HomeMy Public PortalAbout2002-06-18 Regular Meeting40
COUNCIL MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING — JUNE 18. 2002
The Regular Meeting of the Bal Harbour Village Council was held on Tuesday, June 18,
2002, in the Council Chambers, at Bal Harbour Village Hall. The meeting was called to
order at 5:05 p.m. by Mayor Berlin. Those present were:
Also present:
Mayor Howard J. Berlin
Assistant Mayor Daniel S. Tantleff
Councilman Peg E. Gorson
Councilman Seymour "Sy" Roth
Alfred J. Treppeda, Village Manager
Jeanette Horton, Village Clerk
David Wolpin, Village Attomey
Nancy Stroud, Village Attorney
Daniel Nieda, Village Building Official
As a quorum was determined to be present, the meeting commenced.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Daniel
Nieda.
Mayor Berlin reported that Matthew Blank, former Assistant Mayor and Councilman,
passed away on Saturday, June 15th. He advised that Mr. Blank served the Village for 10
years. Mayor Berlin explained that Mr. Blank was first appointed to the Council on June
23, 1987 after a seat became available mid-term. He then ran for election in 1989 and
remained on the Council. Mayor Berlin advised that Mr. Blank was appointed as Assistant
Mayor from 1989-1991 and served on the Council with distinction until April 1997. Mayor
Berlin advised that there will be a Memorial Service for Mr. Blank on Friday, June 21 st, at
2:30 p.m., at the Sea View Hotel. A moment of silence was observed in honor of Matthew
Blank.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A motion was offered by Councilman Roth and
seconded by Councilman Gorson to approve the minutes of the May 21, 2002, Regular Council
Meeting. The motion carried unanimously (4-0), and the minutes were approved as submitted.
4. PRESENTATIONS: None
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
6. ORDINANCE SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING
CONTINUES FROM MAY 21. 2002 MEETING: An ordinance amE..iding Chapter
21 "Zoning Code" of the Village Code was read, by title, by the Village Cleric.
Mayor Berlin opened the public hearing.
Mayor Berlin advised that after the May Council meeting, staff (Village Attorneys' office,
Building Official, Planning Consultant, and the Village Manager) took the proposed
Regular Council Meeting 06/18/2002 1
11
ordinance under consideration, notices were posted at all the buildings on the oceanfront
to solicit comments and recommendations, comments and recommendations were
received, the staff committee reviewed and considered them, a second workshop was
conducted on June 3rd, which residents attended, the staff committee then reviewed the
proposed ordinance again and considered the written and oral recommendations that were
received, and a final recommendation is being presented to the Council today. Mayor
Berlin reported that this is the unanimous recommendation of all the staff on the
committee. He advised that there were some amendments made to the ordinance in
response to recommendations that were received.
Michael Miller, Village Planner, reviewed "Comments and Suggestions from Citizens and
Interested Parties on the Proposed Text Amendments to the Bal Harbour Village Ocean
Front Zoning District Regulations."
Mr. Miller advised that after reviewing the comments received from 19 residents (including
Dina Cellini and Sheryl Goldberg) staff agreed to modify language in response to 2 of the
comments. Mr. Miller explained that the group commented that any development on the
beach should require a public hearing before the Council. He advised that the staff
recommendation was that nobody else gets that kind of treatment and there's a procedure
established in the Code that has been followed over the years, so the staff didn't see any
reason to vary from that procedure. He explained that there's a professional Architectural
Review Board, a Building Official that reviews items and, if there are questions on zoning
issues, the Village Planner or Village Attomey is contacted. So, the staff didn't feel this
suggestion was necessary.
Mr. Miller explained that the group requested to modify the definitions to allow, in the FAR
calculation, a certain percentage of the balconies to be included. He advised that there are
a lot of communities that have regulations that govern balconies. Mr. Miller reported that
the Village currently has a regulation that limits the distance the balcony can extend past
the side of the building (the balcony can only extend 4 feet out from the building face). He
advised that most communities do not have any criteria. Mr. Miller reported that the City of
Boca Raton allows an extension of 8 feet. He explained that the group's comment was
that if the Village allows a great extent of the balcony to stick out, it could make the bulk of
the building look bigger. However, because of the Village's allowance of only the 4 feet,
staff does not feel that, in an overall scheme of things, 4 feet around a building made that
big of a visual distance. Mr. Miller reported that staff is not recommending any amendment
to that section on the FAR definition.
Mr. Miller explained that none of the zoning districts right now have a Purpose of the
District in them, so staff attempted to craft one when the original ordinance was written. He
reported that the group has suggested that be expanded, which the staff agrees on. As
such, the staff has added some language to expand that. Mr. Miller reported that the
language in the ordinance now reads:
The intended development characteristics include primarily high-rise luxury residential
development with ancillary commercial and recreational uses. Additionally, resort -type
development such as hotels are also intended which may include convention facilities.
The recorded subdivision plats contain Building Restriction Lines that were intended to
establish the general position of buildings on the lots. Development requests should
generally follow the setback of existing construction, development intensities identified
in the Comprehensive Plan and these regulations and building heights.
