HomeMy Public PortalAbout2003-06-17 Regular MeetingCOUNCIL MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING — JUNE 17. 2003
The Regular Meeting of the Bal Harbour Village Council was held on Tuesday, June 17,
2003, in the Council Chambers, at Bal Harbour Village Hall. The meeting was called to
order at 9:00 a.m. by Mayor Tantleff. Those present were:
Also present:
Mayor Daniel S. Tantleff
Assistant Mayor Seymour "Sy" Roth
Councilman Howard J. Berlins
Councilman Peg E. Gorson
Councilman Joel S. Jacobi2
Alfred J. Treppeda, Village Manager
Jeanette Horton, Village Clerk
Richard J. Weiss, Village Attorney
As a quorum was determined to be present, the meeting commenced.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by
Councilman Jacobi.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A motion was offered by Assistant Mayor Roth
and seconded by Councilman Gorson to approve the minutes of the May 20, 2003 Regular
Meeting. The motion carried unanimously (5-0), and the minutes were approved as submitted.
4. PRESENTATIONS:
Officers of the Month — May 2003 — Captain Greg Rove, Detective
Paul Deitado, and Detective Leo Quinn: Chief Hunker explained that the work
exhibited by the members of the VIN unit have demonstrated a superior team approach
and is in keeping with the highest traditions of law enforcement. He reported that narcotics
investigations, initiated by the team, have resulted in the seizure of $274,000 and $386,000
throughout the month of May, to be used for future department projects. Chief Hunker
presented Captain Roye, Detective Deitado and Detective Quinn with "Officer of the Month"
plaques. Mayor Tantleff presented them with checks on behalf of the Village.
General Employee of the Month — Alonzo Clark: Mr. Treppeda explained
that Mr. Clark has worked for the Village for 25 years and is a very dedicated and hard-
working employee. He advised that Mr. Clark always insures that the task get completed in
a timely and efficient manner, whenever any department needs public works assistance.
Mr. Treppeda presented Mr. Clark with the "Employee of the Month" plaque for May 2003.
Mayor Tantleff presented Mr. Clark with a check on behalf of the Village.
S. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
1 Councilman Berlin left the meeting after the rezoning ordinance.
2 Councilman Jacobi left the meeting after the rezoning ordinance.
Regular Council Meeting 06/17/2003 1
6. INTERLOtAL AGREEMENT FOR DISTRIBUTION OF CHARTER
COUNTY TRANSIT SYSTEM SURTAX PROCEEDS LEVIED BY MIAMI-DADE
COUNTY: Mr. Treppeda explained that Miami -Dade County passed a half cent sales tax
and each city is eligible for a share of that, for transportation needs. He advised that Bal
Harbour is eligible for approximately $96,000.00. Mr. Treppeda explained that this sets up
a process, for the distribution of the funds, to each city. He advised that the Village
Attorney has reviewed this agreement and recommends that the Council approve this.
Mayor Tantleff explained that this is how the Village will be able to get the money from the
half -cent sales tax that was passed last year. He advised that, due to an agreement that
was worked out with the County, the municipalities are getting 20% of the half percent
sales tax. Mr. Weiss explained that money has to be dedicated to be spent on
transportation needs. Mr. Treppeda advised that it also has to be used for non -budgeted
items.
A motion was offered by Assistant Mayor Roth and seconded by Councilman Gorson to approve
the Interlocal Agreement for Distribution of Charter County Transit System Surtax Proceeds
Levied by Miami -Dade County. The motion carried with the vote as follows: Mayor Tantleff aye;
Assistant Mayor Roth aye; Councilman Berlin aye; Councilman Gorson aye; Councilman Jacobi
7. RE -APPOINTMENT MEMBERS RESORT TAX COMMITTEES
Mayor Tantleff explained that once a year, the Council reappoints members to the Resort
Tax Committee. Mr. Treppeda advised that the current members are: Councilman Howard
Berlin (Chairman), Boris Milgram (Neiman Marcus), Hans Altenhoff (Sheraton), Randy
Whitman (Bal Harbour Shops), and Tony Noboa (Beach Bank). He explained that all of the
current members have expressed interest in serving for another year, except for
Councilman Berlin. Councilman Berlin recommended that Mayor Tantleff take his place as
a member on the Resort Tax Committee. Mrs. Horton advised that the Chair is appointed
by the Resort Tax Committee.
A motion was offered by Assistant Mayor Roth and seconded by Councilman Jacobi to appoint
the following members to the Resort Tax Committee: Mayor Daniel Tantleff, Hans Altenhoff,
Boris Milgram, Tony Noboa, and Randy Whitman. The motion carried with the vote as follows:
Mayor Tantleff aye; Assistant Mayor Roth aye; Councilman Berlin aye; Councilman Gorson aye;
Councilman Jacobi aye.
8. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. MAYOR AND COUNCIL: None.
B. VILLAGE ATTORNEY: None.
C. VILLAGE MANAGER:
Request to Expend Forfeiture Funds: Mr. Treppeda explained
that Chief Hunker is requesting approval to expend forfeiture funds for the following items:
1. Rental of a Trailer for VIN Unit Per Month $ 350.00
Regular Council Meeting 06/17/2003 2
3
2. Architectural Study Funding $7,000.00
(McClaren, Wilson, and Lawrie, Inc. to Perform a Site Assessment and Use Survey)
3. Honor Guard $6,000.00
(Dress Uniforms, Equipment, and Development of a Department Flag)
4. DNA Life Print Kits $1,250.00
A motion was offered by Assistant Mavor Roth and seconded by Councilman Jacobi to approve
the expenditure of Forfeiture Funds for the above listed items. The motion carried with the vote as
follows: Mayor Tantleff aye; Assistant Mayor Roth ave; Councilman Berlin aye; Councilman
Gorson aye; Councilman Jacobi ave.
Request for Approval of Funds to Repair Roof Leak: Mr.
Treppeda explained that there is a roof leak at Village Hall. He advised that when the
agenda was printed, he had not yet received all of the prices. Mr. Treppeda reported that
he received three prices and the lowest was Construction Depot, at $10,000.00. He
advised that Construction Depot recently renovated Village Hall and he is recommending
them for this job.
1. Construction Depot $10,000.00
2. Biltmore, Inc. $11,300.00
3. Milmar Roofing $11,665.00
A motion was offered by Assistant Mayor Roth and seconded by Councilman Jacobi to approve
$10,000.00 for Construction Depot to repair a roof leak on the 2nd floor, waterproof a landing on
the emergency fire exit stairs, and clean and seal deteriorating cupola support stands. The motion
carried with the vote as follows: Mavor Tantleff ave; Assistant Mavor Roth aye; Councilman
Berlin ave; Councilman Gorson aye; Councilman Jacobi aye.
Approval of Expenditure for 4th of July Fireworks: Mr. Treppeda
explained that the Village is in its third (and final) year of the contract with Zambelli
International. He reported that he needs to pay a 50% deposit before the display happens.
Mr. Treppeda requested approval for $17,200.00 (for the total display), which will be taken
from Resort Tax funds.
A motion was offered by Councilman Gorson and seconded by Assistant Mavor Roth to approve
$17,200.00 in Resort Tax funds for the Village's annual 4th of July fireworks display. The motion
carried with the vote as follows: Mayor Tantleff ave; Assistant Mayor Roth ave; Councilman
Berlin aye; Councilman Gorson ave; Councilman Jacobi ave.
Real Estate Sign Regulation Update: Mr. Treppeda explained that
the Council previously sent this to the Civic Association to review. He reported that the
Civic Association has reviewed this issue and determined that they don't want to take any
other action than what the previous Board had taken, which was to leave the language as it
is.
9. RESOLUTIONS Mayor Tantleff requested that this item be deferred,
because Dr. Michael Krop, who represents the Village on the School Board, would like an
opportunity to give the Council a response to Mayor Novak's letter, before the Council
passes this resolution. Mr. Treppeda will follow up with Dr. Krop.
Regular Council Meeting 06/17/2003 3
A motion was offered by Assistant Mayor Roth and seconded by Councilman Jacobi to withdraw
the following resolution from the avenda. The motion carried with the vote as follows: Mayor
Tantleff aye; Assistant Mavor Roth aye: Councilman Berlin aye; Councilman Gorson aye;
Councilman Jacobi aye.
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION URGING AN IMMEDIATE AND COMPREHENSIVE FORENSIC AUDIT
OF THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION
PROGRAM.
10. ORDINANCES FIRST READINGS None.
11. ORDINANCES SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARINGS:
An ordinance was read, by title, by the Village Clerk, amending Chapter 13 of the Village
Code, relating to Employee's Pension Plan. Mayor Tantleff explained that this is improving
the retirement benefits of the general employees.
Mayor Tantleff opened the public hearing.
Charles llvento, resident — 10205 Collins Avenue, questioned how many years of
average compensation are used in calculating the pension. Mr. Tantleff advised that the
highest three years are used.
There being no additional comments, Mayor Tantleff closed the public hearing.
