Loading...
10-27-2022 VC REG-MMINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION VILLAGE COUNCIL OF NORTH PALM BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 27, 2022 Present: Deborah Searcy, Mayor David B. Norris, Vice Mayor Susan Bickel, President Pro Tem Darryl C. Aubrey, Sc.D., Councilmember Mark Mullinix, Councilmember Chuck Huff, Interim Village Manager Len Rubin, Village Attorney Jessica Green, Village Clerk ROLL CALL Mayor Searcy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. All members of Council were present. All members of staff were present. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Searcy gave the invocation and Vice Mayor Norris led the public in the Pledge. AWARDS AND RECOGNITION Mayor Searcy presented a Commendation to seven (7) North Palm Beach Fire Rescue personnel for their recovery efforts at the properties of Southwest Florida firefighters in the aftermath of Hurricane Ian. Mayor Searcy congratulated District Chief Scott Freseman for receiving the Firefighter of the Year Award and acknowledged Fire Chief J.D. Armstrong for serving the Village for forty (40) years. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Minutes of the Special Emergency Session held September 28, 2022 and of the Regular Session held October 13, 2022 were approved as written. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Chris Ryder, 118 Dory Road S, expressed his concerns regarding changes to the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning in the C -MU District during the summer of 2020. John Samadi, 512 Marlin Road, expressed his concerns regarding the Village's response time to maintaining sidewalks that were in need of cleaning or repair. Minutes of the Village Council Regular Session held October 27, 2022 Page 2 of 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTERS MOTION — APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF 200 YACHT CLUB DRIVE PROJECT Mr. Rubin explained that Robbins NPB LLC, the owner of the property located on the southeast corner of Yacht Club Drive and U.S. Highway One and the applicant for the 200 Yacht Club Drive proposed project, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a requested waiver pursuant to Section 45-51(6) of the Village Code, which allows the applicant or any interested party to file an appeal to the Village Council on any waiver decision. That section further provides that "such an appeal will also function as an appeal of the site plan and appearance review application." Brian Seymour, Attorney with Gunster Law Firm, introduced himself and stated that he would present on behalf of the property owner, Robbins NPB LLC. Mr. Seymour explained that the Council's role was to decide whether or not there was evidence to support the Planning Commission's vote to deny the project finding that the waiver of Section 45-31(G)(3) of the Village Code that required a seven -foot perpetual sidewalk dedicated to the Village along the U.S. Highway One frontage did not meet the criteria for a waiver set forth in Section 45-51 of the Village code. Mr. Seymour stated for the record that the appeal was solely based on the Planning Commission's findings that the waiver did not meet the criteria set forth in Section 45-51 of the Village Code and nothing more and his client objected to anything more being considered in the appeal. Mr. Seymour stated that the record included the information that was presented to the Planning Commission in September of 2022, which was the staff report, the justification statement of the applicant, the presentation, the plans, the applicant's presentation, staff's presentation, the answers to the questions made, public statements and the staff report and minutes from the 2021 Planning Commission meeting on the project. Mr. Seymour stated that he recognized that public comments were going to be allowed by the Council for the appeal, but that he noted his objection to consideration of such comments because they are not part of the record on appeal. Mr. Seymour discussed and explained what was and was not considered evidence according to Florida law. Mr. Seymour stated that the project has been in review for two (2) years. The project was initially filed on December 2, 2020 and after a number of staff reviews, it went before the Planning Commission in December of 2021. The proposed project originally included five (5) stories, 206 residential units, 1578 square feet of space for commercial uses and four (4) live -work units. The minutes of the December 2021 Planning Commission meeting reflected that the Planning Commission reviewed the application, heard testimony from staff and the applicant, heard public comment and determined by a vote of five (5) to one (1), with one (1) member being absent, that the application including the waivers met all of the Village's requirements. Because the request included a height waiver, it was required to be approved by the Village Council. The request did not come before Council at that point because of the concerns raised by residents at the 2021 December hearing. Based on such concerns, the applicant revised the proposed project by reducing it by one (1) story to four (4) stories, reducing the number of residential units to 177 residential units and including 5802 square feet of commercial space. After the revisions, the Planning Commission reversed their decision and denied the