Regular Council Meeting 06/18/2002 2
42
Mr. Miller explained that the language says it's going to be a high rise area that allows
residential uses, resort uses, hotels, convention facilities, and generally the building
restriction lines create boxes on all the lots. So, other than 3 buildings, the buildings are on
a straight line on the beach. He explained that there are 3 older developments that are
more landward than the other developments, so to Bal Harbour there is an established
"line" or setback, which is the eastward building restriction line on the plat. Mr. Miller
advised that is what is being said here.
Mr. Miller reported the group commented that they understood the idea of the parking
structures being allowed to be on a greater area on the lot than the tower itself. He
explained that the group liked the appearance, driving through Bal Harbour, that big
garages aren't seen. Mr. Miller advised that Bal Harbour only allows 2 story parking
structures. He explained that the group requested that it be stated that driving by, garages
can't be seen and have to blend in. He clarified that the Village has examples of that such
as having grand entrances that go up on top of the garage, so that landscaping, fountains,
and softness are seen instead of a structure. Mr. Miller advised that the staff came up with
the following language to address that:
Accessory Parking Structures shall be designed in such a manner so that from the
adjoining roadways, the structure must be substantially screened from view by the use
of earthen berms and landscaping. Driveways should appear to rise to the entrance of
the Principal Building. This shall not prohibit the Parking Structure driveway openings
from being visible from an adjoining street.
Mr. Miller explained that the opening to the garage must be screened.
Mr. Miller advised that the other items mentioned from the group were to: define street
grade (which is already in the Code). There was a comment about setbacks that paragraph
4 should be modified so that no building or structure shall be erected or constructed east of
the adjacent structures. He advised that looking at the plat, most of the buildings are in a
line, which follows the plat building restriction areas. Mr. Miller explained that the staff did
not feel that additional language was necessary here.
Mr. Miller advised that the group commented that paragraph 5 should be modified so that
the Council may not reduce the side setbacks to less than 50 feet. He explained that the
staff agreed with that and proposed clarifying language so that, if the Village is successful
in getting some more beach access points, if that's the Village's desire, that the people
wouldn't be penalized, such as a double counting of the area that would be set aside for
that.
Mr. Miller reported that the group commented on the beach access easements and felt that
the Village needed to put into the Code very specific criteria as to the design of the
easement. He advised that although the criteria is very good, he is not sure that the Village
wants to build a clock in the zoning code so that if someone comes in with a specific site
plan with a design that the Council likes, that the Council is not hand strung by a very
detailed description of this in the Code. Mr. Miller explained that the staff does not feel that
they need to put all of that into the Code and should let the Council deal with them on a
one on one basis. He advised that the suggested 20 feet wide may be too wide and
people may try to park there. Mr. Miller suggested that the idea was, if the Village had this,
to let the Village residents walk over to the area, not provide public access to the general
public of Dade County.
Regular Council Meeting 06/18/2002 3
43
Mr. Miller explained that on the Planned Development there were a number of legal type
questions (defacto, variance, etc.). He advised that the staff relied heavily on the Village
Attorneys advice and feel that the ordinance is properly drafted at this time. Mr. Miller
stated that the staff understands the reference to the Omnipoint case, but what the Village
is looking at is different. He clarified that the advice was not to modify this area.
Mr. Miller reviewed the comments in the letter received from Charles Ilvento. He explained
that Mr. Ilvento's emphasis was to move the buildings away from the beach and closer to
Collins Avenue. Mr. Miller advised that there is 1 building (Majestic Condo) that juts
towards the ocean, closer than the others. He explained that is just a peculiarity of the
development of parameters on that lot (because of the split in Collins Avenue and Harding
Avenue it's a peculiar shaped lot). Mr. Miller stated that when the developers of the Village
platted that property, the eastward building restriction line was more eastward than
anything else and that's the reason that building juts more towards the ocean than the
other buildings. He thinks that as a general concept, there are bigger setbacks from
Collins Avenue, which is the predominant vision one gets in Bal Harbour. Mr. Miller
explained that the staff did not feel that the setbacks should be relaxed on the Collins
Avenue side and that the building placements should stay where they are, according to the
plat and the setbacks in the ordinance.
Mr. Miller advised that there were also some references to the FAR, as to allowing a "sumo
wrestler" versus a more slender person, which is related to some of the comments on the
balcony. Mr. Miller reported that the staff felt that what was on the books was sufficient
and they all like the way that it looks out in the community. He advised there was a specific
question on the way the Village pushes the buildings back from the roads. Mr. Miller stated
that the staff has always felt and has interpreted the Code that when there are much taller
buildings over the 17 stories, that the Code allows stepping back of the building above that
line. He advised that was fortified in the language that is now in the ordinance. Mr. Miller
reported that Mr. Ilvento had questioned whether that was proper or not and if the Village
should allow the stepping at the top of the building or if the whole tower, if it's taller, should
move away further from Collins Avenue. He advised that the staff's opinion is that some
design freedom should be allowed for architectural creativity, if the designer chooses to do
that. Mr. Miller stated that there are structural reasons why the Village doesn't have that in
the community because a lot of the buildings were built years ago. He explained that
there's new technology now and some buildings to the south of Bal Harbour have features
that are stepped back and, structurally, as the buildings move back there is another
bearing point on the building. The staff feels that the ordinance should be interpreted as it
has been interpreted, which is to allow the individual stepping and not the whole building
moving back.
