Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance_541_07/22/1999ORDINANCE NO. -~~7~'~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE VII.,LAGE OF TEQUESTA, ADOPTED IN 1989, IN RELATION TO ITEMS IDENTIFFIED IN THE VILLAGE'S 1996 EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED, SO AS TO INCORPORATE NEW, REVISED AND/OR UPDATED TEXT, TABLES, MAPS, FIGURES, ANALYSIS, AS WELL AS GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES IN THE INTRODUCTION, F`L)TURE LAND USE ELEMENT, TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT, INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT, COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT, CONSERVATION ELEMENT, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT, INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT, PLAN MONITORING AND EVALUATION SECTION RELATING TO CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER TEXTUAL AMENDMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS; ALL IN RELATION TO ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN THE VILLAGE'S 1996 EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) AND ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS FOR POLICIES ADDRESSING STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR SCHOOL SITING AND CO-LOCATION AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, being the Local Government • Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, the Village of Tequesta may adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency of the Village has held public hearings to make recommendations to the Village Council and has recommended the adoption of the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan contained herein; and WHEREAS, the Village Council at its regular meeting held on July 22, 1999, wishes to approve and adopt the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan incorporated herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE VII.,LAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Village Council does hereby amend the 1989 Comprehensive Plan of the Village of Tequesta in relation to items identified in the Village's 1996 Evaluation and Appraisal Report ,new State School Siting and Co-Location requirements and Intergovernmental Coordination Element requirements and in accordance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulations Act, as • amended, so as to incorporate new, revised and/or updated tent, tables, maps, figures, analysis, as well as goals, objectives and policies in the Introduction, Future Land Use Element, Transportation Element, Housing Element, Infrastructure Element, Coastal Management Element, Conservation Element, Recreation and Open Space Element, Intergovernmental Coordination Element, Capital Improvements Element, Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Section relating to consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan and Public Participation Program Requirements, and other textual amendments and modifications, all as attached hereto which is hereby adopted and incorporated by this Ordinance as if fully set forth herein. Section 2. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. Section 3. If any court or competent jurisdiction holds any word, part, section, paragraph or provision hereof to be unlawful or unconstitutional, such ruling or finding shall not affect the remaining portions of this Ordinance, which shall remain in full force and effect. Section 4. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon passage. PASSED UPON FIRST READING THE ~.t7(„ .DAY OF°~1 1999. PASSED AND ADOPTED UPON SECOND READING THE FOLLOWING HEARING THE aa~~ • DAY OF 1999. VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, FLORIDA `~ `ma'y? ole~aa.~ Mayor ATTEST: /~t..~a-.-~-t C erk • Village o~ Tec~uesta Responses to Department O~ Comn~nnit~ A~~xs Objections, Recommendations and Comments Fpr • Tequesta February 1999 Tequesta Lora! Planning Agency Consultant:. JLH.Assaciates • • OBJECTIONS, RECOMNIIrNDATIONSRND COMMENTS VII,LAC:E OP TE4~-IIESTA EAR BASED COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN L AMENDMENTS WITH OBJECTIONS A~ I+'[JTURE LANI3 iISE ELEMENT Obk jection Policy 1.4.5 does not give clear; meaningful, arul predictable standard for the presen+atiar< of native .plant species in Ecosites Number 61 and Number 63. Policy 1.4.5 states that the Village shall "support efforts" to.{treserve the sites, but doees-not give a~ guidaace.in-how the. ~lillage.will support preservation efforts, or what the efforts in preservation are. Without specifying the how the Village will support the efforts, and whattype-of Efforts will be`talflenrthe-policSc is vagu~anclinet~ctive. Section: 163.3177(1), F.S. Rafe: 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.003(96); 9J-5.006(3)(b~1; 9J-5.013(2)(b)3; 9J-5.006(3xc~, F.AC. Recommendation Revise Policy-1_4.5 W specify the.standardsihat.are-to beimplementedfat.tl~-presen+ation~nfthe.rra~ive plant species in the Ecosites. Policies should provide meaningk'al and predictable standands for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines For tltc.conteatt of mare detailed LDRs. . • Specifically, address what efforts will be made and how tile. Village will support those efforts. - Response . -" Two. (2) separate Policies will be developed to address Ecostte.Number 61 and Ec~te Number 63 and the . preservation of native plant and animal species on those bites. Policy 1.4.5. will be re-written as follows: Policies- 14 5 The ViUaee supports the U S Departtnent of Interior Bureau of LandManagement /.Palm Beach County Envir~mental Resource Management Intedocal A~ment to c:o-fundand oo-manage the preservation of native plant and animal species on Eco-Site ~i61 as Hart ofYlte_"JupiteC IDIet_1~Iat~at Area ff Anew Policy 1.4.8 will be added to address F.cosite Number 63: Policies` L4.8 The.