A motion was offered by Assistant Mayor Roth and seconded by Councilman Jacobi to approve
this ordinance. The motion carried with the vote as follows: Mavor Tantleff aye; Assistant Mavor
Roth aye; Councilman Berlin aye; Councilman Gorson aye; Councilman Jacobi aye. Thus
becoming:
ORDINANCE NO. 483
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE II OF CHAPTER 13 OF THE VILLAGE
OF BAL HARBOUR CODE OF ORDINANCES, EMPLOYEE'S PENSION PLAN,
PROVIDING THAT THE MONTHLY RETIREMENT BENEFIT SHALL BE AN
AMOUNT EQUAL TO THREE PER CENT OF FINAL AVERAGE
COMPENSATION TIMES COMPLETED YEARS AND MONTHS OF
CONTINIUOUS EMPLOYMENT; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
CODIFICATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mayor Tantleff read the following into the record:
"Ladies and gentlemen, we will now consider second reading of the ordinance for the One Ba1
Harbour Planned Development rezoning. The Village Clerk will read the title of the
ordinance."
An ordinance was read, by title, by the Village Clerk, providing for rezoning from the "OF"
Regular Council Meeting 06/17/2003 4
5
Ocean Front Zoning District to the "PD" Planned Development Zoning District.
Mayor Tantleff read the following statement into the record:
"In the interest of full disclosure I wish to put, on the record, the following:
My family and I are leaseholders in the building at 10275 Collins Avenue, which is owned by
Smith Property Holdings, Harbour House, LLC. For my family, like all tenants in the
building, Smith has agreed to reimburse food and lodging expenses incurred, while the
building was undergoing remediation, to correct the mold problem. The exact language is a
per diem stipend, for time displaced due to remediation. In this regard, my family is being
treated on the same terms as every other tenant in the building. I know from speaking, that
this week I may be receiving that stipend and I just don't want to be penalized because I'm
the Mayor and I live there. I just want to be treated like everyone else is treated in the
building. Also, like the other tenants in the building, I am a member of the class, for which a
class action suit has been filed against Smith, concerning the mold problem in the building.
The Village Attorneys have advised me that these matters do not create a conflict for my vote
here today. A vote, either for or against the PD ordinance, does not benefit me personally in
any respect or in any way differently than any other tenant and, for that reason, I do not intend
to abstain from a vote. Everyone involved in this process has been made aware of it and I
have asked them if they would prefer if I abstain and the answer is that I should, however I am
going to vote, just vote your conscious, but participate in the process. So, in the interest of full
disclosure I did want to make that known to the public."
Mr. Weiss read the following notice from the agenda:
Please be advised that the following item on the agenda is quasi-judicial in nature. If you wish
to comment upon any of these items, please inform the Mayor when he asks for public input
on this item. An opportunity for persons to speak will be made available after the applicant
and staff have made their presentations. A11 testimony, including public testimony and
evidence, will be made under oath or affirmation. Additionally, each person who gives
testimony may be subject to cross-examination. If you refuse either to be cross-examined or to
be sworn, your testimony will not be considered. The general public will not be permitted to
cross-examine witnesses, but the public may request the Council to ask questions of staff or
witnesses on their behalf. Persons representing organizations must present evidence of their
authority to speak for their organization. Further details of the quasi-judicial procedures may
be obtained from the Clerk. (Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications)
Mayor Tantleff read the following into the record:
"At this time, the Council members will disclose any communications, written or oral, that
they have had with the parties in this proceeding since the first reading of the ordinance."
Mayor Tantleff disclosed that he has spoken with Doug Rudolph, Dina Cellini, Pat
Tumpson (Plaza), Joan Jacomo, Stan Whitman, Steve Sorenson, George Page, Carter
McDowell, and his wife (Lainie Tantleff). He advised that all of the discussions have been
about the project and asking people their opinions. Councilman Berlin disclosed that he
has spoken with his wife (Gina Berlin), Mr. Rudolph, Mr. Treppeda, the Village Attorneys,
and Mr. Whitman.
Mayor Tantleff read the following into the record:
Regular Council Meeting 06/17/2003 5
"Those of you present who wish to speak today must stand and the Clerk will swear you in."
Those planning to speak at the hearing were sworn in by Mrs. Horton.
Mayor Tantleff read the following into the record:
"In this proceeding, the Village staff and then the Applicant will have an opportunity to make
presentations. I will then proceed to open the public hearing. I will call those of you in support
of the applications and then I will call for objectors. Those of you here who wish to speak will
state your name and address before you speak."
Dan Nieda, Building Official, read the staff recommendation into the record as follows:
One Bal Harbour Tower (Hotel and Condominium) — 10275 and
10295 Collins Avenue:
"BACKGROUND: The applicant seeks to rezone the Harbour House property at the
northernmost parcels of the OF -Oceanfront District to the newly created PD-Planned
Development District, in accordance with requirements set forth in Section 21-299. The
applicant seeks the Village Council's approval of the PD Ordinance on second reading,
inclusive of the final copy of the Development Agreement. The Ordinance for rezoning land
from the "OF" Ocean Front zoning district to the PD-Planned Development zoning district for
the Harbour House site was approved on first reading at the regular Council meeting of
February 18, 2003.
In response to various concerns generated at the public hearing for the Ordinance at first
reading, certain revisions have been implemented on the application or clarified otherwise.
The adjacent Collins Avenue right of way and the beachwalk access, along the Haulover Cut
impacting the proposed project, have been addressed in the Development Agreement. The
Collins Avenue and Beachwalk improvement plan will be implemented at no cost to the
Village, based on plans prepared by Bradshaw Gill and Associates, dated June 2, 2003, which
include roadway and parking, lighting, landscaping, and irrigation design for the impacted
area. The plans were reviewed by the Building Official, Consulting Landscape Architect and
Traffic Engineer for the Village, and Police Chief for security concerns. Further revisions
were made to the plans to satisfy critique comments generated by staff and were incorporated
in the final version, dated June 2, 2003.
Separate reports have evaluated the level of compliance for specific elements of the PD
District application. Michael Miller, Village Planner, has reviewed the application for
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Tinter and Associates has reviewed the
appropriateness of the traffic study prepared by David Plummer and Associates. Tinter and
Associates concluded in their study of May 21, 2003, that the traffic plan for the One Bal
Harbour project provides satisfactory trip generation volumes, appropriate driveway
alignments, tractor -trailer turning movements, and cueing impact on adjacent properties.
Similarly, Craig Smith, P.E., has reviewed the appropriateness of the preliminary utility and
civil drawings prepared by PBS&J Engineers. These reports have been made part of the
record.
The applicant revised the hotel room and condominium unit mix, which is within the
permitted maximum density, stipulated by Section 21-285, of 55 dwelling units and 100 hotel
units per acre. The redevelopment of the Northern Tract E seeks to accommodate a mixed -use
facility with 1 24 condo -hotel rooms and 185 residential condominium units. The 124 condo -
Regular Council Meeting 06/17/2003 6
7
hotel rooms is an increase from the prior 114-unit mix, while the 185 condominium units are
a reduction from the previous proposed mix of 191 units. The proposed revised unit mix does
not exceed the maximum permitted density allowed in Tract E.
The revised application for the Planned Development submittal is in compliance with
requirements of Section 21-299(g)(1) and includes a survey, site plan, architectural design
development drawings, preliminary civil engineering design, and landscape plan. The survey
is prepared by Ford Armenteros & Manucy, Inc., dated March 4, 2003. Architectural design
development drawings are prepared by Nichols Brosch Sandoval & Associates, Inc., dated
May 30, 2003. Landscaping and planting design plans are prepared by Bradshaw Gill and
Associates, with preliminary civil engineer drawings prepared by Post Buckley Schuh &
Jernigan, dated March 29, 2003.
RECOMMENDATION: The rezoning change and creation of the Planned Development
District is subject to the discretion of the Village Council and compliance with development
provisions of the PD District. The quality of design, impact and compliance of the application
with provisions of the PD District were reviewed by the Building Official and forwarded as a
favorable recommendation to the Architectural Review Board, at the Board's February 5,
2003 hearing.
The Architectural Review Board concurred with the Building Official's favorable report, but
recommended the following modifications to the project:
1. The north side yard setback was revised to provide a stepped landscaped buffer to the
garage structure, as indicated in Section "C" of drawing A-10.02, prepared by the
Architect.
2. The cabana hut structures, located on the seaward eastern portion of the site, have been
separated from the east face of the garage structure, to allow a landscape buffer of
Conocarpus Erectus Palms to help conceal the garage structure from beach views. This is
shown in drawing P-5, prepared by the Landscape Architect.
The Architectural Review Board provided its final review of the project, as modified, to meet
the recommendations above, during its May 21, 2003 hearing. The ARB (Architectural
Review Board) unanimously endorsed the One Bal Harbour project for the Village Council's
approval at the Second Reading.
Accordingly, the conclusion of staff and the Architectural Review Board is to recommend that
the applicant's revised submittal be approved by the Village Council at the Second Reading."