Mr. Miller advised that there was a comment that if someone tore down an old building they
would only be allowed to rebuild exactly in the footprint of the old building. He thinks that
the Village is trying to allow the freedom of the architects to build within the parameters of
the platted lot and the setbacks and not be constrained. If somebody chose to build a
smaller building thirty years ago, then the current owner shouldn't be required to build
within that same small footprint, if they so choose. Mr. Miller reported that there was a
suggestion to increase the side setbacks to 60 feet. He advised that he conducted some
math analysis and the staff thinks that it would shrink in the side so far that it would hamper
the ability to design a proper quality building. Mr. Miller explained that there was a final
comment on the concurrency requirements and whether the road or the water and sewer
Regular Council Meeting 06/18/2002 4
44
that the Village has could serve the development. He reported that he has verified all of
those numbers with the Village's concurrency management system, which he maintains for
the Village. He advised that the water and sewer is not a problem. Mr. Miller stated that
Collins Avenue is getting busier and there has been an appreciable (25%) increase in
traffic over the last 7 years. He advised that the Village is still at level of service D, which is
the adopted service volume for the road, so currently the Village does not have
concurrency problems on the roads. Mr. Miller stated that in the years to come, if the traffic
keeps increasing and development occurs to the north of Bal Harbour, then Bal Harbour
could be in a position where the road would need to be widened or some other restrictions
may need to be placed on development in the area. He advised that is monitored on each
development permit.
Mr. Miller reported that Mr. Ilvento also suggested increasing the allowable height of
buildings to allow taller and more slender buildings, rather than shorter, thicker buildings.
He explained that the staff felt that it wanted to put that cap on the buildings, as they have
suggested.
Mr. Miller reviewed the comments received from Holland & Knight, which represents
Charles E. Smith Realty Company. He advised that the only point that they raised was as
to how the Village would calculate density for that project. Mr. Miller explained that both of
the Harbour House buildings that exist today exceed the Village's density that is on the
books (55 units an acre). He advised that the Harbour House South is roughly 94 units an
acre and the Harbour House North is 70 units an acre. Mr. Miller stated that the Code that
adopted the original zoning code in 1974, established a 70 unit per acre density cap. In
1977, it was lowered down to the current 55. He explained that Holland & Knight
requested that, if they leave the south tower, the Village would not penalize them if they
tore down the north tower, because the combined lot area times the density would restrict
what they could replace there. Mr. Miller stated that they will lose units on the north
building, no matter what they do, if they tear it down. He reported that's a policy decision
on the Council's part and the staff feels that's a reasonable request. He explained that
from the staff's perspective, the Village wants a good "front door" to the community at the
Inlet, so to replace that building, the Village shouldn't create a disincentive to
redevelopment of that property. Mr. Miller thinks that if the Village strictly interprets that
they must use the combined acreage and the density, that would hurt the development
potential for that property, which may lead them to just leaving what is there.
Mr. Miller reviewed the comments received from Annette Teisch. He advised that Ms.
Teisch stated that she has seen 3 buildings erected that exceeded the height code, with
the blessing of the Council. Mr. Miller reported that the staff found no evidence of that. He
explained that the allowable height in the Code is roughly 29 stories, and there is no
building even close to that (the tallest building is 24 stories). Mr. Miller explained that Ms.
Teisch commented that the Majestic violates all of the Codes so that it sits as a monstrosity
at the entrance of Bal Harbour. He explained that particular lot has some very unique
development restraints and characteristics to it that are not common to the rest of the
properties. Mr. Miller advised that it is a little bit bigger because it has a uniquely shaped
lot, but it does meet the criteria that the Village has and a few variances were granted. He
reviewed Ms. Teisch's comments on lost sun. Mr. Miller advised that whenever there are
tall buildings, there is going to be some loss of sun in the late afternoon, so the staff
understands the comment, but didn't feel any amendments were necessary in this area.
He advised that Ms. Teisch felt that the wording was dangerous in the PD ordinance and
wanted it to be specific and to put a permanent cap on the height of the buildings. Mr.
Regular Council Meeting 06/18/2002 5
15
Miller explained that the staff feels that it is specific and there has been an amendment
proper to establish a cap for the PD projects. He advised that there were other comments
relating to retention of open space and references to the Bal Harbour Club (references that
there was something improper with the rezoning of the Club property). Mr. Miller explained
that the Comprehensive Plan was in place in the late 80's, the people petitioned to rezone
the property, there was a lengthy court battle and the Court ordered the Village to rezone
the property, so it is zoned for Oceanfront via Court Order. He advised that Ms. Teisch
commented that no hotel should be permitted because there may be a lack of security in
the future. Mr. Miller reported that the staff feels that in this case, the Village gets a pretty
large monetary gain from the hotels, and believes that hotel and resort facilities should stay
as a permitted use in the Code.
Mr. Miller advised that John Lang Looby submitted a letter in support of the ordinance and
basically said that there should be some flexibility to the Village to consider different
development applications.
Mr. Miller reported that Timothy P.H. Cresci discussed in his letter about increasing the
density as being a flaw. He clarified that the Village is not increasing density and is not
allowing taller buildings. He explained that the Comprehensive Plan has a density limit, the
Zoning Code has a density limit, and neither of those is being touched. Mr. Miller advised
that the Village is establishing a building height, which doesn't exist right now.