project based on the one (1) waiver. Mr. Seymour explained that all of the proposed uses for the project were permitted uses per the Village Code. Mr. Seymour stated that evidence demonstrated that the project met the Village Code and the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Seymour discussed and reviewed the codes and requirements in the C -MU Zoning District and discussed how the Master Plan workshops in 2018 and 2019 resulted in concurrent amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Village Code that were adopted and cross referenced. Minutes of the Village Council Regular Session held October 27, 2022 Page 3 of 9 MOTION — APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF 200 YACHT CLUB DRIVE PROJECT continued Mr. Seymour stated that the Village Council adopted the definition of dwelling unit referenced in Ordinance 2022-10 which was later repealed. Mr. Seymour stated that the repeal was not in place when the application was submitted and therefore would not apply to the applicant. The application is required to be reviewed under the rules that applied when it was filed. Applying those regulations, staff found that the project was consistent with the density allowed within the Commercial Land Use Designation of the Comprehensive Plan. At the September 2022 Planning Commission, the applicant committed to converting the four (4) live -work units to commercial space which reduced the density from 32'/2 to 32. Mr. Seymour stated that Village staff was very clear that the applicant designed the proposed project consistent with the Citizen's Master Plan, Village Code and the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Seymour stated that four (4) waivers were requested by the applicant. Mr. Seymour discussed and explained the waivers and stated that the waivers met all of the requirements in 2021. The same waivers were presented at the September 2022 hearing with the differences of lower height, the incorporation of requests and conditions that were made by the Planning Commission and a reduction in density. Mr. Seymour explained and discussed the conclusions of staff regarding the waivers and what was required for waivers to be approved. Mr. Seymour stated that there was no discussion at the meetings regarding the sidewalk width. The Planning Commission relied on one (1) waiver to deny the project. Mr. Seymour discussed and explained the sidewalk waiver. Mr. Seymour stated that there was no evidence in the record that the sidewalk waiver was not consistent with the applicable code requirements and that there was no evidence in the record that supported the Planning Commission's denial. Mr. Seymour stated that based on the evidence, the appeal should be granted. Mayor Searcy stated that she understood that public comment was not evidentiary and understood the objection but that Council believed that the residents were entitled to have their voices heard. Mayor Searcy read thirteen (13) public comments that were submitted online through the Village website from the following residents who expressed their opposition to the proposed 200 Yacht Club Drive project: Jerry Pruitt, 112 Yacht Club Drive Bill Hipple, 539 Captains Road Patricia Bowers, 21 Yacht Club Drive Stephen Harber, 731 Lakeside Drive David Havanich, 20 Yacht Club Drive John Pagano, 21 Yacht Club Drive Bill Stephens, 52 Yacht Club Drive Marlene Jannotta, 101 Doolen Ct. Susan Mills, 20 Yacht Club Drive Ryan Nagel, 136 Cruiser Road South Patrick Wagor, 625 Atlantic Road Harriet Havanich, 20 Yacht Club Drive Kris Pagano, 21 Yacht Club Drive Patricia Williamson, 849 Fathom Road These residents addressed the Council with their concerns and expressed their opposition to the proposed 200 Yacht Club Drive project: Peggy Girard, 52 Yacht Club Drive William Rose, 36 Yacht Club Drive Carolyn Liss, 52 Yacht Club Drive Frank Rendulic, 36 Yacht Club Drive Bob Starkie, 36 Yacht Club Drive Lucy Karas, 37 Yacht Club Drive Chris Ryder, 118 Dory Road South Helen Rabiner, 44 Yacht Club Drive Diane Smith, 37 Yacht Club Drive Cheryl Rose, 36 Yacht Club Drive Sandra Yeater, 36 Yacht Club Drive Dave Collangelo, 45 Yacht Club Drive Bill Stephens, 52 Yacht Club Drive Deborah Cross, 2560 Pepperwood Circle S Cory Cross, 2560 Pepperwood Circle S Draft Minutes of the Village Council Regular Session held October 27, 2022 Page 4 of 9 MOTION — APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF 200 YACHT CLUB DRIVE PROJECT continued Mr. Seymour addressed the traffic concerns explaining that the traffic was determined to be at Level of Service A at the intersection of U.S. Highway 1 and Yacht Club Drive. Mr. Seymour stated that the issue at hand was what the laws were and the fact that the developer followed the established laws. Mr. Seymour explained that the Village had every right to change the code going forward. Mr. Seymour concluded that the law had to be followed and the developer followed the law. Councilmember Mullinix asked Mr. Rubin to explain what the Council was ruling on. Mr. Rubin explained that the Council would be ruling on the entire site plan and appearance application in accordance with the Village Code. Councilmember Mullinix explained that from the inception of the proposed project, he was clear to the developer that he was not a proponent of the project. Councilmember Mullinix explained and discussed his reasons for not approving the project. President