~illage_su~ortsthe>vation-nf ant andanimal ,~ ies on Ecosite Number 63 (which oocunies a portiar< of St+ Jude's Church). in_a~rdanc~e with the_ "St_ Jurie's_ Church Mitieation Plan" as required by the U S ~ Dep~rtmenJt of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service a~the Florida- a~Pm~sh V~at~ F~ Eenanission Z. Objection Policy 1.4.6 does not provide clear, meaningful, and predictable standards for the protection of mangroves because the standards are deferred to the Land Development Regulations. The policy does not specify how the mangroves are to be protected Without this specificatioq the policy is vague and ineffective. Section: 163.3177(5), F.S. Rule: 9J5-5.005(6); 9J-5.003(96); 97-5.013(2)(b)3, F.AC. • Recommendation Revise Policy 1.4.6 to indicate the standards to be applied in the protection of mangroves within the Village. Specifically, identify how the mangroves will be protected through the Land Development Regulations. Besponae Policy 1.4.6 shall be re-written as follows: Policy 1.4.6 The Village shall txotect rnaneroves within Teauesta by deferring the review of mangroves in proposed development and re- developmentareas to the County for enforcement and protection under the Palm 13each Countywide Mangrove Protection Ordirta~nce. This shall be made a part of the Village Site Plan Review Process. 3. ObjeMion Policy 1.4.7 does not give protection to potable water welifield protection areas because the policy does not designate the appropriate activities and land uses to be allowed The policy simply states that the Village will designate appropriate activities and land uses. Without specifying what those activities and uses will be, the policy does not give clear, meaningful and predictable standards for development and does not meet minimum requirements. Section: 163.3177(6)(a), F.S. Rnle: 9J-5.003(96); 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.006(3)(c~, F.AC: • Recommendation Revise Policy' 1.4.7 to provide immediate protection of potable water wellfield protection areas by indicating the appropriate activities and land uses to be allowed Policies, should provide meaningful a~ predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningfiil .guidelines for the . content of more detailed LDRs. . . Response Policy 1.4.7 shall be revised as follows: Policies 1.4.7 The Villas pro potable water wellfields by allowing only the land uses en~assed within the wellfield drawdown Zones of influence shown on the Future Land Use Map. 4. Objection Policy 1.5.2 does not adequately ensure that facilities and services meet locally established level of service standards, and are available concurrent with the impacts of development because the polity defers any provisions to the LDRs. Section: 163.3177(6xa), F.S. Rule: 9J-5.003(96); 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.006(33, F.AC. Recommendation Revise Policy 1.5.2 to provide that facilities and services will meet locally established level of service standards, and will be concurrent with the impacts of development within the plan The provision should be a clear, meaningful and predictable guideline for more detailed land development. Response • Policy 1.5.2 shall be revised as follows: Policies 1.5.2 The Village shall ensure that the availability of public facilities 3 and services meet acceptable levels of service, be concurrent with level moment impacts_ and that provide for utility services to be authorized at the same time land uses are authorized 4. Objection Policy 1.5.4 does not adequately provide that facilities that provide utility service to the various land uses are authorized at the same time the land uses are authorized, because the policy defers any measures to the LDRs. Section: 163.3177(6xa), F.S. Rnle: 9J-5.003(96); 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.006(3xc)3, F.AC. Recommendation Revise Policy 1.5.4 to include clear, meaningful, and predictable standards for the use of land that provide guidelines for more detailed land use developmenu. Response '['Lis Policy shall be revised by deleting the second sentence to be read as follows: Pblic}! 15 4 The approval and authorization of land use development within the Villagg shall be concurrent with the provisjons of utility service. S. Objection Obective 1.7.0 pertains to the prohibition of development within the storm flood zones unless it is in . • conformance with the Coastal ConstnuKion Control program regulations. The intention of this polity to only include coastal storm flood zones, or storm flood zones throughout the Village is act clear. The Coastal Construction Control program only regulates coastlines. Additionally, if the Village o~ aMends for this policy to extend to cro~astal storm flood zones, and then the language of the objective would allow the Village to grant a variance for development regardless of the Coastal Construction. Control program regulations. Section: 163.3178(1), F.S. Rafe: 9J-5.005(6), F.AC. Recommendation Revise Objective 1.7.0 to state clearly the stone flood zones that the policy is intended to regulate. Additionally, revise Objection 1.7.0 to allow the Village to grant a variance for development within the storm flood zones only when consistent with the regulation of the Coastal Construction Control program. Response Objective 1.7.0 shall be revised as follows: Objective 17 0 Aevelo~ment within the storm flood zones shall be subject to restrictions implemented throueh the Village of Tequesta an -AOing participation in the National Flood Insurance Proptam /Community Ratinng~ System (CRS) and more restrictive requrreme~s established in the Village Zoning Ordinance. Section X Supplemental Reeulations (A) General Provisions (8) floor elevation above sea level. A new Policy 1.7.4 is added to further clarify the objective as written below: Policies 1.7.4 A minimum finish first floor elevation above mean sea level ~IvISL) for all new construction additions and substantial improvements to existingstructures shall be 8.5 ft. MSL: however finished fi_rct floor elevations that are between the minimum finished first floor elevation as established by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and the more restrictive requirements established by 4 • ~e V Il~~ can obtain a variance which meet the minimum NFIP requirements of 6.0 ft for zone A6 areas and & 7.0 R for zone A7 areas. 