Mr. Miller explained that Raj Singh commented via email that he supports the movement.
Mayor Berlin requested that the "Comments and Suggestions from Citizens and Interested
Parties on the Proposed Text Amendments to the Bal Harbour Village Ocean Front Zoning
District Regulations" be attached to the record, which shows additional comments that Mr.
Miller did not review.
Nancy Stroud, Village Attorney, advised that it is a policy decision for the Council to
decide on whether it wants to accept language so as not to penalize redevelopment when
there are two buildings on the site and only one building is being redeveloped; however,
the staff did add the language so that the Council wouldn't penalize it. She explained that
it's easier to take it out instead of trying to create it at the meeting. Ms. Stroud advised that
there is a building height limitation on page 13(h). She understands that it was the intent to
calculate building height basically as it is done in the Ocean Front District, except it would
be 297 feet. Ms. Stroud thinks that it would be wise, although it's not in there now, to
further clarify that so that the roof top structures are calculated the same way as in the
Ocean Front District. She advised that some simple language such as "rooftop structures
shall be permitted pursuant to Section 21-293" would accomplish that. Ms. Stroud
explained that one item was changed on page 14, regarding Modification of Development
Parameters. She explained that under the original language it might have been interpreted
that this ordinance was allowing the Council to throw out any of the criteria for PDs and that
was never the intent. So, this new language is that the development parameters in this PD
ordinance have to be followed, but this also allows modifications, so that if anyone has
come in and received an approval by the Council for a PD, they don't have to live with that
forever. If they find a modification they would like to make, then they can come back to the
Council, get the approval of the Council in its discretion, and would have to stay within
development parameters of the ordinance. She stated that this allows for people to come
back and modify it, like any other approval that's allowed under the Code. Ms. Stroud
advised that some more standards and criteria were added in an excess of caution
Regular Council Meeting 06/18/2002 6
46
regarding what the Council would look at when they look at PDs, which is on page 10(5).
She reported that unnecessary language was deleted regarding the Council's sole
discretion. Ms. Stroud explained that if the Council is going to make a decision under this
ordinance, based on the PD criteria, then it is ultimately the Council's decision. She
advised that changing that language is not going to change the fact that it's ultimately the
Council's decision. Ms. Stroud thinks that may allieve some concerns that have been
raised regarding the Omnipoint decision.
Mayor Berlin thanked the staff that worked on this ordinance.
Stanley Whitman, owner — Bal Harbour Shops, advised that he is in support of the PD
ordinance. He commended the Council and thinks that the staff did an excellent job. Mr.
Whitman expressed that, in his opinion, the Village has rectified a situation where it has
separated the lots, which are not cookie cutter lots, from the rest. He discussed the
Sheraton, Bal Harbour Beach Club, and the Harbour House properties. Mr. Whitman
thinks that the Harbour House is a disgraceful building, which was built with FHA
construction specifications. He feels that the land is a spectacular piece of land, because
it's the only land in the north end of the beach that fronts on the Haulover Inlet, as well as
the ocean. Mr. Whitman advised that it has a peculiar shape and peculiar opportunities for
this community and the way that it's developed. He thinks that any incentive that the
Village can give that developer should be considered. Mr. Whitman suggested that special
consideration be given to any 4 or 5 star hotel that considers building on this market. He
advised that there used to be 9 hotels in Bal Harbour and most of them have been
replaced by apartments. Mr. Whitman explained that the resort tax that the hotels pay is
used for projects such as the palms trees and landscaping on Collins Avenue. It will also
pay for the landscaping that's being done on 96th Street. He advised that because of that
reason, if the Village can do it, it should make some kind of special recognition should a
hotel opportunity come along, because he thinks it would greatly benefit the Village.
Carter McDowell, Attorney representing the Bal Harbour Club, commended the
Council for approaching the Planned Development District and thinks it's an appropriate
vehicle to allow this community, and some of the major properties, to work together to
come up with an appropriate development solution for all parties. He advised that they
believe that the imposition of a 297 foot height limitation within the PD ordinance may be
counter productive to the larger view of trying to come up with a mutually beneficial
development program for everyone. Mr. McDowell explained that the Club has the
property on the ocean and other properties on the bayfront and they look forward to
working with the Village. He stated that they hope to come up with a solution that meets
everybody's needs and pointed out that limitation may end up being a frustration for
everyone in achieving mutual goals. Mr. McDowell advised that other than that, they think
that the Planned Development process is a good process that will allow everyone to work
together to come up with a solution that meets everyone's needs.
Susan Delegal, Attorney — Holland & Knight representing Charles E. Smith Realty,
advised that they support and encourage the Council to adopt the ordinance, including the
amendments that have been presented by the staff and Village Attomey's office.
Judith Bockman, resident-10205 Collins Avenue, requested clarification on page 13 of
required perimeter building setbacks for PDs (no building shall be located closer than 100,
which is the Collins Avenue setback). She questioned if the side setback has to be a
minimum of 25 feet to any other perimeter property line of a PD. She questioned if it's only
Regular Council Meeting 06/18/2002 7
47
as far as another adjacent PD property is concerned. Ms. Stroud clarified that it's 25 feet
adjacent to any property. Ms. Bockman questioned if 25 feet is sufficient. Mr. Nieda
responded that he thinks the idea is to allow design latitude, recognizing that a small
portion of a building might come that close and, if it's not obtrusive to site lines or has
obnoxious shadows or impedes other peoples rights, then he thinks it could be construed
as a positive thing.