George Page, WCI Communities, advised that they have their staff and outside
consultants available at the meeting, to answer any questions and provide clarification.
Mayor Tantleff opened the public hearing. He called for people in support of the application
and asked if there is anyone present in favor of this application. Mayor Tantleff recognized
that there were none present. He called for the objectors of the application.
Babak Raheb, resident — 128 Balfour Drive, doesn't think that the Tinter Associates
study is complete, because it doesn't consider the entire 124 proposed units for the hotel.
He advised that it also gives credit for pedestrian traffic and he doesn't know what kind of
customers will be walking to the hotel. Mr. Raheb doesn't think that pedestrians will be
taking a lot of trips to this property. He understands that Smith owns this property and is
putting the application in, but the developers haven't purchased the property. Mr. Raheb
Regular Council Meeting 06/17/2003 7
questioned why the developers don't purchase the property and then submit the plans. He
stated that there's a potential lawsuit, which has been mentioned, with the south tower. Mr.
Raheb advised that, if he were a plaintiff, he would object to Smith selling that property and
using the income or the profits from the proceeding, in some way affecting the outcome of
the lawsuit or making it longer. He stated that if he were representing the plaintiff, he would
subject that maybe this be held up until that is done. Mr. Raheb questioned what kind of a
public development this is, where only half of the property gets developed. He advised that
he has reviewed the financial impact study that they have done. Mr. Raheb thinks that they
are painting a rosy picture and, after September 11 h, the majority of these numbers do not
hold. He advised that the study says that an average person, with an income of a half a
million dollars, will be occupying this property and will spend $100,000 a year in Bal
Harbour. Mr. Raheb understands that the units will be selling between $1-$10 million. He
thinks that people who will be purchasing the units will have it as a second or third
residence, so to assume that they will spend full time in Bal Harbour is stretching it. Mr.
Raheb thinks there will be an architectural clash, because it has a completely different look
from the south tower.
Councilman Berlin disclosed that he has also spoken to Jack Osterholt about this matter.
Mayor Tantleff advised that the entire Council has spoken to Jack Osterholt. Assistant
Mayor Roth disclosed that he has spoken to Jack Osterholt and Doug Rudolph.
Councilman Jacobi disclosed that he has spoken to Jack Osterholt.
Alan Tinter, President and Owner - Tinter Associates, inc. — the Village's Traffic
Consultant for the project, advised that they didn't do the original traffic study on the
Harbour House, but were hired to be the review agency and review the material that was
submitted by David Plummer & Associates, who did the traffic study for the proponent. He
explained that their analysis looked at the hotel use and they used trip generation rates on
a room basis, including all 124 rooms in the hotel. Mr. Tinter reported that the rate itself is
based on empirical data and includes some consideration for the fact that the hotel is not
100% booked 100% of the time and there's a certain amount of turnover. He stated that in
response to pedestrian and bus traffic, they did not apply any split to the traffic that's
generated by the condominium; they assumed that 100% of that was automobile traffic. Mr.
Tinter advised that they did apply it to the other uses within the site (hotel, restaurant, and
spa), because there will be some minor amount of alternate modes of transportation for
that traffic. He reported that they only assumed a 10% mode split for that, with 90% of the
traffic being by automobile. Mr. Tinter advised that was consistent with the traffic study that
was done by Plummer & Associates and is consistent with the information in the Institute of
Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation Manual.
Mr. Page advised that WCI has the property under contract with Smith and is proceeding
with an orderly process to close on the purchase of the property. He explained that this is a
normal transaction that is being conducted in a fairly normal manner. Mr. Page advised that
the closing will most likely occur in the first quarter of 2004. He explained that they are
going through a series of steps, leading to the closing, which could be accelerated or
slowed down. depending on the approval and permitting process associated with the
development of this project.
Ron Volk, resident — 10205 Collins Avenue #501, questioned if the contract to purchase
is subject to the approval of this request. He questioned if this isn't approved, if the contract
will become void.
Regular Council Meeting 06/17/2003 8
Steve Sorenson, Vice President of Acquisitions & Development for Charles E. Smith
Residential, advised that is a confidential matter.
Councilman Berlin thinks that either at the first reading or at the workshop, it was stated
that the granting of the PD zoning was a condition precedent to going forward with the
contract. He would be shocked to think that it would be otherwise. Assistant Mayor Roth
thinks that it was disclosed twice that the contract is subject to the approval of the Council.
Mayor Tantleff advised that Stems Weaver is representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuits and
think they would be the ones to contact as to why there is no objection from them.
Nancy Stroud, Village Attorney, advised that it is not abnormal to have a PD large
development proceed in phases. She explained that looking at the site plan, there are
improvements on both phases of the property proposed in the beginning. Ms. Stroud
reviewed that the landscaping, new access, and parking shared by both sides of the
property are all going to be improved, with the development of the condominium and
condominium/hotel. She advised that the south building itself isn't planned to be improved
at the beginning, but it is during the second phase of the project, which isn't abnormal in
this kind of project. Ms. Stroud advised that the exhibits that were prepared for the agenda,
which include all of the expert reports from the Village consultants, should be made part of
the record in this proceeding, so she would like to move them into the record. Mayor
Tantleff advised that the Village accepts them into the record.
John Nichols, Architect — Nichols Brosch Sandoval & Associates, Inc., advised that
they have worked closely with staff through the site planning process, in working on the
general character of the building. He explained that the building itself is an integral part of
the Master Plan of this project. Mr. Nichols thinks that it's important that staff and the ARB
(Architectural Review Board) were looking for a very clean structure that represented
today's architecture, as the entry piece into Bal Harbour, from the North. He advised that
staff and the ARB have unanimously approved this, from a design review standpoint, and
they have worked very carefully and hard to make it a very special building for the entry to
Bal Harbour, as well as with the existing Harbour House Tower to remain.
Mr. Volk doesn't think they have completely answered the question on how they feel the
two pieces of architecture blend together and if it's going to blend with the future of the site;
he questioned what the intentions are for the rest of this site. He thinks that the public
deserves to know, if this company is purchasing this property, that there are obviously
some potential plans on the table and how they think they may be able to proceed in the
future with the development of the second piece of the property and how, as a whole, that
is going to impact the residents of the community.
Mr. Sorenson reported that Charles E. Smith Residential has just put several millions of
dollars into the south tower and has no near -term plans of doing anything different, with the
south tower, than what exists. He advised that part of the contract with WCI is that they
have planned the site to interact very closely with the existing building and address some of
the non -conforming issues, with the present zoning code. Mr. Sorenson reported that they
have nothing more planned than what is shown on the plan, for the short term and long
term.
Dan Holder, resident — 24 Bal Bay Drive #E&F, discussed the Majestic Building and
Regular Council Meeting 06/17/2003 9
t
advised that the shape of that building creates a tremendous difference in the wind flow
there. He explained that on a windy day, with the wind coming from certain directions, it
amplifies the wind coming down 96tn Street, which makes it difficult to enter the beach. Mr.
Holder stated that Haulover Inlet is a major waterway and there is a lot of boat traffic. He
advised that it is also one of the most dangerous inlets, due to the chop. Mr. Holder
questioned if any study has been done to determine how the shape of this building is going
to affect the wind and the affect it will have on the waterway. He also questioned if they are
waiving the height restrictions in order to allow this building and, if so, what affect that will
have with shadow on the beach. Mr. Holder questioned if the architects have studied all of
this to make sure that it's going to comply with all of the requirements of the Fair Housing
Guidelines, in terms of accessibility, which has been a problem with a lot of new
developments.
Mr. Nichols advised that this building will be fully compliant with the Fair Housing Act, ADA
(Americans with Disabilities Act), and all other requirements of the State of Florida. He
explained that they have put the building through a complete wind tunnel test and have
pressures recorded on both the existing structure and the new structure. Mr. Nichols
reported that there was nothing abnormal about wind pressure being created, on this
project or on the existing project, and it's within the normal guidelines of any high-rise
building. He advised that they submitted full shadow studies of this project, with the first
submission, which showed all the shadow requirements from the sun throughout the day.
Mr. Nichols explained that for the property to the north, the shadow crosses the intercoastal
waterway and all of those were within normal requirements. He advised that they did not
have a building or beach immediately to the north side, which is where the majority of the
shadow is. Mr. Nichols explained that it acts the same as any other building and, late in
the afternoon, the shadow starts and comes across the beach. He stated that the shadow
flows from the building northward and it crosses straight out towards the ocean, only at the
very end of the day. Mr. Nichols stated the fact that the beach is abbreviated there throws
even less shadow on the actual public usage space. He advised that all of those
requirements were studied very closely and taken into account.
Mr. Nichols advised that there are no height issues and all of the heights of the building are
in accordance with the existing zoning code and they didn't ask for any variances.
Mr. Holder questioned the wind affect on Haulover Inlet, which is his concern. Mayor
Tantleff advised that they haven't really looked at that part of it.