6. Objection Policy 1.12.2 is internally inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map (PLUM) and the Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1.2. The PLUM shows that the area designated by Special Policy 1.12.1 as the Village Center is actually designated as Commercial. Policy 1.12.2 states that the Mixed Use regulations that are applied to the Village Center area will contain a variety of residential andnon-residential uses. However, Table FLU-1 of Policy 1.1.2, which lists the types of uses, allowed under the Commercial land use category does not contain residential uses. Policy 1.12.2 essentially creates an unmapped land use ~~~'- Section: 163.3177(2); 163.2177(6)(x), F.S. Rule: 9J-5.005(5)(b); 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.006(4xc); 9J-5.006(3~c)1;S;and 7, F.AC. Recommendation Revise Policy 1.12.2 to be consistent with the land use designation as shown on the PLUM, by eliminating residential uses from the uses allowed within the Village Center. ff the intention of the Village is to create a mixed-use category, revise Policy 1.12.2 to delineate the penaentage distribution of the typed of uses allowed, and to establish density and intensity standards for each use. Additionally, revise the PLUM to show the addition of the new land use category. Response The FL,UM will be revised to reflect the Mixed-Use land use category.. • services and professional rerviees primarjty gestgnea to serve residential neigpborhoods. Mixed-use areas shall provide for a range of residential uses from lower density single family uses to lusher density multiple family uses. Maximum density for residential uses shall be limited to 18 dwelling units per acre with the exception of Assisted Living Facilities (ALFs) which can have a ma~mum density of 24 dwelling unitsper acxe um lot coverage shall pat exceed 62% in residential areas while non residential areas with single lots of 3200 s9 ft. minimum may have 60% lot coverage while non-residential uses with two or more lots in excess of 3200 sq ft may have a 70%lot coverage A maximum six,16) stories shall be the maximiim height for all uses in the mixed use area and a minimum 25% of the lot shall be rewired for landscaping on all residential and non-residential uses. 7. Objection Policy 1.15.1 is internally inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map Series of the Future Land Use Element. This policy states the Village should pursue annexation of the areas delineated on the Future Annexatian Map, Figure FLU-5. However, there is not an an~xation map within the amendme~ package. Additionally, a strrlce-through of the Future Anne~tion Area Map under the Future Land Use Map Series section of the Future Land Use Element (FLU ~ shows that the Future Annexation Area Map has been . eliminated from the map series and replaced by a hurricane surge map. Section: 163.3177(2), F.S. Iaule: 9J-5.005(x); 9J-5.005(b), F.AC. Policy 1.12.2 shall be re-writt~ as follows: . • Recommendation If the Village chooses to adopt the amendment, inchxde a Future Aunexatian Area Map within the amendment package and revise the Future Land Use Map Series section to inflect the addition of the map. Response Policy 1.15.1 was supposed to be have been deleted in the update, tut was inadvertenttJ+ missed Policy 1.15.1 will be deleted and Policy 1.15.2 will become Policy 1.15.1. 9. Comment Our review has established that the Village has not established intensity standards for non-residential uses. The Village should establish intensity standards for non-residential uses within each land use category described in Table FLU-1 of Policy 1.12. They should provide objective measures of the Maximum extent to which land may be developed or used. Intensity standards can include floor to air ratios (FARs) or a combination floor coverage percentages with height limitations. Response The comment is admowledged B TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT _ 10. Objection. :. . _, . Policy 1.1.5 list density and intensity of land uses as examples: of land use strategies to be coordinated with • transportation demand management strategies. This pokey. does not.coordinate.ttansportation demand strategies. with land use strategies, but simply states that the Village .will at:some unspecified tune.: Without ` specific guidelines to implement coordination between these t~vo strategies, the policy is ineffective: . Additionally, there are no intensity standards established b- tl-e Future Land U$e Element to be implemented with transportation demand management strategies. Section: 163.3177(6xj~, F.S. Rule: 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.019(4xc)5; and 9J-5.006(7xc)3, F.AC. Recommendation Provide clear, meaningfiil, and predictable standards within Policy 1.1.5 for the coordinati~ of~~ty transportation demand management strategies and land use st~ateegies. Additionally, pmvi standards for each commercial use within the Future Land Use Element that can be applied in Policy 1.1.5. Response Poolicy 1.1.5 shall be re-written as follows: P_ olicv 1 15 The Village sball coordinate transportation demand strategies with Land use strategies by requiring that facilities for bicycle and pedestrians are provided for in future development and redevelopment proposals and these requirements be made a cart of the site plan review process. 11. Objection Policy 1.1.6, which addresses the reduction of per data vehicular miles traveled (VM'I) and the discouragement of single occupant vehicle trips, is not adequate. The policy does not specify how the • Village will promote the reduction of VMT or the Discouragemem of single occupant vehicle trips. Without this specification, the policy is vague and ineffective. Section: 1633177(6)(a), F.S. b • Rafe: 9J-S.003(96); 9J-S.OOS(6); 9J-S.019(4)(c~, F.AC. Recommendation Revise Policy 1.1.6 to provide meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land, and to specify the how the Village will promote the reduction of VMT or the discouragement of single occupant vehicle trips. Response Policy 1.1.6 shall be re-written as follows: Policy 1 16 The Village shall work with the NIPO toward reducing uer capita Vehicle miles traveled NMT~ and discourage su~le occupant vehicle trigs~reoognizing that these Qro¢rams assist in rechrcin~,,the overall air quualfty emissions This can be aooomplished through municipal representation on the 110 and_providing for Tri--Rail. alternative fuels. ride sharing, alternative work hour~c-g~public transitsparking,m~a_g~ent and other rtabion control measures that are being continually developed aspart of a Countywide, effort. 