Pro Tem Bickel stated that she was not a proponent of the density that was initially proposed and did not see the public benefit that would come with the waivers and did not support the project as it stood. Vice Mayor Norris stated that he could not support the project based on the same reasons that Councilmember Mullinix and President Pro Tem Bickel expressed and for the fact that there was not enough commercial space proposed. Councilmember Aubrey stated that he did not support the appeal, but that he could support the proposed project with changes such as a density of thirty-six (36), more commercial space and an entrance and exit on the south end of the property. Councilmember Aubrey clarified the difference between low income and workforce housing and stated that the proposed project had workforce housing units included. Mayor Searcy agreed with the concerns expressed by the rest of the Council regarding the project. Mayor Searcy stated that she did not believe the proposed project complied with the Comprehensive Plan which calls for a vibrant commercial corridor and a mixed pattern of development. The issue was that it would be three parcels that would be turned into ninety-seven percent (97%) residential with less than 6000 square feet of commercial space which was not a mixed pattern of development. The Master Plan indicated that the northernmost parcel could be completely residential but not the other two parcels. Mayor Searcy stated that she did not support the project as it was currently proposed. Ken Tuma of Urban Design Studios, introduced himself and stated that he, the property owner and the developer were looking for direction on what Council was looking for in the proposed project and would like to address and discuss some of the items that were mentioned. Mr. Rubin stated that a revised project could be submitted regardless of the outcome of the appeal. Mr. Tuma stated that he and the developer discussed what they would be willing to do to make the project happen. Mr. Tuma stated that they would be willing to drop the project down to 162 units, eliminate the parking garage and do surface parking along the back of the building. No townhomes would be at the back of the building. Draft Minutes of the Village Council Regular Session held October 27, 2022 Page 5 of 9 MOTION — APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF 200 YACHT CLUB DRIVE PROJECT continued Mr. Tuma explained that in order to eliminate the parking garage, they would need to go up one partial level to allow the ability to shrink the building for additional green space. Mr. Tuma stated that the developer was satisfied with having 1600 square feet of commercial space for the possibility of a coffee shop but was unsure if they would be willing to revise the amount of commercial space. Mr. Tuma asked Scott Stetner of Robbins NPB LLC to come up and address the proposed commercial space. Mr. Stetner introduced himself and began to discuss and explain the challenging process that had been undertaken between staff, the Planning Commission and Council to bring the project to fruition. Mr. Stetner explained that they relied on the code to bring forward a proposal for the project that met the code and they were confident their legal position and would pursue legal measures if necessary. Mr. Stetner stated that if Council was willing to work with them, further legal action could be avoided. Mayor Searcy asked if the developer was willing to provide more commercial space and if so, how much more. Mr. Stetner explained that if the density was being decreased it was not economically feasible to provide more commercial space. Mr. Stetner continued to explain the reasons why more commercial space would not be feasible. Mayor Searcy stated that she could not be in support of the proposed project if it did not have more commercial space. President Pro Tem Susan Bickel expressed her displeasure with Mr. Stetner's threat to pursue further legal action and stated that she was not in support of the proposed density for the project and did not feel comfortable negotiating the details of the project before having time to prepare or think about the proposed changes they were offering. Mr. Seymour recommended that Council stay the appeal in order for the developer and architects to have time to come back with changes and present a revised project proposal. Mr. Rubin explained that it was up to Council to decide whether or not to stay the appeal if they were willing to consider a revised project proposal. Councilmember Mullinix made a motion to deny the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the 200 Yacht Club Drive Project. The motion made by Councilmember Mullinix to deny the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the 200 Yacht Club Drive Project failed due to lack of a second. Discussion ensued between Councitmembers, staff and Mr. Rubin on whether or not to stay the appeal. Mayor Searcy asked Mr. Mitchell Robbins, of Robbins NPB LLC, the owner of the property located at 200 Yacht Club Drive, if he would like to speak. Draft Minutes of the Village Council Regular Session held October 27, 2022 Page 6 of 9 MOTION — APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF 200 YACHT CLUB DRIVE PROJECT continued Mr. Robbins introduced himself and gave a history of why and how he acquired the property located at 200 Yacht Club Drive. Mr. Robbins