Dina Cellini, resident — 211 Bal Cross Drive, thanked the staff for their work. She
objected to the fact that substantial changes have been made to this ordinance, both to the
Ocean Front and the PD ordinance, between the first and second reading. Ms. Cellini
believes that the law would require that this ordinance be re -noticed for a first reading. She
explained that because such substantial changes were made between the first and second
reading, it violates the letter and spirit of the notice of requirements, so she would like to
preserve that objection for the record. Ms. Cellini is concemed with Mr. Miller's comments
regarding the width of the public access and the fact that it might invite people from Dade
County to park there, etc. She stated that Bal Harbour is somehow seeking to eliminate
the true public some public access and is only looking for Bal Harbour residents to access
this public access. Ms. Cellini thinks that it appears to be a very "elite-ess" approach and
one that she would personally object to. She stated that her understanding of the balcony
issue is different than what Mr. Miller explained. Ms. Cellini's understanding is that Bal
Harbour's Code, as it is presently written, allows for a balcony to project from the building
only 4 feet past the setback. So, if a building was built inside the setback, then the
balconies could project further, which was her group's concem when they spoke about the
visual bulk. Ms. Cellini doesn't know that the limitation on the 4 feet truly satisfies the
problem that her group was concerned about. Ms. Cellini advised that the fact that the PD
District would require a public hearing and the Ocean Front would not require a public
hearing doesn't seem to her to be fair. She stated that if a developer is coming to the
Council to develop on the Ocean Front, then they should be held to the same standards
whether or not they are developing a property that is less than 350 feet or more than 350
feet. So, it would be her group's objection to not requiring a public hearing for all
development on the ocean. Ms. Cellini stated that if this ordinance is passed today, on
page 5(e), the word "be" should be placed between the word "may" and "approved."
There being no additional comments, Mayor Berlin closed the public hearing.
Ms. Stroud advised that she does not believe that these are substantive changes that
require another notice. She explained they are for the nature of clarifying and are actually
making more restrictive what was originally offered at first reading.
Assistant Mayor Tantleff thanked the staff and residents that participated in this process.
He thanked Doug Rudolph for his months of work and Dina Cellini for her time working on
these issues. Assistant Mayor Tantleff advised that he doesn't agree with every item in the
ordinance, but he is going to support it because overall he thinks the ordinance is a good
one. He advised there are two important things happening in this ordinance. First the
Council is lowering the potential height of the future buildings. He advised that Ms. Cellini
had pointed out at the workshop that no one has ever built above 300 feet. He explained
that they could have before this ordinance, but nobody chose to. Assistant Mayor Tantleff
clarified that this ordinance is lowering the potential height that someone can build. He
stated another important point is that the ordinance is not increasing the density (page 10
of the responses), which is important for people to realize. He advised that additionally if
someone comes in for a PD, as is noted, the public process begins all over again. So,
Regular Council Meeting 06/18/2002 8
48
before the Council will grant any PD, people are welcome to assemble and let the Council
hear any concerns. Assistant Mayor Tantleff stated that he may disagree with some
people, but he believes that the Council should have discretion when it comes to the PD
District, because that's what they are elected for. He appreciates the trust that the public
puts in the Council members, which is why he agrees with the discretion. Assistant Mayor
Tantleff thinks that on the whole, it is a very good ordinance and he supports it.
Ms. Stroud clarified that the motion was to approve the ordinance as proposed, which
includes language on page 13(h) to be added "rooftop structures shall be permitted
pursuant to Section 21-293."
A motion was offered by Assistant Mayor Tantleff and seconded by Councilman Roth to approve
this ordinance as amended. The motion carried with the vote as follows: Mayor Berlin aye;
Assistant Mayor Tantleff aye; Councilman Gorson aye; Councilman Roth ave. Thus becomin,q:
ORDINANCE NO.473
AN ORDINANCE OF BAL HARBOUR VILLAGE, FLORIDA, AMENDING
CHAPTER 21, "ZONING CODE" OF THE CODE OF BAL HARBOUR VILLAGE
BY AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF FLOOR AREA RATIO IN SECTION 21-1
OF CHAPTER 21; AMENDING DIVISION 10 "OCEAN FRONT DISTRICT" OF
CHAPTER 21; AMENDING PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS PROVISIONS IN SECTION
21-452 OF CHAPTER 21; AND CREATING SECTION 21-299 "PD" PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; INCLUSION IN
THE CODE; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
7. RESOLUTIONS: None
8. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. MAYOR AND COUNCIL:
Assistant Mayor Tantleff reported that he and Mr. Treppeda rode the Bal Harbour bus,
which is being used constantly. He advised that they would like to look into getting a new
bus. The bus driver reported that there are usually 20-25 residents on the bus.
Assistant Mayor Tantleff advised that a code enforcement officer has been placed on the
beach, who has given 117 citations so far to keep bicycles off the sidewalk and beach.