12. Objection Objection 1.2.0 does not coordinate the transportation system with the future land use map or map series, and ensure that population densities, housing and employment patterns, and land uses are consistent with the transportation modes and services. The objeF6ve cannot give a..specific, measurable, and intermediate end that is achrievable, and that results in the coordination of the tTarrsportation, systet~n with the Future Land Use Map. • Sections 163.3177(1), F.S. Rafe: 9J-S.003(86); and 9J-S.019(4)(b)2, F:AC.. Recommendation Revise Objective 1.2.0 to include a specific, measurable, and intermediate end that is achievable and marks progress toward a goal, so that it coordinates the transportation system with the future land use map or map series, and ensure that population densities, housing and employment patterns, and land uses are consistent with the transportation modes and services. Response As a result of discussion with Depmvnent of Community Affairs staff the objective was found adequate as written and no changes are proposed 13. Objection Policies 1.2. S and 1.2.6, do not establish guidelines for the aooessibility of new development in public transit corridors, are not adequate. These policies lack the specifications needed to provide guidance in how the LDRs are to promote accessibility to public transportation, and how the Pillage will encourage future land uses which promote public transportation. Without this specification, the policies are ineffective. Section: 163.3177(6)(j), F.S. Role: 9J-S.003(9S); 9J-S.OOS(6); and 9J-5.019(4xc)9, F.A.C. Recommendation Revise policies to provide meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land, and that descn'bes the way in which the village is to encourage future land uses which promote public transportation in public transportation corridors, and the way in which the LDRs are to be revised for this purpose, so as to be consistent with 9J-S.019(4xc)9. • Response Policy 1.2.5 shall be revised to read as follows: policies 12 5 End future land uses which momote uublic transportation is public transportation comdors m new development areas and in re-development areas. Policy 1.2.6 shall be re-written as follows: ~jlicies 12 6 Require land uses. building and site design guidelines that assure aocessibality to public transit. 14. Objective Objective 1.5.0 and accompanying Policies 1.5.2,1.5.3, 1.5.4,1.5.5,1.5.6,1.5.7,1.5.8, ami 1.5.9, which address the provision and planning of transit within the Village, are not adequate. The Objective and each policy use vague and ineffective language, and simply state that the Village wit! support the efforts of the County, the Metropolitan Planning Organizatioq or the Florida Depaztiient of Transportation in the improvement of transit services to Village residents. The Objective and Policies do not specify how the Village will support the efforts. lfierefore, the Objective and Policies do not meet minimum requirements. Section: 163.3177(6)(a); 163.31T7(6xj); F.S. Rule: 9J-5.003(86); 9J-5.003(45); 9J-5.005(b); 9J-5.019(4)(b)4, F.AC. Response Objective 1.5.0 shall be re written as follows: Objective ~ 15 0 Encaua~e the use and provision of mass transit.facilities in Palm BeachCouiitv by supporting P B C 's efforts established in the Trvtation Element of their Comrxehensive Plan by impleme~rting the folio .win Pokes. Policies 1.5.1 and 1.5.6 shall be combined into one Policy as Policy 1.5.1 re-written as follows: Policies 151 The Village shall work with the County and supaort the Metropolitan Plarming Organization's (MPOI efforts through municipal representation on the MPO to increase the pr+eesence and use of mass and throw increased services in the coastal communities. including Tequesta. Policies 1.5.2, 1.5.3 and 1.5.4 shall be deleted Policies 1.5.5 shall be revised to read as follows: Policies 1 5 5 The Village supports the County's effort, throug~i naiiniciQal rep:~sentation on the MPO to declare guidelines by the year 2000 to imkxove design and functionality of transit station /stops. Attention should be given to how their location relates to surrounding areas and how they promote a pede-~*~m- environment and usage Design should relate to transit user amenities. sidewalks and bicycle paths that link to other nodes in awell-developed system. • Policies 1.5.7 and 1.5.8 shall be re-written as follows: policies 15 7 The Village shall not ob,Lect to the County's efforts to S • encaurar±e the future location of Palm Trap bus routes with new developments. Policies 1 5 8 The Pillage shall imt Doled to the Mettorolitan Planniii~ Otginization's efforts to encourage the use of rail modes of transrortation as Tequesta can be favorably imcacted by these efforts. Per discussion with DCA staff Policy 1.5.9 shall not be revised and shall remain as written. IS. Objection Objective 1.8.0 and accompanying Policies 1.8.1, 1.8.2, 1.8.3, 1.8.4, and 1.8.5, which attempt to promote the use of bicycles and walking are not adequate. These policies continuously use vague language such as "consider" and "encourage" without specifying the strategies that are to be implemented to promote the use bicycles and walking. In the absence of cleat and meaningful strategies within the Policies, they are vague and ineffective. Section: 163.3177(6w7, F.S. Rule: 9J-5.003(95); 9J-5.005(6); and 9J-5.019(4)(c)5; 9J-5.019(4~b)1; 9J-5.003(86), F.AC. Recommendation Revise the above Objective and accompanying Policies to specify the strategies that are to be implement in the promoting the use of bicycles and walldsig. Additionally,. include meaningful language that provides clear guidelines and operational standards that can be measured. Response Objective 1.8.0 shall be re-written as follows: • O~~,e 18 0 The Village shall promote the increased use of bicycle and wallong as viable alternative means of tiansrortation through implementation of the Policies below. Policies i:8.1, 1.8.2, 1.8.3, and 1.8.5 shall be re-written as follows: Policy 181 Biloewavs shall be g,~iven full consideration in the o~tinii-g and ~velopment of the Villa i~da ax and uansror4tion facilities and ptogtams as cart of the Site Plan Review Process. Policy 18 2 The Village shall work toward croviding cedestrian and bicycle linkaees between eaastwg residential axui non-restdenUal land uses especially for commercial and open spa,~as runt of its cicitai imctovements and budgetary review txocess each rear. Policy 18 3 The Village shall provide for the design of mixed use and multi- use developments andplanned developments to be of a cedestnan scale and design by incorporating transit st~~bicvcle and sidewalk connections. policy l 8 5 The Village shall review the recommendations of the IVIPO~ Long Range Biycle Facilities Concert Plan and w~plement acrrorriate mmendations of the Plan as an alternative means of transrortatton throughout the Villagee. As a result of discussion with DCA staff, Policy 1.8.4 shall remain the same. 16. Objection • The Transportation Element does not adequately meet the requirement of 9J-S.019(4xc)10, which states that a policy must establish numerical indicators against which the adrievement of the mobility goals of the community can be measured Section: 163.3177(6xj), F.S. Role: 