explained that the proposed project was based on feedback he had received from Village staff and residents. Mr. Robbins concluded by stating that by staying the appeal it would give them the opportunity put a revised project together that would be right for that piece of property. Mayor Searcy thanked Mr. Robbins for his dedication to the Village. Vice Mayor Norris stated that he was willing to give the developers and architects the opportunity to present a revised project. President Pro Tem Bickel asked if the appeal could be denied but keep the project open to negotiation. Mr. Rubin recommended that if Council was still open to further negotiation, they should stay the appeal for a specified time period. Mr. Tuma stated that a sixty (60) day period would work for the team to come back with revisions to the project. Mayor Searcy addressed the audience and explained that if the appeal was stayed, it would give the developers the opportunity to bring back a revised project based upon all concerns expressed by Council and the residents. Councilmember Mullinix explained his reasoning for wanting to deny the appeal. Mr. Mullinix expressed that he would like the developer to start over on the project. Councilmember Aubrey asked what would be the best process for moving forward. Mr. Rubin explained that if the appeal was denied, it would force the developer's hands to take the next steps in the legal process as there were deadlines for challenging the denial in the Circuit Court. Mr. Rubin explained that it was within the Council's discretion to deny or stay the appeal. Discussion ensued between Council and Mr. Robbins regarding the potential outcomes of denying or staying the appeal. It was concluded that if the appeal was denied, the final outcome of the project could rest with a Circuit Court judge if the developer were to pursue further legal action. A motion was made by Vice Mayor Norris and seconded by Councilmember Aubrey to stay the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the 200 Yacht Club Drive Project until the second Council meeting in January, which would fall on January 26, 2023. The motion passed 4 to with Mayor Searcy, Vice Mayor Norris, President Pro Tem Bickel and Councilmember Aubrey voting aye and Councilmember Mullinix voting nay. Mr. Huff expressed his thoughts on the stay of the appeal and stated that it gave an opportunity to meet with residents and have them engaged with the developers to give their input on the project. Mr. Huff stated that he was willing to facilitate those meetings. Draft Minutes of the Village Council Regular Session held October 27, 2022 Page 7 of 9 MOTION — APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF 200 YACHT CLUB DRIVE PROJECT continued Mayor Searcy recessed the meeting at 9:18 p.m. Mayor Searcy reconvened the meeting at 9:26 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE 2022-18 CODE AMENDMENT — IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE A motion was made by President Pro Tem Bickel and seconded by Vice Mayor Norris to adopt and enact on second reading Ordinance 2022-18 entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF NORTH PALM BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING APPENDIX C (CHAPTER 45) OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE; AMENDING ARTICLE III, "DISTRICT REGULATIONS," BY AMENDING SECTION 45-27, "R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT," TO REGULATE THE VOLUME AND MASSING OF TWO-STORY DWELLINGS; AMENDING ARTICLE VII, "NONCONFORMING USES OF LAND AND STRUCTURES," BY AMENDING SECTION 45-64, "NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES," TO ALLOW THE RECONSTRUCTION OF NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES UNDER SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Interim Community Development Director Alex Ahrenholz explained the purpose for the Ordinance and that it passed on first reading with amendments. The revisions were made to Section 45-27 (D)(4) whereby the reference to the height of the building wall was removed and the intent of the enhanced second story setback, and to Section 45-27(E) whereby the building wall articulation requirement was addressed. Mr. Ahrenholz explained that further revisions were made to Section 45-27(E) to clarify that window and door openings shall not be considered a plane break when requiring articulation on walls with an unbroken plane in excess of fifteen (15) feet in height and thirty (30) feet in length. These residents addressed the Council with their concerns regarding the proposed Ordinance to amend the Village code to implement the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee: Benjamin Schreier, 137 Cruiser Road S John Samadi, 512 Marlin Road Deborah Cross, 2560 Pepperwood Circle S Bill Whiteford, Chairman of the Ad Hoc Residential Code Committee stated that there were still issues that the Committee needed to discuss and address. Mr. Whiteford encouraged residents to attend the meetings to provide input. Councilmember Mullinix expressed his concerns with the proposed changes to the residential code. Councilmember Mullinix thanked staff and the Ad Hoc Committee for their efforts but expressed that the code changes should continue to be evaluated before adoption. Vice Mayor Norris asked for clarification on Section 45-64(2)(b) and expressed his concerns with the proposed code. Mr. Rubin explained that