Councilman Roth requested an update on the issue of shark nets. Mr. Treppeda advised
that he spoke to State Officials from Fish & Wildlife and the only two places that have
shark nets are Australia and South Africa. According to them, there is no place in the
United States. He explained that the problem would be that other species would also get
caught in a shark net if the Village tried to put something out there, such as the protected
turtles and other types of mammals and other sea life. Mr. Treppeda reported that Fish &
Wildlife would not approve if the Village tried to get a permit for that. He is waiting to get
that in writing, but was told that verbally.
B. VILLAGE ATTORNEY: None
C. VILLAGE MANAGER:
Regular Council Meeting 06/18/2002 9
49
Award of Bid for Canary Island Date Palm Replacement: Mr.
Treppeda explained that the Canary Date Palm on 96m Street died of a disease. He
advised that the following three bids were received to replace it:
1. Tip Top Tree and Landscaping Service $ 6,360.00
2. Bert Newcomb Tree & Landscaping Service, Inc. $14,750.00
3. Groundworks of Palm Beach County, Inc. $10,600.00
Mr. Treppeda advised that the cost covers removing the dead tree, planting a new tree,
and providing a 1-year warranty. He recommended awarding the bid to Tip Top Tree and
Landscaping Service. Mr. Treppeda advised that this is paid for through resort tax funds.
A motion was offered by Councilman Roth and seconded by Assistant Mayor Tantleff to approve
$6,360.00 for Tip Top Tree & Landscaping to replace a Canary Island Date Palm. The motion
carried with the vote as follows: Mayor Berlin aye; Assistant Mayor Tantleff aye; Councilman
Gorson aye; Councilman Roth aye.
Request for Approval of Water Valve and Sewer Lateral
Emergency Repairs: Mr. Treppeda explained that money had to be spent from the water
and sewer funds in order to keep the water running for some residents and in order to keep
the sewer flowing at a certain area (172 Camden Drive). He reported that the total cost for
the repairs needed was $9,289.00. Mr. Treppeda advised that there are funds budgeted in
each of the funds for emergencies such as this.
Robert Wheldon, Public Works Director, advised that the work was done very quickly
and there was no interruption of service to either of the homes.
A motion was offered by Councilman Roth and seconded by Councilman Gorson to approve
$9,289.00 ($3,812 from the Water Fund and $5,477 from the Sewer Fund) for emerrencv repairs.
The motion carried with the vote as follows: Mayor Berlin aye; Assistant Mayor Tantleff aye;
Councilman Gorson aye; Councilman Roth aye.
Award of Bid for Renovation of Administrative Offices at
Village Hall: Mr. Treppeda explained that the offices of the Village Manager, Village
Clerk/Finance Director, and Mayor, along with the Administrative wing were never
renovated. He advised that the rest of Village Hall was renovated a few years ago to meet
the American with Disabilities Act. Mr. Treppeda reported that money is budgeted for this
project and Councilman Gorson has agreed to give her design services, free of charge, to
the Village. He advised that the following bids were received:
1. Coral Tech $124,800.00
2. Aida Construction $ 90,450.03
3. Construction Depot, Inc. $ 92,000.00
Mr. Treppeda recommended awarding the bid to Construction Depot, Inc. because
Councilman Gorson has worked with this company and she is familiar with their work. He
explained that this is Phase 2 of the Renovation Project and there will be another phase in
the future. Mayor Berlin thanked Councilman Gorson for donating her services.
A motion was offered by Councilman Roth and seconded by Assistant Mayor Tantleff to award
Regular Council Meeting 06/18/2002 10
50
the bid to Construction Depot, Inc. for $92,000.00. The motion carried with the vote as follows:
Mayor Berlin aye; Assistant Mavor Tantleffaye; Councilman Gorson aye; Councilman Roth ave.
Resort Tax Recommendations: Mr. Treppeda reviewed the
following recommendations made by the Resort Tax Committee at their meeting on June
13, 2002:
1. Additional Fees for Mexican FAM Trip $ 2,000.00
2. FAM Trip Expenses by Jose Lima $ 7,500.00
3. FAM Trip Expenses by Alice Fisher Public Relations up to $ 1,500.00
4. Ad Production Costs $ 1,000.00
A motion was offered by Councilman Roth and seconded by Councilman Gorson to approve
$12,000.00 for the above listed resort tax items. The motion carried with the vote as follows:
Mayor Berlin aye; Assistant Mavor Tantleffave; Councilman Gorson aye; Councilman Roth aye.
Mayor Berlin explained that it was reported previously that the resort tax fund is still running
negative to budget, as a result of September 11th, He advised that Mrs. Horton has
estimated, based on revenues and collections, that the Village is going to be to the
negative by approximately $436,000.00. Mayor Berlin explained that means that the
difference has to be made up in the budget. He explained that the choices are to cut the
budget dramatically, cut partially out of the budget and draw from reserves, draw
completely from the reserves, or any combination of those. Mayor Berlin advised that the
Resort Tax Committee has been discussing this and the opinion that seems to be forming,
subject to the Council's decision, is to do a combination of cutting the budget by $200,000
and drawing on reserves $200,000. He reported that there's currently $1.4 million in
reserves. Mayor Berlin advised that the Committee doesn't want to go below $1 million in
reserves, because that's the beach emergency reserve fund. He explained that the
Committee felt that it's important to continue their work, because experts have said that it's
critical not to stop marketing now in order to continue to have business develop. Mayor
Berlin expects that at the meeting in July, the Committee will come to a decision and will
come to the Council in September with a recommendation. He advised that he wanted to
advise the Council of what was going on, because he thinks the Committee will
recommend using $200,000 out of reserve to make up part of the differential.