9J-S.019(4xc)10, F.AC. Recommendation Establish a policy, which gives numerical indicators against which the achievement of the mobility goals of the community can be measured, such as modal split, annual transit trips per capita, and automobile Y. Response Anew Policy 1.8.6 is developed as follows to address the Objection: Pblicv 18 6 The Village shall work toward increased Mobility in the - community bvorovid~ for increased amounts of bicycle paths and sidewalks in new development and re-develo~ent areas. Comment The phrase "continue to" should be deleted from Objective 1.4.0. Response The comment is acknowledged • C. HOUSING ELEMENT 18. Obj~n Policy 1.2.1, which provides for affordable housing by supporting activities that lower volts for housing construction by adopting the Countywide Ame~ment to the Standard Building Code, is not adequate. The policy does not specify the activities that the Village is to support through adopting the Countywide Amendm~ts. without this specification, the policy is ineffective. Section: 163.3177(6}(fla, F.S. Role: 9J-S.OOS(6); and 9J-S.013(3xc)2, F.AC. Recommendation Revise Policy 1.2.1 to specify the actual activities or progams to be implemented that the Villas is supporting in the facilitation of affordable housing construction with the adoption of the Countywide Amendment to the Standard 1uilding Codes. Response Per discussion with IxA staff Policy 1.2.1 will remain the same. 19. Objection Policy 1.2.2, addresses tbe confirmation oaf the current agreement the Village has with Palm 13each County concerning tbe provision of affordable housing, is not adequate. It does not describe the responsibility of tbe Village in assisting and supporting the County in the provision of affordable housing. The Policy simply states tlu; Village will "encourage programs" by participating in the agreement without establishing implementation measures that the Village is to take in enowuaging programs through an agreement with the County. • Role: 9J-S.O10(3)(c)10, F.AC. 10 • Recommendation Revise Policy 1.2.2 to generally descn'be the responsibility of We Village in the provision of affordable housing thmugh the interlocal agreement. Additionally, establist- implementation measures for facilitating the implementation of the County's Community Block Grant Program. Policy 1.2.2 shall be revised as follows: Policies 1 2 2 Fawourage txoarams throughout Palm Beach County which _ attem~to alleviate housing TJroblems mcludmg contmned wterloc~l ~rticr_pation at the current level in the Community Block Grant Program and associated activities by enterins uiW Ir~terlocal A~~:uents with Palm Beach County Housirte and Community Development to accomulish these ends. 20. Objection on of elde Policy 1.2.5 which- states that low income housing efforts will be oriented toward the provisi n and the rental units, is not adequate because it only ~ovides a vague provision for the elderly pop~ilatw data and analysis is not consistent with tiffs policy: a. The support documents state that 21.7'/0 of the total households have a housing cost burden of 30% the total household income. Additionally, 13.4% of the total households have a housing cost burden al' more than 3 S% of the housing income. However, Table 5-6 shows that the wrong numbers are repotted in the text and that 21.7% should actually be 30.1°/q and 13.4%.should acfiaally be 18.5°/a The Village is understating the number of households in the community. with a housing cx*st burden- - because. of the el . on that.. h The Village states that the cost burden is over tepreset-ted . ~ P°'P'°l~ owns homes without ruortgages. This would be an ad~quate.assumptionfor. the.populaton of home owners. However, they are 212 rental units in the Village; and 47:2°10 of them exlu'bit a cost butder- cost more than 3t)% of total household income. This is a close to half of the rental population. The Village does rtot provide data to show a sigmfic~nt population of elderly persons in the rental amts to justify excluding younger adults and families from the policy. This Policy therefore, is internally inconsistent with Objective 1.2.0 which calls for the provision of adequate and affordable housing all segments of the population- Without providing for all segments of the population, this Policy is inadequate. Rote: 9J-5.005(a); and 9J-5.10(3)(bxl); 9J-5(2xv), F.A.C. Recommendation Provide data and analysis that accurately describe a large proportion of elderly renters to support the exclusion of families and younger adults, and revise Policy 1.2.5 to specify what efforts the Village will take to provide low-income rental housing for elderly. Otherwise, revise Policy 1.2.5 to include families and younger adults with specification of what efforts the Village will take to provide low-income housing for all segments of the population. Response Supplemental Census data (STF 3A Filel indicate that 77% of the rental households in the Village that ~y 3 5% or more of their income for gross housing costs are headed by a household aced 65 veers and older This further jastifies a policy to focus uoon the ~ovrsron of elderly affordable rerttal routs. . Policy 1.2.5 shall be re-written as follows: policy 12 5 Low income housing efforts shall be oriented towards the 11 lxovision of affordable elderly rental units by permitting develoument of indeuendent supportive congregate livingfacilities within the Mixed-Use areas up to a maximum 24 dwellings units oet acre. D. UTILTrIES ELEMENT Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element 21. Objection Policies 1.1.3 and 1.3.1 are both vague and lack clear and meaningful standards for implementation The policies use vague language, such as "should encourage" and "should consulf'. Policy 1.3.1 also defers implemematiorr guidelines to the LDRs, while Policy 1.1.3 simply states that the Village should consult with the wastewater service provider. Without clear and standards of implementation, these policies are ineffective. Sections 163.3177(5), F.S. Rule: 9J-5.003(95); 97.5.005(6); 9J-5.011(2)(c)1, F.AC. Recommendation Revise Policies 1.1.3 and 1.3.1 to include specific standards of implementation to achieve Goal L0,0. Replace language that is vague with more detailed guidelines for the establishment of the most effective wastewater system and the minimization of point andnon-point discharge into ~ce waters. . . As a resuh of discussion with DCA staff, there will be no changes proposed to.Policy.1.1~3; therefore it will • remain the same. Policy 1.3.1 shall be revised as follows: - - ordinances various land use and wastewater system design and - _ - construction criteria that will minimize point and non-point discharges into surface waters. 