that this section, as it is written now, would affectively render any redevelopment of the North parcel mute, because the units would be limited to less than 100 units total, which is only 16 units per acre. Ms. Lhota reported that she has a draft revision of subsection (f) that includes some proposed language that they previously submitted to the Village Attorney. Mayor Berlin clarified that the Harbour House now, in terms of density, is a legal non- conforming use. Ms. Lhota agreed. Mayor Berlin stated that the concept that they're advancing is under the proposed PD, where the entire PD would have to be in compliance with new density, and since they need it in both of the parcels, if their development plan was only to destroy one building and leave the South building standing, then they wouldn't be able to do it, because the wording of this language would create a non-conformance with overall density, as a result of the non-conformance allowed in the South. Ms. Lhota clarified that because they have to bind together the South tower with the North tower, for purposes of the PD application. Mayor Berlin stated that they wouldn't be able to develop the North tower; they would have to knock down both of them in order to do it. Ms. Lhota agreed and explained that right now the South tower is not in their plans. Mr. Helfman questioned the overall street frontage that they have. Ms. Lhota explained that the North Tower has a total street frontage of 343 feet, so by itself it doesn't meet the minimum street frontage requirement, under a PD. She advised that the South Tower is comprised of two 200-foot platted lots, so it's a total of 400 feet, which the building actually straddles. Mr. Helfman advised that if they combine those, then it's 743 feet, which exceeds the 350 feet requirement. He questioned if they're saying that there's no configuration of the property where they can get 350-foot parcels. Ms. Lhota doesn't believe that they can, without creating a greater non-conformance on the South parcel. Mr. Helfman questioned what that non -conformity would be. Ms. Lhota responded that one would be setbacks in the Oceanfront District; it would have to be set back a certain amount and they would be taking away from that setback. Mr. Helfman questioned if that criteria would apply if they sought a PD District. He clarified that they said that the only way that they can use the PD provision is if they assemble their entire site as one site. Ms. Lhota agreed. Mr. Helfman advised that it seems that they can take advantage of the PD District with two separate districts, depending on how they configure and draw the line between the properties. He explained that they have enough overall frontage, so if they want to take 100 feet for one building and 600 feet for another, then they won't be able to meet the PD regulations for the 100-foot parcel. Mr. Helfman stated that if they have the ability to configure the tracts so that each one has at least 350 feet; then they have the overall lineal frontage to accomplish it. Ms. Lhota advised that she understands what Mr. Helfman is saying, but she doesn't believe that's possible, because the South Tower straddles the two 200 feet lots and the building projects out. She doesn't believe that there's 7 feet on the North property line on the South property, where the South Tower sits, to get that 7 feet, unless the Village had a district that bisected a building, which she doesn't think is the intent that the Village is trying to Council Workshop Meeting 05/20/2002 15 2'41 248 create. Ms. Lhota explained that the buildings are over 40 years old and they are currently about 85 units per acre. She stated that, as Mr. Sorenson explained, the intent is actually to demolish the North Tower and build it at a lower density, which would be accomplished if the PD regulations are adopted. Ms. Lhota explained that any plan of the development, as far as height, setbacks, etc. is something that would come in for approval and review, by Mr. Nieda, the Architectural Review Board, and the Council, at two public hearings. She stated that they want to bring Bal Harbour a product that is something that everyone is going to be happy with, because they are going to be residents here for quite a long time. Mr. Sorenson advised that the whole purpose of this forum is to give them the opportunity to define the envelope of what the possibilities are. He explained that they don't quite know what that is as of yet. Mr. Sorenson stated that there's not going to be additional rentals, it will be a considerable reduction in density, it will be a considerable improvement in the entrance of both property, and they will make the experience coming over the bridge one that will not be forgotten. He explained that they want to do something that they think is appropriate for the site. Mr. Sorenson agreed with Mr. Nieda in that there's a relationship on scale, size, and intent and they plan on doing that. He advised that the North Tower redevelopment affects them more than anybody, because they're the next door neighbor. Mr. Sorenson stated it could be a condo, hotel, or combination of both. He explained that the current zoning capabilities right now, when looking at the possibilities, will actually hold back the potential of this community. Mr. Sorenson stated that they can go that route, if that's what the community wants. Doug Rudolph, resident - 212 Bal Bay Drive, explained that he is the resident who has been referred to during the meeting and he has spent a lot of time looking at this. He stated that he doesn't live on the beach and most of the residents here today do, but at one point they may not have. Mr. Rudolph explained that the people that developed those buildings and the Councils that were there had to think what they wanted to build that people would want to live in. He advised that his mother-in-law will probably live on the beach some day and his mother talks about moving to the beach. Mr. Rudolph thinks that the chances are great that when everyone's children get older, they may move to the beach also. He stated that whether residents live on the west or the east side, they are considered. Mr. Rudolph advised that, regardless of whether this Council decides to move forward at the meeting tomorrow or not and whether they decide to have more workshops or only this one, he couldn't care less. He explained that he wants what is best for this community, as a resident. Mr. Rudolph addressed the parking garages and explained that they are for the people that live in the buildings and, if they are bermed properly and look pretty... He advised that most residents probably didn't even know that the Tower Condominium comes out as far as it does, because it's pretty. He advised that the people who live in the buildings want to make sure that the cars move easily and safely through there and want it to be convenient. Mr. Rudolph stated that this wasn't made, where the garages go up, because they're limited. He advised that the language needs to be