Discussion of Schools on Public Park Lands: Mr. Treppeda advised that
Dr. Krop could not attend the meeting today and requested deferring this item until next
month.
Request for Salary Increase from Village Clerk/Finance Director: Mr.
Treppeda explained that Mrs. Horton serves as both the Village Clerk and the Finance
Director. He advised that at the time that she was given the extra responsibility of Finance
Director, she was given a nominal increase. Mr. Treppeda reported that Mrs. Horton
recently conducted a survey, which shows that she is underpaid for handling both of these
positions. He explained that if the salaries of Clerk and Finance Director positions are
averaged from similar cities, it is $132,000. Mr. Treppeda advised that Mrs. Horton is
currently earning a base of $69,000 and is requesting an increase to a base of $80,000.
A motion was offered by Assistant Mavor Tantleff and seconded by Councilman Roth to approve
an increase to a base salary of $80,000.00 for Village Clerk/Finance Director Jeanette Horton.
The motion carried with the vote as follows: Mayor Berlin aye; Assistant Mayor Tantleff aye;
Regular Council Meeting 06/18/2002 11
51
Councilman Gorson ave; Councilman Roth ave.
Mr. Treppeda reported that the 96th Street median landscaping plans have been received
from CAP Engineering, which will be placed out to bid to three landscape companies. He
explained that he should have something for the July Council meeting, for the award of a
bid. Mr. Treppeda reported that this is for the 96th Street center median.
Mr. Treppeda suggested discussing the appointment to the open Council Seat. He advised
that Councilman Boggess was from the west side apartment district (District 4) and
suggested limiting the selection to someone who lives in that district. Mr. Treppeda
explained that there are three applicants from District 4: Dr. Marion Thorpe, Lee Gaffney,
and Joel Jacobi. He also recommended putting a deadline of a week from the meeting
date, to close the receipt of resumes. Assistant Mayor Tantleff would like to begin a
process to get the seat filled and suggested that the Council hear from the candidates from
the District 4 and make a decision at the July meeting. He agrees with the Manager's
recommendation. Mayor Berlin suggested that the Village continue advertising for another
week for applicants, invite the applicants from District 4 to come to the July meeting to
make a presentation, and then decide what to do. Assistant Mayor Tantleff commented
that because of the short time left on this seat (until April 2003) he is agreeing to go to the
District. For example, if there was three years left on the seat, he would be more likely to
go with the discretion that's within the Charter, which lets the Council pick from anybody in
the Village. However, given the fact that if someone is appointed in July and they don't live
in the district, then they would not be able to run for re-election in April. He explained that
is why he is going with the Manager's recommendation, even though the Code allows the
Council to select from anywhere in the Village.
A motion was offered by Assistant Mayor Tantleff and seconded by Councilman Roth to adopt the
Manager's recommendation for process purposes. Mayor Berlin aye; Assistant Mayor Tantleff
aye; Councilman Gorson aye; Councilman Roth aye.
9. OTHER BUSINESS:
Ana Marie Kelley (Stoppa), owner - 77 Camden Drive, advised that she knows that the
Village cuts the grass and maintains the Palm trees in the Park District, Tract E, which
used to be owned by the Bal Harbour Club. Ms. Kelley advised that the Village also used
to cut vacant property, at no cost to the owners. She would like to know how much it costs
the Village a year to maintain the private property of others, because that property is
owned by the Civic Association now. Ms. Kelley advised that she has checked the tax
roles and Bal Harbour does not own that property. She would also like to know what the
Village charges the Civic Association for cutting their grass and maintaining that private
property. Ms. Kelley would like to know if there have been any agreements that were
reached by the Village, when the Club turned over the property. She advised that she was
on the Club's Board at the time that the property was turned over and she doesn't
remember any legal transposition of property ownership to the Civic Association. Ms.
Kelley advised that she knows historically that the Club never paid for any of the cutting of
the grass, maintenance of the Palm trees, or the planting of the trees. She advised that as
a property owner of a vacant lot, she was never charged for the cutting of her grass. She
is very concerned because of recent issues that have been raised and a lien put on her
property by the Village going in and cutting her grass and charging her. Ms. Kelley advised
that if the Village is maintaining other private property, then she finds it discriminatory. She
would like a real clarification of what's been going on the past 33 years that the Village has
Regular Council Meeting 06/18/2002 12
52
Councilman Gorson ave; Councilman Roth aye.
Mr. Treppeda reported that the 96th Street median landscaping plans have been received
f m CAP Engineering, which will be placed out to bid to three landscape companie e
exp ined that he should have something for the July Council meeting, for the aw d of a
bid. M\ . Treppeda reported that this is for the 96th Street center median.