George Mato, Director of Sales — One Bal Harbour, invited everyone to Naples to see
what WCI has created, established, and done there. He advised that they are only going to
add to the beauty of Bal Harbour
Sigmund Spiegel, resident — Carlton Terrace #6D and Vice President of the Carlton
Terrace Homeowners Association, advised that they are concerned about the ingress
and egress to the property. He reported that he submitted a letter on February 18, 2003, to
the Council, in which he specifically mentioned that the only entrance and exit to this entire
development (north and south buildings) is directly within 20 to 30 feet of the Carlton
Terrace's entrance/exit. Mr. Spiegel advised that the entire population will be
entering/exiting this project at the southern end. He thinks this will be a bad situation and
the Carlton Terrace's residents will not be able to enter their property, especially during
construction. Mr. Spiegel discussed the access for emergency vehicles. He thinks that 300-
Regular Council Meeting 06/17/2003 10
11
400 residents of the new and proposed projects using one entrance is dangerous. Mr.
Spiegel advised that he requested in his letter that this be addressed and he hasn't seen it
addressed.
Mr. Tinter advised that the proponent of the project has spent considerable time looking at
the interaction of their driveways and the driveways to the Carlton Terrace. He reported
that since the last time they met with the Council, they moved the first driveway, which is
now separated from the Carlton Terrace driveway, by about 70 feet. Mr. Tinter explained
that all of the stacking on -site has been analyzed, so that no stacking occurs that would
back out onto the Collins Avenue frontage road. He advised that gates have been placed
within the garage area, so that there's sufficient room to store any cue that might develop
(it's over five vehicles long). Mr. Tinter reported that all of the cueing and stacking that
might occur will occur on -site, without interfering with the driveway. He stated that the
situation is greatly improved, over what is there today. Mr. Tinter explained that currently
those two driveways are about 25 feet apart and they have been separated by an
additional 50 feet and the developer has proposed to include sufficient room on -site to
store any vehicles.
Mr. Spiegel doesn't understand why there is only one entrance/exit to the property. Mr.
Tinter clarified that the architect has developed two entrances. He advised that the main
entrance, near the southern building, will provide access to both buildings, and a second
access north of that location, goes right into the garage that services the north building. Mr.
Tinter explained that once the residents get used to where their parking spaces are, that's
the driveway that most of the condominium owners will use. He advised that all of the
volume will not use the southern driveway. Mr. Spiegel thinks that people using the spa and
restaurant will use the southern driveway. Mr. Tinter agreed. He advised that when they
looked at the reassignment of the traffic to the driveways they kept that in mind, to make
sure that all of the driveways could accommodate the volume, without interfering with the
Carlton Terrace.
Mr. Nichols pointed out the second driveway entrance that most of the condominium
residents will use. He advised that valet is handled from both of the buildings, so that it
never comes back out onto the street. Mr. Nichols reviewed the valet entrance. He
explained that the service drives were separated for both buildings.
Mr. Tinter explained that the existing tower has parking, adjacent to the driveway, causing
some interference and thus causing some problems and potential back -out onto the
frontage road. He advised that has been eliminated, because most of the parking in the
front has been eliminated. Mr. Tinter explained that the Carlton Terrace access point,
which is the closest driveway, is an entrance only, so there are no exiting vehicles that
would interfere with the traffic to get to the Harbour House. He advised that this has been
looked at a considerable amount, since the last time everyone met, and he believes that
the architects and the traffic engineers have provided a very good solution to what was
perceived as a problem last time.
Charles llvento, resident-10205 Collins Avenue #1206, thinks that it looks nice and will
probably be an asset, but that the problem is that there are two lanes going under the
bridge and two lanes coming out and, with the construction recently, it has taken 20-30
minutes to get home from the north or the south. He advised that whenever the Sheraton
has a convention group, it takes 15 minutes to get home, via Collins Avenue, because the
Regular Council Meeting 06/17/2003 11
12
tractor -trailers line up and wait to unload their materials. Mr. Ilvento thought that if they had
any interest to the benefit of Bal Harbour that they would have moved the surface roads off
the two-lane roadway. He urged them to revisit the traffic and look toward a service road,
so that taxi cabs, when people book functions and line up to get to valet parking, when
hotels have major registration for groups, etc. the cars will be on a service road and not
backlogged onto the two lanes that the residents have to get ingress/egress to the
properties.
Mr. Nichols thinks that Mr. Ilvento's major statements were related to group/convention
business, which the Sheraton has. He clarified that this hotel is not a group business hotel.
Mr. Nichols explained that there are no grand ballrooms and no large meeting rooms. He
advised that there are only a couple of small boardrooms associated with this hotel. Mr.
Nichols explained that this is a smaller boutique -style hotel and not a group business hotel,
so there are going to be no large group business activities associated with the facility. He
stated that this is more of a residential facility, with a boutique hotel attached to it.
Mr. Tinter stated that the service areas for both of the buildings have been located to
minimize any interference, with traffic on the frontage roads. He explained that the frontage
roads have been re -designed to accommodate the large vehicles into the two service
areas; one at the very north end of the project and one in the center driveway. Mr. Tinter
advised that both of them will accommodate garbage pickup, delivery vehicles, and moving
vans, which can all be handled off of the frontage road, without interfering with that traffic.
Dina Cellini, resident — 211 Bal Cross Drive, stated that the Harbour House North
building does not meet the threshold street frontage requirement by itself, of the PD
Ordinance, which is 350 feet. She explained that it needs the Harbour House South, in
order to qualify, which is why the application is for both the north and south parcels
together. Ms. Cellini stated that even though the Planned Development Ordinance allows
for the development in stages of a project and allows for the subsequent conveyance of
parcels within the Planned Development District, the Ordinance mandates under Section
21-299(d)(7) that unified control remain over all parcels in the district. She advised that
Charles Smith has already stated that there's no option to sell the south tower to WCI. It is
Ms. Cellini's opinion that it's one thing to develop a planned development parcel in stages,
but it's another thing to have two separate and distinct developers/owners of the same
planned development parcel. She doesn't think that this is the intent or the spirit of the
Planned Development district and that's exactly why the language exists in the ordinance
that unified control is required. Ms. Cellini doesn't think there is unified control here.
Ms. Stroud explained that the Development Agreement, which has been submitted, signed
and is part of the ordinance, provides for unified control. She reported that unified control
does not mean unified ownership. Ms. Stroud clarified that it's unified management of the
property and that has been provided for in the Development Agreement. Ms. Cellini
requested that Ms. Stroud be more specific as to how the two owners/developers will have
unified management of the new project. Ms. Stroud stated that the owners have
committed, through restrictive covenant, which will be recorded, to establishing an
association that provides for the unified control and maintenance of the project, which is
very typical.
Carter McDowell, Attorney representing WCI, pointed out that the phase one plan calls
for redevelopment of the entire street frontage, across the entire property, with new
Regular Council Meeting 06/17/2003 12
13
entrances, the elimination of all the parking in front of the south tower, and the construction
of additional new parking for the south tower, so that there is a unified plan of development
across the entire property. He advised that the south building will remain, but there is
development activity across the entire front, including new water lines, etc. Mr. McDowell
explained that as part of this development and the Development Agreement, they are also
going to be rebuilding and substantially improving the accessways and the frontage roads
both in front of the property, under the bridge, and all of the public parking in that area. He
advised that Tinter has looked at those plans also, to insure that they accommodate the
trucks. Mr. McDowell thinks that they will actually enhance the circulation over and above
what exists today, because the current layout is inadequate in terms of turning radius and
alignment of driveways. He explained that they have eliminated virtually all of those
conflicts with the plans.
Babak Raheb, resident — 128 Balfour Drive, objected to Ms. Stroud's request for the
Miami Economic Associates report and the Tinter Associates report to be submitted,
because the people are not here to testify directly. He advised that he hasn't heard who will
be managing the hotel and questioned what name hotel it is going to be. Mr. Raheb thinks
that it's important, if the final decision is made that a hotel is going to be put there, that the
name fits and the high standard of Bal Harbour is considered. Mayor Tantleff reported that
the Council will not settle for anything less than a five star hotel. Mr. Raheb advised that
there is no contract with a hotel yet. Mayor Tantleff advised that the applicant, Charles E.
Smith, is obligated, if they want to do it and they keep the property, to put nothing less than
a five star hotel, such as St. Regis, Mandarin Oriental, etc. Mr. Raheb stated that Smith
isn't developing the property; they are getting this approval and selling it to the new
developer.
Ms. Stroud explained that both Smith and WCI have committed, in a restrictive covenant,
which will be placed on the property and run with the land, to a five star luxury hotel. She
clarified that whoever develops that property will be committed to that.
Mr. Raheb questioned Mr. Tinter how many people he calculated as members of the spa,
in the traffic report. Mr. Tinter advised that the traffic study was based on the square
footage of the spa and the site plan that was submitted shows a spa of 7,320 square feet.
He explained that in the industry, trip generation rate is based on the square footage, which
is indicative of the usage that the spa will be put to. Mr. Tinter advised that they did not
have a specific number as to the number of members of that spa.