right. Mr. Rudolph stated that if the language isn't right, then it should be made right. He stated that if it's right, then people who have invested $100 million and want to build, also have rights. Mr. Rudolph advised that he isn't concerned about the developers and he couldn't care less, because his philosophy is that the property is worth what it's worth and, at some point, somebody's going to buy it, develop it and put in what they want to. He advised that if they can sell it, that's fine, but if they can't, that's not the problem of the residents. Mr. Rudolph advised that he agrees with the residents and they're not here to make the developers happy. He reported that a couple of years ago a friend of his was involved in trying to rezone the beachfront property, where the Beach Club is. Mr. Rudolph advised that there were some things about it, as a resident, that bothered him and he Council Workshop Meeting 05/20/2002 l6 personally filed a lawsuit against the Village, to try to stop that from being zoned high-rise. He reported that he was unsuccessful, but he tried, because as a resident he had certain feelings and concerns about what went on in the Village. Mr. Rudolph stated that they won and he lost and they're moving forward. He explained that the Council is now trying to put in the proper guidelines so that everybody has a chance to develop their property, within reason, but within a way that's going to satisfy what the needs of this community are. He advised that he has listened to comments throughout this meeting that everything is for the developer, what happened to this Council and where they went wrong. Mr. Rudolph reported that he worked hard for the campaigns of a lot of these people and everyone worked hard to try to protect the Village and the integrity and didn't want development to run wild. He advised that the plan that is in place today allows 319 feet and 30 stories and what's proposed today brings it down to 275 feet, or in the worst case, in the residents' minds, in a PD, 297 feet. Mr. Rudolph pointed out that's not as high as what is allowed now. He questioned how that is pro -development. Mr. Rudolph advised that if he were building a building and owned a property over there, he might not be looking at it like pro -development and might not be too happy. He reported that would be too bad, because the highest building in the Village right now is 262 feet (256 feet with a 6 foot partition on top) and the scale needs to be maintained. Mr. Rudolph stated that if people can't build within that scale, then they better find somewhere else to build, but at the same time they want to make Bal Harbour beautiful. He explained that if a piece is coming and it's a special piece, because it's surrounded by water on most of the sides, and by going up a little bit higher over there, they can go lower on the rest of the parcel that's next to the rest of the Village, then maybe this Council should have the ability to have a little bit of flexibility. Mr. Rudolph advised that he has heard people say that they don't want this Council to have any flexibility. He stated then maybe there shouldn't be a Council, then guidelines can be put in the books, and Mr. Nieda can tell everybody what they have, and maybe that would be the best way. He explained that in order for the Council to grant the PD that everybody is so afraid of, it has to be noticed, go before the ARB (Architectural Review Board), and come in for two public readings that the residents come to; however, under the existing Code today, there's something in there that says if someone walks in today and is a developer and sits down with the Village Officials, not the Council, but the building and zoning officials, and say that they're going to give the Village a little bit of beach access and Mr. Nieda says okay, then the height restriction there would be unlimited. Mr. Rudolph explained that the Study Group saw that and nobody has raised that or had a problem with that. He advised that the Village has been sitting here, since 1987, and that seems to be okay with everybody. He reported that the Study Group took that out. Mr. Rudolph advised that this proposal today is for finite development, so they can't go above 275, unless they get PD. He advised that he is a resident and if a developer comes in and says that they have a plan and are going to give the residents something for it, whether it's a municipal building, police station, additional access, etc. and this Council, in front of everyone, says that's a great plan, then they would have the ability to do it. Mr. Rudolph explained then if somebody doesn't like it, they can stand up and tell them no. He advised that he keeps hearing that there are only four members on the Council now. Mr. Rudolph stated that it takes the same three votes, whether there's four or five Council members. He advised that people have also said that if this Council is gone, then the Village would be in big trouble, because if there's another Council, then that Council can have two readings just like this, thank everyone for their comments, and pass whatever they want and undo what this Council did. So, if the residents don't like it, they should make sure that they have the right Council in place. Mr. Rudolph advised that he has heard people saying that the side setbacks can come in. Mr. Rudolph advised that he doesn't care where they put the side setbacks; he wants there to be side setbacks so that everybody has sight lines and has room. He advised that somebody Council Workshop Meeting 05/20/2002 17 249 250 stated that if they bring in the side setbacks, then they can build huge buildings. Mr. Rudolph stated that the FAR is set, the number of units per acre is set, and everything is in there. He stated that he trusts in the Council and trusts in the process, so he doesn't care whether there is another 20 of these meetings, but he thinks at some point everyone needs to be fair to the people that are going to buy in those new buildings, to make sure that they're designed properly and that the residents have what they want. Mr. Rudolph requested that everyone keep a fair open mind. He stated that when he built his house, Mr. Nieda was all over him and advised that he rules with an iron fist. Mr. Rudolph thanked Mr. Nieda for the work that he has put in. He stated that there are many municipalities where these things get done by city planners and become before a board, but never go before the citizens. Mr. Rudolph advised that the Village has a Mayor who is one of the most open, honest, hard-working and accessible people he has ever met. He suggested that people talk to their Council and Mayor. He reported that the Mayor sat in on every one of the meetings and most Mayors wouldn't do that. He thanked Mayor Berlin. Mayor Berlin thanked everyone for their comments and their interest. 3. ADJOURN: There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Mor Howard J. Berlin Attest: Jeanette Horton, MMC Village Clerk /elh Council Workshop Meeting 05/20/2002 18