Mr. Trep eda suggested discussing the appointment to the open Council S = - t. He advised
that Counc an Boggess was from the west side apartment distric (District 4) and
suggested li ing the selection to someone who lives in that dis ct. Mr. Treppeda
explained that t re are three applicants from District 4: Dr. Marion horpe, Lee Gaffney,
eek from the meeting
ff would like to begin a
ar from the candidates from
agrees with the Manager's
ontinue advertising for another
to come to the July meeting to
sistant Mayor Tantleff commented
pril 2003) he is agreeing to go to the
on the seat, he would be more likely to
ich lets the Council pick from anybody in
one is appointed in July and they don't live
n for re-election in April. He explained that
mendation, even though the Code allows the
and Joel Jacobi. He also recommended putting a deadline of
date, to close the r peipt of resumes. Assistant Mayor Tan
process to get the sea illed and suggested that the Council
the District 4 and makes decision at the July meeting.
recommendation. Mayor Berlin suggested that the Villag
week for applicants, invite the applicants from District
make a presentation, and ther�.\decide what to do.
that because of the short time le%on this seat (until
District. For example, if there was hree years lef
go with the discretion that's within thCharter, w
the Village. However, given the fact that if so
in the district, then they would not be able to
is why he is going with the Manager's rec
Council to select from anywhere in the V' age.
A motion was offered by Assistant Mayor antleff ak}d seconded by Councilman Roth to adopt the
Manazer's recommendation for proce . purposes. vor Berlin aye; Assistant Mayor Tantleff
aye; Councilman Gorson aye; Coun lman Roth aye. \
9. OTHER BUSI
SS
Ana Marie Kelley (Stoppa) owner - 77 Camden Drive, sat vised that she knows that the
Village cuts the grass an maintains the Palm trees in the Park District, Tract E, which
used to be owned by the al Harbour Club. Ms. Kelley advised that the Village also used
to cut vacant property, no cost to the owners. She would like tit), know how much it costs
the Village a year to aintain the private property of others, *cause that property is
owned by the Civic ssociation now. Ms. Kelley advised that sh6, has checked the tax
roles and Bal Harb ur does not own that property. She would also I e to know what the
Village charges tixe Civic Association for cutting their grass and main shining that private
property. Ms. Kklley would like to know if there have been any agre rents that were
reached by the Village, when the Club turned over the property. She advis*d that she was
on the Club's' Board at the time that the property was turned over and, she doesn't
remember ahy legal transposition of property ownership to the Civic Asso i tion. Ms.
Kelley advised that she knows historically that the Club never paid for any of the utting of
the grass; maintenance of the Palm trees, or the planting of the trees. She advised that as
a property owner of a vacant lot, she was never charged for the cutting of her grass. She
is very concerned because of recent issues that have been raised and a lien put on her
property by the Village going in and cutting her grass and charging her. Ms. Kelley advised
that if the Village is maintaining other private property, then she finds it discriminatory. She
would like a real clarification of what's been going on the past 33 years that the Village has
Regular Council Meeting 06/18/2002 12
55
maintained other private property and has not charged, at a great expense to other
residents, not necessarily the residents of Bal Harbour. Ms. Kelley advised that the Village
does not maintain the parks or the frontage of any of the condominiums or the parks of the
Sheraton and she finds this appalling. Ms. Kelley would like answers to these questions,
because in her opinion, 90% of the Village's workforce and 90% of the time that the
Village's men spend, is in the Residential Section, and they don't belong there, unless
they're picking up the garbage. She stated that they don't belong there cutting residents'
vacant property and they don't belong cutting grass or maintaining trees that are owned by
a Civic Association.
Ms. Kelley advised that she understands that the property of the playground is owned by
the Village. She's not sure who paid for the playground, but she understands that only Bal
Harbour residents have access to that, which concerns her. Ms. Kelley advised that if it's
on public property, it's difficult for her to accept that the Village is going to restrict a child
from anywhere else from playing in the Village's playground, if it's on publicly owned
property. She advised that if the Village has a referendum that says it turned over the
property to the Residential Section, or to the Civic Association, whatever maneuver was
made, then she would say that was great. Ms. Kelley advised that she is just ignorant of
the facts and she would like to be made aware of how, on public land, the Village restricts
children.
Ms. Kelley advised that another issue is that she sent a person to her house and called the
gate, but was told that she had to be present. Ms. Kelley advised that she investigated and
found that on the tax rolls there is a piece of property owned by the Village in the
Residential Section. She advised that the address does not exist, but it is on the tax rolls.
Ms. Kelley explained that the Village owns a piece of land in the Residential Section and
does not access at the front gate. She would like to know how that is done. She
questioned how any type of publicly owned property that is on the tax roles and the Village
is tax exempt on paying, can be denied access to people.
Ms. Kelley advised she would appreciate a response within a timely manner.
Ms. Cellini requested the status of the Temporary Restraining Order Action that the Village
took against the homeowner with the dogs. Mr. Wolpin advised that the Village is working
on a summary judgment motion and does have a temporary restraining order at this point,
but is looking for permanent relief.
10. ADJOURN: There being no further business to come before the Council, a
motion was offered by Councilman Roth and seconded by Councilman Gorson to adjourn. The
motion carried unanimously (4-0), and the meeting adjourned at 6:30 p,m.
Mayor Howard J. Berlin
Attest:
'Jeanette Horton, MMC
Village Clerk
/el h
Regular Council Meeting 06/18/2002 13