Mr. McDowell noted for the record that John Nichols and Bruce Brosch from Nichols
Brosch Sandoval, Taft Bradshaw (Landscape Architect), David Plummer and Ramon
Alvarez from David Plummer & Associates, and Andrew Dolkart - the consultant who
prepared the economic analysis, are in attendance to answer any questions regarding the
studies. He also noted that each of the consultants have prepared numerous documents
and studies that have been submitted to the Village that are part of the application. Mr.
McDowell advised that as Ms. Stroud incorporated the staff reports into the record, he
would also incorporate the background studies that have been submitted and reviewed by
the Village's consultants. Mayor Tantleff approved the submittal.
Brian Mulheren, resident — 10245 Collins Avenue, stated that at the first reading, Mr.
Smith from WCI said that he would not sign a contract unless he had an agreement with a
five star hotel to take possession, which has not been answered here. He stated that the
Regular Council Meeting 06/17/2003 13
111
entrance in the space there right now is a disaster. Mr. Mulheren discussed the people
walking on the sidewalk and doesn't feel that they are addressing the pedestrian traffic at
all. He advised that they have said there would be minimal pedestrian traffic, which he
doesn't think is true. Mr. Mulheren thinks that a lot of residents at the Harbour House walk,
because they cannot drive, and a lot of people also walk to the synagogue. He doesn't
think that the sidewalk is very wide and advised that there is no safety for pedestrians. Mr.
Mulheren thinks that they have to look at the pedestrian crossing. He also questioned what
they are going to do underneath the bridge area, because it's like a slum with no lighting,
looks terrible, and is unsafe. Mr. Mulheren questioned if they are going to put a police
substation there. He thinks that the Council should ask to have a fire safety study done,
because they are increasing the area with the Bellini and this project. Mr. Mulheren thinks
that the fire department protection now is inadequate, because if the bridge is out, then
nobody gets in. He thinks that the County needs to put more fire and EMS protection for
this area and that needs to be addressed.
Mr. Page clarified that at the first hearing he indicated that they would not close on the
property, unless they had a commitment from the appropriate five star luxury hotel
provider, which he advised that is underway. Mr. Page advised that the property is under
contract and during this period, between now and closing, they will resolve the hotel issue.
Taft Bradshaw, Bradshaw Gill - Landscape Architects for the One Bal Harbour,
reviewed the plans for underneath the bridge. He advised that they have done an extensive
study and have worked closely with the Village and its consultants. Mr. Bradshaw
explained that they have done public presentations of the improvements, which included
the realignment of the road to make the traffic flow, in coordination with the traffic
consultant (David Plummer & Associates, have an extensive landscape program on either
side as well as under the bridge, are maintaining the public parking and sufficient designs,
etc. He advised that all of those documents are part of the submittal. Mr. Bradshaw
reported that there have been public presentations and the information has been available
for a while. He assured the residents and users of the area that it will be friendly and the
Village will be proud of it. Mr. Bradshaw thinks that it will satisfy and encourage pedestrian
use. He advised that pedestrians using the hotel and tower can have access to an elevator,
if they don't want to climb.
Mr. Volk suggested that a model, with the buildings shown next to it, would give the
residents a good idea of what this will feel like, versus a picture by itself. He thinks that Mr.
Holder had a good idea with the wind study. Mr. Volk stated that traditionally the wind
studies are done for pressures regarding the structure of the building. He advised that now
there is a lot of wind on Collins Avenue that blows between the buildings and this building
is going to affect that, especially with the bridge. Mr. Volk thinks that to request them to do
a wind study that's more encompassing that will include the bridge and the buildings next
door will give a better idea of how this is going to work, when it's a reality rather than on
paper.
Mr. Spiegel questioned how long it will be before the second stage is developed. He thinks
that granting the zoning to the first stage, when conceivably the second building is going to
stay indefinitely.... He questioned if there is a limit as to when, under the new proposed
zoning, the second phase must be started or completed. Mayor Tantleff replied that there
isn't.
Regular Council Meeting 06/17/2003 14
15
Mr. Ilvento advised that there are some major problems with parking issues. He stated that
the Sheraton has a spa, has inadequate parking and has to use the parking at the Shops.
Mr. Ilvento advised that the Sea View has adequate parking, but only 50% of that hotel
property was developed in 1946, so the lot they have for parking is where they would have
had another structure and, if it was built, it would be inadequate. He thinks that if this
property is going to have a spa of note, which a five star hotel will probably have several
thousand members for the spa, then parking becomes a major issue. Mr. Ilvento stated
that the Village currently uses some of the space under the bridge for vehicles. He
questioned who is going to pay someone else rent, for space that the Village needs in
order to park those vehicles. Mr. Ilvento doesn't think there is room in this location and
there is no other location. He stated that the only spot to park is the Club, or the Park
between the entrance and egress of the Village, and they wouldn't want to park there. Mr.
Ilvento stated that when the Kenilworth gets too many vendors, then they have to park their
trucks under the bridge. Mr. Ilvento questioned if that parking is going to be reduced. He
stated standard parking space cannot be used for a hotel/condo development; more
spaces have to be used. Mr. Ilvento stated that several of the residents will have live-in
help and nurses on a 24 hours basis, and they need places to park. He questioned how
many people this is going to impact. Mr. Ilvento stated that the hotel and condo itself will be
a five star, so the number of employees per room will increase. He thinks that parking has
to be added to accommodate the level of the service that the hotel plans. Mr. Ilvento thinks
that those issues have to be addressed. He stated that nobody has addressed the number
of parking spaces they have or the additional parking they are going to add, because of the
high service aspects and spa membership.
Mr. Nichols advised that parking is very important to them and they have provided a
tremendous amount of parking on this property. He explained that this is not a group
business hotel, like the Sheraton. Mr. Nichols stated that the Sheraton was built under
different standards a long time ago and is grossly underparked, for what it is. He advised
that this new hotel is built in accordance with all parking requirements. Mr. Nichols reported
that they have just under 700 parking spaces for the new building and they are also
providing another approximately 200 parking spaces, for the existing Harbour House
property, that aren't there now. He advised that they have provided parking for all of the
different uses. Mr. Nichols explained that, in addition to the hotel, there is parking for the
restaurant, employees, spa, etc. He stated that there is a lot of parking on this site (there
are three levels of parking spaces) that is underneath the buildings. Mr. Nichols stated that
there are over 850-900 new parking spaces, in addition to what is there now. He pointed
out that there are 356-360 existing units on the property. Mr. Nichols advised that their
density is below that (310 units on the property), so they are greatly enhancing the parking
and the circulation for this property. He explained that the density is going down slightly.
There being no further comments, Mayor Tantleff closed the public hearing.
Mayor Tantleff questioned the Applicant if they have any cross-examination of the staff or
the objectors. Mayor Tantleff questioned the staff if they have any cross-examination of the
Applicant or the supporters. Mayor Tantleff announced that since there are no questions,
then there is no need to rebut anything.
Mayor Tantleff questioned the Council if they have any questions for the staff or Applicant.
Assistant Mayor Roth advised that he understands that the 124 hotel rooms are being sold
as condominiums. He stated that the purchasers who have the right to use that facility, so
Regular Council Meeting 06/17/2003 15
1
in essence the two rooms of that unit may not be rented. He questioned why they figure
that out of the 124 units in entirety will ever be rented out and the portion that the person
who buys the unit will occupy the premises. Assistant Mayor Roth stated that 124 is such a
small amount that he would like to know what the bottom line of the 124 might be.
Mr. McDowell advised that they don't know that there's a specific answer that they can
give, but will outline what they believe would be the answer. He explained that there are
124 keys that are made up of 62 two -bedroom units that can be separated. Mr. McDowell
advised that they have provided parking as if they are separate hotel rooms, even though it
may be operated as a two -room suite much of the time. He explained that the
Development Agreement specifically provides that those units may not be occupied as full
time residences; they cannot be occupied for more than six months, at any time. Mr.
McDowell advised that they expect that probably 80% of the units will be used on a
transient basis, at any one time. He reported that may go down to 50% at times and up to
100%, but that would be unusual. Mr. McDowell explained that they have provided for that
in their study. He advised that they hope that the room count available for the hotel at any
one time would be 100 units at any one time. Mr. McDowell stated that the limitation that
they cannot be used as a permanent residence will lead to that process and be sufficient
for a hotel operator to have the room count that they need to operate. He explained that it
would be unlikely that there would be 124 units available at any one moment, because they
would expect some of the owners to occupy those units, at any one point in time.
Mayor Tantleff questioned if the Council is ready to make a motion.
Ms. Stroud explained that there is a scriveners error in the ordinance that needs to be
taken care of, so she hopes that any motion would recognize that. She reported that in the
first WHEREAS clause, there needs to be a change, so that in the first parenthetical, which
now says "(the Phase I Property)" is the Phase II Property. Ms. Stroud advised that also in
the second parenthetical, which now says "(Phase II Property)" should read Phase I
Property.