22. Objection Policy 1.1.7 eliminates the Village's commitment to cease the use of septic tanks if water quality standards are violated. The Village deletes a detailed guideline for the elimination of septic tanks in the event of violating water quality standards, and replaces it with a vague and ineffective policy that lacks the standards to be implemented when water quality is threatened by septic tanks. This policy is inconsistent with policies in the S[rategic Regiana! Policy Plan regarding septic tanks. SRPP: Policy 6.3.3.1, and Policy 6.5.1.6 Rale: 9J-5.011(2)(c)1; 9J-5.006(b)1,4; 97-5.012(3)(6)2; 9J-5(3)(c~; 9J-5.013(3xb)1; 9J-5.013(3xc)1,6, F.AC. Recommendation Revise Policy 1.1.7 to promote the elimination of septic tanks within the Village, as well as a provision that requires the connection to regia~nal wastewater collection facilities in areas where the potential for ground or surface water contamination is high. Response Per discussion with DCA Staff, Policy 1.1.7 should read as follows: policy 1 17 The use of existing.prroperly constructed and functioning • septic tank systems within the Vil1_age is acceptable• however, when analysis indicates that septic tank systems are adversely impacting the environment according to State Water Quality Standards (Ch. 62-302, 12 • F_AC for surface water Ch. 62-520 FAC for Groundwater and Ch 100- 6 FAC for bathingplaces) and that public health standards are endanger~_seutic tank systems causing`the situation will be repaired or laced. Add a new Policy 1.1:8: policy 1 18 When a central sanitary sewer system becomes available to currently unsewered areas. and the current se~ic tank systems fail to meet State Water Oualiy Standards (Ch. 62-302 FAC for surface water Ch. 62-520 FAC for groundwater and Ch. 100. FAC for bathing Maces) and endanger the public health. hook-up to the central s~+stem shall be required E. CONSERVATION ELEMENT 23. Objection Policies 1.2.1, 1.3.1, 1.4.1, 1.6.1, 1.6.2, .1.6.3, 1.6.4, and ()bjectiYe1.2.0, 1.3.0, 1.4.0, 1.5.0, 1.6.0, 1.8.0, and 1.9.0 are not clear, meaningful, and predictable and defer protection measures to the LDRs. Policy ,1.2.1 pertains to maintaining on-site stormwater retention/detention criteria of the South Florida Water Management District and, Palm Beach County. This policy does.. not give a description of the implememation criteria, but defers this specification to the LpRs. . Policy 1.3.1 pertains to restricting development on Ecosites #b l and #63, which are identified on the . CoastalManagement/Conservation Map. This policy does not specit'y what conttpls are to be used in the restriction of development on this site. _ .. - Policy 1.4.1 pertains to the protection of mangroves through preservation or mitigation. The wording of this policy is unclear, as it only. states, "The Village shall require preservation or mangrove mitigation (i.e. replanting)." The Yillage does not specify the general criteria used to determine which strategy; preservation or mitigation will be implemented to ensure the protection of matrgmves. Policy 1.6.1 pertains to the protection of native wetland vegetation buffers adjacent to the Loxahatchee River and Indian River Lagoon estuaries. The protection measures are deferred to the LDRs. Policy 1.6.2 pertains to the designation of Fcosites #61 and #63 as environmentally sensitive lands and their protection and preservation. This policy defers the protection measures to the LDRs. Policy 1.6.3 pertains to the restriction of development activities which may effect the survival of endangered species, as well as the mitigation of the developmerrt impacts on their habitats. This policy defers all restriction and mitigation criteria to the LDRs. Policy 1.6.4 pertains to the restriction of non-recreational development of park site reservations. This policy defers all implementation measures to the LDRs. Objective 1.2.0 pertains to maintain the recommendations of the Palm Beach Courriy Area-Wide Plans related to the Urban Best Management Practices, and the restriction of off-site stormwater pollutants in accordance with the criteria of the SFWMD. This objective does not describe how the Village intends to implement the recommendations and criteria of these two agencies. • Objective 1.3.0 pertains to the preservation of the native vegetation of undeveloped land This objective defers implementation criteria to the LDRs. 13 • Objective 1.4.0 pertains to the preservation of mangroves, except when the propped use is water- dependent or awater-related land use. This policy defers implementation cxiteria to the LDRs. Otrjeclive1.5.0 pertains to the restriction of public works projects from disturbing mangroves, except in case of public health, safety, and welfare. This policy defers the implementation criteria to the LDRs. Objective 1.6.0 pertains to the protection of natural wild life area and envimnmentally sensitive lands. The protection measures are deferred to the LD1Zs. Objective 1.8.0 pertains to requiring the use of native vegetation for dune stabilization. This policy defers implementation criteria to the LDlts. Obective 1.9.0 pertains to the provision of public access easements for new developments in the coastal area.. The policy defers implementatiion measures to the LDRs. Scction: 163.3177(5); and 163.3177(6xd), F.S. Ibile: 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.003(86); 9J-5.003(95); 9J-5.013(2)(b)2; 4J 5.013(2)(c)l; 9]-5.013(2xc)3; 9J5.013(2Xc)5; 9J-5.013(2xc)7; 9J-5.013(2xc)9, F.AC. Recommendation Revise the above policies and objectives to provide a general description of the Programs, measures, and activities for protecting natural resources, so as to estabaish clear, meaningful, and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful. guidelines for the content of more detailed land developmnent. Additionally, provide clear language in Policy 1.4.1 to clearly state the c3ommitgierrt of tbe . Village to the protection of mangroves through preservation or mitigation strategies, and specify the implementation criteria. ~~~ . Policy 1.2.1 shall be revised to read as follows: ~ - Policies 1.2.1 The Village shall maintain on-site stormwater retention/deterriioncriteriaestablished by Chagter 62-302 F AC. and as administered by South Florida Water Management District and Palm Beach County in its land development regulations. Per discussion