the Village code would be subject to Florida Building Code. Minutes of the Village Council Regular Session held October 27, 2022 Page 8 of 9 PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE 2022-18 CODE AMENDMENT — IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE continued Discussion ensued between Councilmembers regarding the proposed articulation requirements in the code. Discussion continued on whether or not to pass the ordinance as is or to amend the ordinance before passing and what revisions could be made. A motion was made by President Pro Tem Bickel and seconded by Vice Mayor Norris to amend Ordinance 2022-18 by eliminating the additional five (5) foot rear setback requirement for waterfront properties. Thereafter the motion to amend Ordinance 2022-18 passed unanimously. Thereafter, the motion to adopt and enact on second reading Ordinance 2022-18 as amended passed 3 to 2 with Mayor Searcy, President Pro Tem Bickel and Councilmember Aubrey voting aye and Vice Mayor Norris and Councilmember Mullinix voting nay. CONSENT AGENDA APPROVED President Pro Tem Bickel moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Vice Mayor Norris seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The following items were approved: Resolution announcing the date of the Village General Election and Run Off Election, if necessary; designating voting locations; requesting that the Supervisor of Elections conduct the Election; authorizing the Supervisor of Elections to certify the accuracy of the tabulation equipment and handle, certify and canvass all ballots, including absentee ballots; and designating the Canvassing Board. Resolution approving an Agreement for Vote Processing Equipment use and Elections Services with the Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections; and authorizing execution of the Agreement. Resolution approving and authorizing the purchase of Firefighter Protective Clothing (Bunker Gear) from Bennett Fire Products Company, Inc. at a total cost of $28,090.08. Receive for file Minutes of the Recreation Advisory Board Meeting held 9/13/22. Receive for file Minutes of the Golf Advisory Board Meeting held 9/19/22. RESOLUTION 2022-93 — AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR 4TH OF JULY FIREWORKS DISPLAY A motion was made by Councilmember Mullinix and seconded by Vice Mayor Norris to adopt Resolution 2022-93 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF NORTH PALM BEACH, FLORIDA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT WITH STARFIRE CORPORATION TO PROVIDE A FIREWORKS DISPLAY FOR THE 2023 4TH OF JULY CELEBRATION AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND VILLAGE CLERK TO EXECUTE THE AMENDMENT; WAIVING THE VILLAGE'S PURCHASING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Director of Leisure Services Zak Sherman explained that the amendment to the contract for the 4th of July fireworks display was to increase the price by $5,000.00 and to extend the term of the contract by one (1) year. Minutes of the Village Council Regular Session held October 27, 2022 Page 9 of 9 RESOLUTION 2022-93 — AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR fm OF JULY FIREWORKS DISPLAY continued Thereafter, the motion to adopt Resolution 2022-93 passed unanimously. RESOLUTION 2022-94 — AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR HERITAGE DAY AMUSEMENT RIDES A motion was made by Councilmember Aubrey and seconded by President Pro Tem Bickel to adopt Resolution 2022-94 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF NORTH PALM BEACH, FLORIDA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT WITH BIG FUN, INC. TO PROVIDE AMUSEMENT RIDES FOR HERITAGE DAY 2023 AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND VILLAGE CLERK TO EXECUTE THE AMENDMENT; WAIVING THE VILLAGE'S PURCHASING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Director of Leisure Services Zak Sherman explained that the amendment to the contract for the Heritage Day amusement rides was to increase the price by $13,000.00 and to extend the term of the contract by one (1) year. Thereafter, the motion to adopt Resolution 2022-94 passed unanimously. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MATTERS/REPORTS President Pro Tem Bickel stated that she has heard concerns from residents regarding the proposed development of the Twin Cities Mall site. President Pro Tem Bickel expressed her concerns regarding the proposed project and recommended slowing the process down and have more public meetings, input and discussion. President Pro Tem Bickel stated that she was in favor of the project but wanted to make sure that the Village was following all the right procedures and that there would be plenty of public outreach and input. Discussion ensued between Councilmembers and Mr. Rubin regarding the proposed development of the Twin Cities Mall site. It was concluded that the Village was following the proper protocols and process regarding the proposed project and that Council would have a workshop concerning the proposed project in the future. Mr. Huff stated that he has made the developer aware that public outreach and input was necessary in order to move forward with the proposed project. Mayor Searcy announced the Village's Halloween Event at Anchorage Park on Saturday, October 29h. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:18 p.m. WJa�Green, MMC, Village Clerk