Mayor Tantleff opened the meeting for discussion of the motion by the Council.
Mayor Tantleff doesn't think that this is 100% of what everybody in the room wants. He
stated that looking at Bal Harbour and what it is continuing to do (the Bellini is putting up a
beautiful building, the homes in the Security District are improving, the Village built a
beautiful Park, Bal Harbour has the most beautiful beach path in the Country), the Council
is constantly trying to improve the neighborhood. Mayor Tantleff stated that the Council's
job is to make sure the neighborhood is beautiful, safe, that people are happy, etc. He
advised that currently the Village has the third lowest tax base in the County (at 2.96 mills)
and the only lower ones are Aventura and Pine Crest. Mayor Tantleff stated that the Village
receives $79,000.00 in ad valorem tax from the Harbour House North. He stated with the
proposed building, the Village would be receiving approximately $843,000.00 in ad valorem
tax, on an annual basis. Mayor Tantleff reported that right now the Village collects
$3,386,000.00 of the ad valorem money. He stated that the Village will be adding, what he
believes, will be in keeping with the integrity of Bal Harbour and not doing what some other
communities are doing in building to the sky. Mayor Tantleff believes that the Village is
sticking with the integrity of Bal Harbour by approving this project and also increasing the
budget substantially. He stated that the last thing the Council wants to do is raise taxes and
it would like to lower taxes and continue lowering them, but the budget is going up. Mayor
Regular Council Meeting 06/17/2003 16
17
Tantleff thinks that passing this provides a beautiful building and a great enhancement. He
hopes that everyone's questions will be answered, as the process moves forward. Mayor
Tantleff thinks that the Village has a great possibility here to keep the neighborhood as
Florida's Paradise and to even improve it, while sticking with the integrity of what everyone
believes in.
A motion was offered by Assistant Mayor Roth and seconded by Councilman Gorson to approve
this ordinance as amended. The motion carried with the vote as follows: Mayor Tantleff aye;
Assistant Mayor Roth aye; Councilman Berlin aye; Councilman Gorson aye; Councilman Jacobi
aye. Thus becoming:
ORDINANCE NO.484
AN ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE OF BAL HARBOUR, FLORIDA, PROVIDING
FOR REZONING FROM THE OF OCEAN FRONT ZONING DISTRICT TO THE
"PD" PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT OF THE "HARBOUR
HOUSE SITE" LOCATED AT 10275 AND 10295 COLLINS AVENUE, BAL
HARBOUR, FLORIDA, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT
"A"; MAKING FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS OF COMPLIANCE;
APPROVING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN AND THE
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT; AMENDING SECTION 21-78
"DISTRICT MAP" OF CHAPTER 21 "ZONING" OF THE CODE OF BAL
HARBOUR VILLAGE TO REFLECT THE REZONING OF THE PROPERTY AS
DESCRIBED ABOVE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
INCLUSION IN THE CODE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The meeting was recessed at 10:40 a.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:45 a.m.
An ordinance was read, by title, by the Village Clerk, amending Chapter 6 by creating a fee
for construction activities in the Security District of the Residential Section.
Mayor Tantleff opened the public hearing. He explained that the threshold has been
changed from $50,000 to $100,000 (of construction activities before the .5% fee, from
dollar one, applies).
Dina Cellini, resident — 211 Bel Cross Drive, advised that she is opposed to this
construction impact fee. She stated that if the Council passes this and also adopts the
resolution that is next on the agenda, then it will be taking conflicting positions on the same
issues. Ms. Cellini explained that the construction impact fee is based on two premises,
which are both troublesome to her. She advised that firstly, the construction workers are
somehow in a different class than other individuals such as delivery men, repair men, or
social guests to a home. Ms. Cellini advised that secondly, residents who have more
visitors at the gate should pay an additional fee to the Civic Association, in the resolution
that is next that the Council is being asked to adopt. She explained that the Civic
Association specifically rejected the notion that larger homes with more attendant workers
and visitors should pay a greater share of the security budget than small apartments with
less visitors. Ms. Cellini thinks that if the Council is going to pass a resolution, which
apportions the Civic Association budget, without regard to the number of visitors that a
resident gets at the gate, then it cannot pass the construction impact fee. She doesn't
believe that a resident's use or non-use of the gate should have any bearing on how much
Regular Council Meeting 06/17/2003 17
he or she pays to the Civic Association. Ms. Cellini feels that it should be based on the
assessed value of the property. She raised the legality of the construction impact fee. Ms.
Cellini advised that she reviewed Resolution 464, which the Council adopted on September
15, 1992, and advised that it specifically provides that no portion of the costs of the security
program should be paid from the general fund or any other fund of Bal Harbour Village,
other than from said special assessments levied for that purpose. She stated that
Resolution 464 established the special taxing district and allows for the special assessment
that the residents have to pay, according to the formula. Ms. Cellini advised that is the only
fund that can be used to subsidize the security program and explained that the
construction impact fee specifically provides that the revenue from that will go towards
additional security. She doesn't believe that the Council has the legal authority, under
Resolution 464, to pass this construction impact fee. Ms. Cellini urged that the Council not
pass this.
Mr. Weiss stated that this is an ordinance and that is a resolution. He explained that an
ordinance would supersede a resolution. Mr. Weiss stated in regards to the policy issues
that Ms. Cellini raised, in terms of the amount of money, he advised that isn't a legal issue.
Ms. Cellini advised that the resolution has been in affect for the last 11 years and the
Village has been functioning very well with that resolution, up until the time when this
construction impact fee was proposed by the Civic Association. She stated that according
to the Civic Association's Articles of Incorporation, it should not be promoting any
legislation and she would like to reiterate that.
Babak Raheb, resident — 128 Balfour Drive, stated that the by-laws of the Association
strictly forbid any legislation or any influence in legislation from the Association. He advised
that the people that brought this forward are with the Association and it has not been
brought up by any other citizen of Bal Harbour and it doesn't affect any other citizen of Bal
Harbour; he advised that this is only regarding the special tax district and it already has a
resolution regarding that matter. Mr. Raheb thinks that having an additional thing to
penalize the people who live there for the same security purpose... He stated that if the
Village wants, it can pass another resolution, but he doesn't think that an ordinance is
necessary just because a group of five people representing the 300...Mr. Raheb advised
that they don't represent the entire Association and they have not legally been elected to
come forward and make this, so he feels that this should not pass.
Phil Corbisiero, resident — 63 Bal Bay Drive, advised that he is representing the Civic
Association, on which he serves as Vice President. He explained that this issue has been
discussed openly and actively at many of the Civic Association meetings, for over a year.
Mr. Corbisiero stated that after careful consideration of all the arguments, for and against,
the (Civic Association) Board voted unanimously to draft this and has presented it to the
Council for approval.
Mr. Raheb questioned if the Vice President of the Association acknowledges that he has
no authority based on the by-laws to make such recommendations. Mr. Corbisiero
questioned if he has to answer that. Mayor Tantleff responded no. Mr. Raheb advised that
Mr. Corbisiero has stated that he represents the Association and they have unanimously
approved this and the by-laws forbid him to do that. Mr. Raheb thinks that Mr. Corbisiero's
statements have to be disregarded. He thinks that if Mr. Corbisiero is not willing to answer
that, then his entire conversation should not be submitted. Mr. Raheb stated that Mr.
Regular Council Meeting 06/17/2003 18
19
Corbisiero is representing the Association; an entity that he presents in a legal manner. He
advised that the by-laws state that he has no right to come up and make any
recommendation on behalf of the Association. Mr. Raheb thinks that he has to answer that
and if he doesn't the Council shouldn't consider what he has to say.
Mr. Weiss stated that Mr. Corbisiero is not a lawyer and Mr. Raheb is asking for an
interpretation of the by-laws. He advised that the Village isn't going to get involved in what
the by-laws of the Association say. Mr. Raheb stated that the Village is accepting the
Association as an entity and is accepting Mr. Corbisiero's views, so it has to accept
whether they are following the State Taws. He thinks that Mr. Weiss is telling him that it's
irrelevant that they are breaking the Florida statute. Mr. Weiss respectfully disagreed with
Mr. Raheb.
Assistant Mayor Roth stated that the Council has no choice and has to accept what the
Civic Association brings to them, because there is no governing body. He advised that the
people in the gated community should have a legal power to do what they want, otherwise
he is going to go along with whatever the Civic Association recommends, because they
were duly elected by whoever voted for them and they're in the majority. Assistant Mayor
Roth stated he doesn't want to even consider it because 75% of the residents are not
affected by this and this is a problem that the Security District should resolve themselves
and not come to this Council. He explained that it isn't his function or his constituent's
function to be involved with the Security District government. Assistant Mayor Roth thinks
that they themselves should want to govern themselves and not come to the Council. Mr.
Raheb agreed. Assistant Mayor Roth stated that under the circumstances he has no choice
but to go along, because that's the governing body of the Security District's
representatives.