with DCA stall; Policies 1.3.1, 1.6.1, and 1.6.2 shall remain as written. Policy 1.4.1 shall be revised to mad as follows: Policies 14 1 The Village shall require preservation or mangrove mitigation (i a re-planting) through implementation of its adopted mangrove re lions. Policy 1.6.3 shall be revised as follows: Policies 1.6.3 The Village shall restrict develo adversely affect the survival of ~ species and provide for the mitia habitats and food source by refit the time of a development or re- cite plan review process. parent activities that ma~+ endangered and threatened wildlife motion of development irrroacts on their wring an environmental assessment at develgpmerit proposal as part a~f the • Policy 1.6.4 shall be deleted from the Comprehensive Development Plan. Objective 1.2.0 shall be revised to read as follows: 14 • Objective 12 0 Require future development to restrict off-site runoff of stormwater pollutants in accordance with drainage criteria establishd by the South Florida Water Manaaement District and the Urban Best 1Vlanaaement Practices established by area wide plans. Objective 1.3.0 shall be revised to read as follows: Objective 1 3 0 The Village shall maintain landscape re 'ons that provide for the preservation of a minimum 60% native vegetation that is indigenous to tier South Florida area on all new development and re- development areas. Objective 1.4.0 and 1.8.0 shall remain as written due to discussion with DCA staff. Objective 1.5.0 shall be re-written as follows: Objective 1 S 0 Notwithstandingthe intent of Policy 14 0 of this element. the Villase shall continue to restrict public works projects from dishirbing exisang_ s except where such work is essential to the continued health, safety ark welfare of the public. Objective 1.6.0 shall be revised as written below: . Objective 1.6.0 The Village shall protect natiual wildlife areas and • environmentally sensitive lands by impleme~a the following. _ policies Objective 1.9.0 will be rer-written as follows: . Ob},edive 1 9 0 The Village shall require the dedic~ion of >xiblic access easements for new development in the coastal area 24. Objection Policies 2.11.14 and 2.11.15 address the requirement to protect and conserve wetlands. However, the policies do not contain implementatia~n strategies or criteria. Policy 2.11.14 simply states that wetlands will be protected through a comprehensive planning process with supporting data and analysis without specifying the strategies or measures that will betaken to ensure the protection of wetlands. Policy 2.11.15 states that incompatible uses will be directed away from wetlands or development will undergo a mitigation process. However, the policy does riot provide implemectation measures for the protection of wetlands. Additionally, the policy states that it would be consistent with Policy 2.13.4 of the same element Policy 2.13.4, however, refers to the planting of native trees for aesthetic purposes. The consistency with this policy is unclear. Section: 163.3177(5), F.S. Rule: 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.003(95); 9J-5.013(3)(a); 9J-5.013(3)(b), F.A.C. Recommendation Revise Policies 2.11.14 and 2.11.1 S to include a general description of the measures and activities fce the protcetion and conservation of wetlands. Additionally, resolve the inconsistency in Policy 2.11.15 by correcting the reference to Policy 2.13.4. • Response The Village of Tequesta is part of the Countywide Wetlands Protection Ordinance, as the Village has not acted it's own wetland regulations. Therefore, the Village is subject to the coitntyvvide regulations. Policies 2.11.13 and 2.11.14 should be deleted and replaced by a new Policy 2.11.13, which incorporates 15 • the phrase and terms of the Palm Beach County Wetlands Ordinance. New Policy 2.11.13 shall read as follows: Policies 2.11.13 The Village shall continue to implement the Wetlands Protection Section of the UniSed Land Development Code and shall continue to review and comment on wetland aheration applications being reviewed by other at>e~ies to ensue that no activity results in the net loss of wetland values and functions. Ensure that the following steps are taken. in older, when assessing proposed activities that may result in wetlands impact: 1. Avoidance of wetland impacts. 2. Minimization of unavoidable wethu~ds impacts and 3. Compensation for vwetiand impacts thmu~h miti~Require. for any wetland that is degraded or destroyed that mitigation be provided throug,~ the creation of new wetland habitat. throurh the restoration of degraded habitat. or through the enent of functions and vahres provided by existing habitat. Mitigation efforts that include cxeatint; new wetland habitat shall be desienect constructed. and maintained in a mariner which will reflect the habitat bein¢ ahered, degraded or dent%yed: Desigo~e a~ropnat' a and inaixxo~riate uses for v~etlands. including the use of wetlands for wastewater treatment. to ensure that the functions and values of existing wetland systems are maimained m enhanced: Do not allow activities that. would diminish the functions and values of . wetlands by alterins the qua~rr timi a if water availability to . exi ' ^;~ wetlands or altering their water regimes:. Renuire.- when reviewing development activities adiaoent to or within wetland areas, . • that a buffer zone of native veg~ation. which may include canopy. understaa~ and,gromrd ever. as appropriate. be provided and maintained around all wetlands. The area reauiremerrts for the buffer zone shall be consistent with the Treasure Coast Strategic Regional - Policy Plan: acrd support wetland creation. restoration. enhancement. and preservation and shall encourage public and private sector ' initiatives for these efforts. F. 1NTERt;OVERNMENTAL000RDWATION 25. Objection Policies 1.1.5 and 1.1.6, which pertain to establishing amulti-jurisdictional interlocal agrcement to coordinate a oompmhensive intExgovernn~tal program with the County, surrounding cities, the School Board, SFWIvID, and various other agencies, are not preserrt in the plan.. However, the policies are not shown to have been deleted from the ptan. Additionally, the EAR report recommends that the policies be amended from being time-specific to on going since the agreement has been established Recommendation Include Policies 1.1.5 and 1.1.6 in the plan, and revise the policies to reflect the EAR recommendation. ]f the V'illage's inte~ion is to delete the policies, properly note the deletion in the plan. Response Policies 1.1.5 