Mr. Raheb stated that there is a way to satisfy the Village's needs and the Security
District's needs. He explained that the special district can allow a separate board being
elected representive of the Village of them, govem it, but have nothing to do with the
Association. Mr. Raheb advised that they have legal status in the Florida special district
book, as a special tax district, to govern themselves and not bother the Council at all,
except for money, because the Village collects the money for the special taxing district.
Assistant Mayor Roth stated that the Village doesn't want to collect the money and his
condo would like the same deal and have the Village do the bookkeeping, etc. He stated
that under the situation, he is going to do whatever the Civic Association wants. Assistant
Mayor Roth suggested that the Security District form their own homeowners' association
and have their own authority, which the courts will approve as long as they are not against
public policy, they will let them govem themselves and collect money, etc. He advised that
they're not going to do it because this Council could knock out what the other Council put
in. Assistant Mayor Roth thinks that with all of this bickering and these problems, he is
going to make a motion that they govern themselves, regulate themselves, and not bring
their problems to the whole Village. Mr. Raheb explained that he has asked for them to be
able to govern themselves. He stated that under special tax district, they are allowed to
govern themselves, so he agrees with what Assistant Mayor Roth says. Mr. Raheb wants
them to govern themselves, but not through the Association. He advised that this is not a
necessity and they don't need this money immediately, so he feels that it can be put off
until this is settled.
Dan Holder, 24 Bal Bay Drive, stated that he is disappointed to hear that what Assistant
Regular Council Meeting 06/17/2003 19
20
Mayor Roth is saying. He advised that this is a public meeting and the fact that the Council
is considering this means that it's their responsibility to make this decision. Mr. Holder
thinks that Assistant Mayor Roth saying that he is going to go strictly by what the
Association has said, which means that having a public meeting means nothing. Assistant
Mayor Roth advised that he read Mr. Holder's letter and he's not saying that he agrees or
disagrees. Mr. Holder advised that he appreciates Assistant Mayor reading it, but he
(Assistant Mayor Roth) is saying that he is going to ignore it, because he feels that it isn't
his responsibility to make decisions that affect the Security District, where it is his
responsibility and that's why everyone is here today. Assistant Mayor Roth questioned if he
is talking about the construction impact fee or the formula for the special assessment. Mr.
Holder thought that Assistant Mayor Roth's statement applied to both. Assistant Mayor
Roth advised that he is talking about the construction impact fee and the Council is doing
one thing at a time. Mr. Holder questioned if for the next issue he isn't necessarily going to
follow the Association's recommendation just because it's the Association. Mayor Tantleff
advised that comments should be for this issue.
Betsey Bystock, 80 Park Drive #5, recognizes that there are two separate issues and
from the meetings that she has attended, she thinks that the majority of the homeowners
were more in agreement on this issue and went with the Civic Association's
recommendation, than on the next issue. Ms. Bystock feels that the issues should be
treated and considered separately. Mayor Tantleff questioned if she is supporting this
issue. Ms. Bystock responded yes.
There being no further comments, Mayor Tantleff closed the public hearing.
A motion was offered by Assistant Mavor Roth and seconded by Councilman Gorson to approve
this ordinance as amended. The motion carried with the vote as follows: Mayor Tantleff aye;
Assistant Mayor Roth aye: Councilman Berlin absent: Councilman Gorson aye; Councilman
Jacobi absent. Thus becomink:
ORDINANCE NO.485
AN ORDINANCE OF BAL HARBOUR VILLAGE, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
VILLAGE CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTER 6 "BUILDINGS AND BUILDING
REGULATIONS," ARTICLE II "PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS," BY CREATING
SECTION 6-42 "FEE FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES IN THE SECURITY
DISTRICT OF THE RESIDENTIAL SECTION;" PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN CODE; PROVIDING FOR
PENALTY; PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
12. RESOLUTION: A resolution was read, by title, by the Village Clerk, as
follows:
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF BAL HARBOUR VILLAGE,
FLORIDA, REVISING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FORMULA TO BE
UTILIZED FOR THE SECURITY DISTRICT FOR THE RESIDENTIAL SECTION
OF BAL HARBOUR (THE "SECURITY DISTRICT") AS PROVIDED BY
RESOLUTION NO. 464, BY REVISING THE ASSESSMENT UPON EACH UNIT OF
Regular Council Meeting 06/17/2003 20
21
APARTMENT BUILDINGS (COOPERATIVES, CONDOMINIUMS, ETC.) AFTER
THE FIRST UNIT OF EACH SUCH APARTMENT BUILDING; PROVIDING FOR
UTILIZATION OF SUCH NEW ASSESSMENT FORMULA FOR ASSESSMENTS
THAT SHALL BE APPLICABLE TO THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING
OCTOBER 1, 2003, AND THEREAFTER; PROVIDING FOR IMPLEMENTATION;
PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mayor Tantleff opened a public hearing.
Babak Raheb, resident —128 Balfour Drive, advised that he has the same problem. He
stated that everybody in Bal Harbour pays taxes, regardless of where they live. Mr. Raheb
explained that looking at a property tax bill, an apartment that is $1 million does not pay the
same amount as an apartment that is $2 million. Mr. Raheb explained that this is a special
tax district, which was created in 1992, and means it's a special tax. He advised that it is
not fair. Mr. Raheb stated that one argument is that there are apartment units and houses
and this says apartment units should pay only half as what the houses do. He advised that
a differentiation is being made between apartments and houses. Mr. Raheb thinks that
once they get into the argument that an apartment is worth less than a house and should
pay less than a house, then an argument can be made that not all houses are equal. He
explained that in this proposal it is suggested that all houses, irregardless of size, be
treated the same. Mr. Raheb stated that people pay taxes to be represented and for the
Security District, etc. He doesn't think that all houses should be treated the same because
it's not fair or equitable that a $10 million house should only pay a $900 association fee,
which is the same as a house that is only worth $600,000. Mr. Raheb advised that under
this proposal, regardless of the size of the house, everyone is suppose to pay the same.
He thinks that is not taxation without representation and is not equality between all tax
revenues. Mr. Raheb explained that it is asking for all sizes to be treated the same, with an
exception of apartments. He advised that if they are going to treat everybody the same,
then all of the houses and apartments should be the same, if it's just a matter of security.
Mr. Raheb thinks that if they are making a difference between an apartment and a house,
because an apartment is not worth as much as a house, then they should make a
difference between a 2,000 square foot home, 8,000 square foot home and a 10,000
square foot home. He explained that the value of the property and the percentage of this
regarding the property tax is not proportionately the same. Mr. Raheb advised that in his
case, his special district allotment is almost 10% of his property tax. He said that compared
to a house that is $10 million on the water, it may only be 2% of their property tax, which is
unfair. Mr. Raheb thinks that it should be representative and an apartment and house
should be assessed on their value, which is done on a normal basis.
Dan Holder, resident-24 Bal Bay Drive, thinks that when the Association discussed this
matter there was a lot of feeling that the gate usage was the key to what people should
pay, which doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. He stated that as Mr. Raheb was saying,
assessed value has been a normal means of taxation. Mr. Holder stated that Mrs. Horton
was at one of the meetings and said that if they went by assessed value, it would be a
terrible headache, because of the difficulty in having to change the amount for each person
each year. He thinks that the most practical thing is to use the property square footage,
which is something that remains constant. Mr. Holder thinks that to do it on the gate value
doesn't make any sense. He stated even if that is done, to have apartments being a little
more than half of what houses are doesn't make sense either. Mr. Holder advised that it
doesn't take into account that people may have other houses and aren't here for the winter,
Regular Council Meeting 06/17/2003 21
etc. He strongly recommended that the Council either leave it as it is, with no change, or if
the Council wants to change it, to do it on assessed value or on the square footage of the
property. Mr. Holder stated that the residents are paying for security and should pay in
accordance to the percentage of the property in Bal Harbour that they own and is being
secured by this service. He advised that the security that's being provided for the larger
homes is of a greater value than what is being provided for the small apartments and
smaller homes. Mr. Holder thinks that the needs for security are also exacerbated by
having very large and elaborate homes, which create a greater need for security. He thinks
that there's a basis for making an assessment, based on size or value.
Mrs. Horton commented that the assessed value only comes out from the County in
October/November and the budget goes into affect October 1st, so it would always be a
year behind and still wouldn't be the right value.
Betsey Bystock, resident —80 Park Drive, submitted photos for the Council to consider.
She explained that photo #1 and #2 are of the largest and smallest individual residences.
Ms. Bystock advised that she agrees with both Mr. Raheb and Mr. Holder. She thinks that
just to maintain a home and services of a large home would take a huge impact. Ms.
Bystock advised that she has a letter to submit that is a revision of what was submitted to
the Council, that the fee be based, both for homes and multiple units, on either square
footage or assessed value, because that is the fairest way and covers most situations. She
explained that it has already been discussed and will probably be approved that no matter
what, the security assessment for everybody is going to go up, because of needing
additional equipment, etc. and if they approve more services, different companies, etc. Ms.
Bystock thinks that this would initially be more like a triple assessment impact for the
multiple unit people, because the security is going up and then if this passes, it would be a
much larger impact and greatly affect and be a hardship on many of the residents. She
agrees that a more modest home should not be paying the same as a huge elaborate
mansion, nor should all condominiums and co-ops pay the same, because some of them
could be more elaborate.
Phil Corbisiero, Vice President of the Civic Association, advised that this item was also
brought before the Association Board on many occasions. He explained that the object of
the issue was to bring the multiple dwellings more in -line with the share of the security
costs. Mr. Treppeda advised that the first unit pays for the full cost of a single family home
and then each unit thereafter pays 20%. Mr. Corbisiero advised that the Association is
asking and recommending to increase the 20% to 50%, which would be a 30% increase in
assessment, per unit, per multiple dwelling, after the initial first one. Mayor Tantleff
questioned if the Association Board looked at property square footage. Mr. Corbisiero
advised that they discussed square footage, assessed valuation, number of homes,
number of people, etc. and it has been before the Board for over a year. He explained that
they are sensitive to those issues, but there isn't any real cure-all formula that's going to
satisfy every resident. Mr. Corbisiero reported that their thinking was that because of a
20% share of the total assessment that a multiple dweller is paying, they felt that was
inexpensive to be living in the Bal Harbour gates and that should be increased and their
share of the security assessment should be brought more in line. Assistant Mayor Roth
questioned if any members of the Civic Association Board live in the co-ops. Mr. Corbisiero
responded yes, that one does. Assistant Mayor Roth questioned if the vote was
unanimous. Mr. Corbisiero advised that it wasn't unanimous and the person living in the co-
op voted against it. Assistant Mayor Roth questioned if they conducted a study through an
Regular Council Meeting 06/17/2003 22
23
outside consultant. Mr. Corbisiero doesn't think so. Assistant Mayor Roth thinks that 10
people will have 10 different answers on how to allocate costs. He thinks that this is an
issue that should be resolved by the Security District and is whatever they want, and if the
Civic Association is the goveming body, then he has no choice. Assistant Mayor Roth
stated that he is sympathetic and there are two homes to every co-op unit (200 homes and
100 units) in the Security District, so they don't really have a fair voice if they were to vote,
which is why he asked if there were any co-op members on the Board (there is 1 out of 7).
Mr. Raheb doesn't think that is equal representation. Assistant Mayor Roth stated that is
the way that they have it set up and suggested that they form their own association,
regulate themselves and not put the decision on the Council, because it's unfair. He thinks
that the Civic Association is the rightful representative.
Mr. Raheb advised that it's not the rightful representative and it is the Council's duty. He
questioned of all the people who are on the Board, how many live in the big houses. Mr.
Raheb thinks that it's a conflict of interest. He advised that the people who are on the
Board live in the big houses and don't want to pay the extra money and Assistant Mayor
Roth doesn't think that should be considered. Mr. Raheb thinks that it is the Council's duty
and responsibility to take care of this. He advised that there are other formulas that he has
studied. Mr. Raheb stated that houses could be assessed and the biggest house would
only pay $1560 per year and the smallest one (apartment) would only pay $295, which is
more reasonable.
Dina Cellini, resident — 211 Bal Cross Drive, doesn't believe that the Civic Association
Board looked into any kind of concrete figures as Mr. Raheb has suggested, either using
assessed value or square footage. She advised that it was raised by Mr. Rudolph when he
was a Civic Association President, which was when Mrs. Horton was there, and it was
glossed over. Ms. Cellini reported that he stuck to this formula of 20% and then 50% and
there was no study done as to what different levels of houses and apartments would pay.
She doesn't agree that it was considered. Ms. Cellini advised that the last vote was made
by the Civic Association without any notice to the residents of the community that the issue
was going to be voted on at that meeting. She reported that the Civic Association Board,
which went into affect in March, has not sent out one newsletter or one agenda, prior to the
meetings. Ms. Cellini advised that they have been having meetings and discussing these
important issues and no residents have any idea, prior to the meeting, of what's going to be
on the agenda. She explained that this issue was voted on at the May meeting. Mr.
Corbisiero advised that the Association has been discussing this at meetings for over a
year. Ms. Cellini advised that they have been discussing it, but they haven't voted on it.
Brian Mulheren, resident — Carlton Terrace, doesn't think that the Council should be
taking the abuse that they are taking from these people. He advised that these people live
in their own area, similar to a condominium, which has an association and the association
makes the decisions. Mr. Mulheren thinks that they have an Association and they have to
deal with it and they should not be abusing or attacking the Council. He stated that the
Village is supplying them with services and he doesn't know if it should be, because it's a
cost that the Village is taking. Mr. Mulheren thinks that it's their problem and if they don't
like it, then they should move out of there.
Mr. Raheb stated that the Association is not like a homeowners association; it's a non-profit
corporation, which means that its decision is not binding as a corporation. He advised that
whatever the Village provides them, they give over $1 million in property taxes, so they pay
Regular Council Meeting 06/17/2003 23
for every service that they get. Assistant Mayor Roth stated that they do pay taxes, but they
do not pay their fair share of the cost that this Village supplies the gated community. Mr.
Raheb questioned what the Security District is getting that the Village is paying for.
Mr. Weiss stated that the problem is that when the Civic Association was set up, it wasn't
set up like a condo board. He explained that the reason that the Village is involved in this is
because the Association doesn't have any ability at all to collect money from their
residents, for security purposes, like is done in a condo. Mr. Weiss advised that it's not a
condo association, so they don't have the ability to lien property, etc. He doesn't think that
they have the legal ability to fit into the normal mode of becoming a homeowner's
association, because they would need the consent of all the homeowners there. Mr. Weiss
explained that they came to the Village and asked for help to create a special taxing
district, for security purposes to collect the money, because they had no other way to do it.
He advised that is the reason that the Village is in this situation, because the Council is
doing this on their behalf. Mr. Weiss stated that the problem with doing this on their behalf,
is that the Council does take on certain responsibilities for it. Assistant Mayor Roth
questioned, if the Civic Association recommends something, the Council has any other
choice but to accept the recommendation. Mr. Weiss responded yes, that the Council has
the choice to do whatever it wants. Assistant Mayor Roth questioned if there are any other
cities that have a situation similar to this. Mr. Weiss responded no.
Assistant Mayor Roth questioned how many units are in the Shaker Villas. Mr. Holder
responded there are seven and they have an association. Assistant Mayor Roth advised
that they will be paying around 65%, not 50%, because the first pays 100% and the other 6
pay 50%. Mr. Holder stated that the Association is not really a legal body; it doesn't have
all of the protections that a government has and that's why the residents need the Council
for their protection because it's a government and is set up with all of the protections for
the citizens, etc. He advised that they are asking the Council to protect them and to make
this decision on their own. Mr. Holder explained that they are asking the Council to
consider the Association, but to use its own better judgment. He advised that he feels that
the Association has made a bad recommendation and is asking that the Council take into
consideration all of the facts and reach a decision on its own.
Mayor Tantleff thinks that it's a tough issue. Assistant Mayor Roth questioned if a
professional study should be done that the gated community pays for. Mayor Tantleff
questioned if this needs to be passed now. Mrs. Horton advised that it could be passed in
July, but no later.
Ms. Bystock proposed that it be studied as carefully as possible. She reiterated that the
homeowners are not all in agreement and they not only disagree about how the security
should be assessed. She advised that there is more of a difference in the size and value of
the individual units and homes than in any other community, where they are all built at the
same time.
Councilman Gorson suggested that they form a questionnaire that goes to all the people
living there and then they will have an answer from 100% of the people.
Assistant Mayor Roth stated that every condo regulates themselves and he can't believe
that up until a year ago they didn't have a rule governing dogs. He questioned when a
buyer comes in if they meet with them and give them rules and regulations, etc.
Regular Council Meeting 06/17/2003 24
25
Mr. Raheb advised that they are not a homeowners' association and they cannot do those
things that Assistant Mayor Roth is discussing. He advised that they follow the same laws
that exist in the Village, but as far as being able to uniformly govern themselves as an
association, they cannot do that. Mr. Raheb advised that it's not set up that way.
A motion was offered by Assistant Mayor Roth and seconded by Councilman Gorson to defer this
item until the July Council meeting. The motion carried with the vote as follows: Mayor Tantleff
aye; Assistant Mayor Roth aye; Councilman Berlin absent; Councilman Gorson aye; Councilman
,Jacobi absent.
13. OTHER BUSINESS: None
14. ADJOURN: There being no further business to come before the Council, a
motion was offered by Councilman Gorson and seconded by Assistant Mayor Roth to adjourn.
The motion carried unanimously (3-0), with Councilman Berlin and Councilman Jacobi absent,
and the meeting adjourned at 11:35 a.m.
Mayor Daniel S. Tantleff
Attest:
Jeanette Hortgn, MMC
Village Clerk
/elh
Regular Council Meeting 06/17/2003 25