and 1.1.6 were inadvertently left out of the Plan. They will be reinstated in the Comprehensive Development Plan as sited below: Policy 1. I.5 The Vil a shall enter ir-to the " Plan Amendment' with its fellow cities. County. School Board. South Florida Water Management District and various suecial districts that opt to participate in a formalized effort to establish a countywide intergovernmental coordination program for reviewingproposed 16 • changes to comprehensive Mans of adjacent local governments and the plans of other units of local government providing services bat not having regul,~ory authority over the use of land Policv 1.1.6 The Village shall enter into the "Multi-Jurisdictional Issues Coordination Forum Irrterlocal Agreement" with its fellow cities. County. School Boatel South Florida water Maaagcrnertt District and various special districts that opt to participate in a formalized effort to create amulti-jprisdicti~al issues fotutn which wiu facilitate the idemification and possible resolution of countywide issues by providing a vehicle for consensus buildin~gh the joint research_o_ f issues and debate on same. G. COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT 26. Objection Objectives 1.1.0, 1.Z.0, 1.3.0,2:1.2, 3.1.0, 3.3.0, 4.1.0, 4.2.0, 5.1.0, 5.2.0, :5.3.0, 5.4.0, and 6.1.0 are not clear, meaningful, and predictable, and defer measurements of the coastal management to the LDRs. Objective 1.1.0 pertains to enhancing the coastal environment quality through ordinance related water quality, shoieeliue stabilization, wetland preservation, and wildlife and habdtat protection. This objective defers coastal envitomnent enhancement measures to the LDlts. Objective 1.2.0 ~atains to the protection of estuarine water quality and resources. This objective defers the measm~es of protection to the LDI2s. • Objective :1.3.0 pertains to the preservation and protection of the existing coastal resources.. This objective defers the measures of protection to the LDl3s. . . . Objective 3.1.0-pertains to the identification and protection.of mangroves and other environmentally sensitive wetlands. This objective is unclear in the wording. The objective states that the Village will maintain in its ordinances, regulations in enforcing and identifying mangrove.wetlands." This objective does not state what the regulations are enforcing. The objective also defers any protection measures to the LDRs. Objective 3.3.0 pertained to the preservation of mangroves. The criteria and standards for preservation are deferred to the LDRs. Objection 4.1.0 pertains to the pralubition of disturbances of the sea grass beds and productive mangrove and high marsh areas, except for the purposes of public, health, safety and welfare. The measures and criteria for this objective are deferred to the LD12s. Objective 4.2.0 pertains to the limiting of development and redevelopment in the construction of infrastructure in the coastal high hazard area. The measures and cxiteria for this objective are deferred to the LDRs. Objective 5.1.0 pertains to the limiting of public expenditures that subsidize development permitted in coastal high hazard areas, with the exception of natural restoration This objective defers implementation criteria to the LDlts. Objective 5.2.0 pertains to the hurricane evacuation procedures. This objective is not clear in the wonting. The wording indicates that the Village wishes to maintain evaaaation procedures to reduce evacuation Additionally, the objective defers any measures to the LDRs. 17 • Objective 5.3.0 pertains to the provision ofpost-disaster redevelopment plans. The general specifications of the plans are not included in the objective, and the implementations of the phrnsare deferred to the LDRs. Objective5.4.0 pertains to the protection and preservation of historical resources by an archaeological and historic review prnoedure. The general implementation of the paoce~re is deferred to the LDRs. Objective 6.1.0 pertains to the establishment of Level of Service standards for beach access, water- dependent land uses, and infrastructure. The LOS standards are deferred to the LDRs. Section: 163.3177(5); and 163.3177(6)(8), F.S. Rate: 9J-5.003(86); 9J-5.005(6); 91-5.012(3)(b)1; 9J-5.012(3xb)2; 9J-5.012(3~b~4; 5; 6; 7; and 11, F.AC. Recommendation Revise the objectives to include a general description of the programs, measures, and activities for coastal protection and management, to prawide cleaz, meaningful, and predictable standards for development Additionally, reword Objectives3.1.0 and 5.2.0 to clearly state the intentions of the Village. Per discussion with DCA staff, Objectives 1.1.0 and 1.2.0 shall remain as written. Objective 1.3.0 shall be re-written as follows: Oby~tive 1.3.0 The Yilla~e shall contimie to presen+e and protect . coastal resources while providingfor firtiue water-dependent.a~ water- related land uses by implementing the Policies below. Policy 2.1.2 (identified as Objective 2.1.2, which was wrong) will be deleted fiom•the text . ~~ It is recommended that Objective 3:1.0'be deleted from the.Coastal Management Element ti~cause a revised: Policy 1.4.6 in the Future Land Use Element is developed regazding protection and preservation of mangroves. Also, Objective 1.6.0 and Policy I:6.1 in the Conservation Element address the protection of wetlands. It is recommended that Objective 3.3.0 be deleted as wee due to the new revised Policy 1.4.6 in Future Land Use and it's coverage under Objective 1.4.0 and Policy1.4.1 in the Conservation Eler~nt Objectives in the Coastal Management Element will have to be re-mtmbered appropriately based on the above-proposed changes. Objective 4.1.0 shall remain the same with no changes, as a result of discussion with DCA staff. Objective 4.2.0 shall be revised to read as follows: Objective 4.2.0 The Village shall limit development and re-develo~ent in the construction of infrastructure in the coastal highhazard area as provided for in Policy 4.2.3. Objective 5.1.0 shall be revised to read as follows: Objective 5.1.0 The Pillage shall limit public expenditures that subsidizes development ,permitted in coastal high-hazard areas except for • restoration or enhancement of natural resources. Objective 5.2.0 shall be revised to read as follows: 18 U Objective 5.3.0 shall be revised to read as follows: Objective 5 3 0 The Village shall provide forpost-disaster re-development plans which reduce or eliminate the exposure of human life and public and private properi~ to natural hazards. Objective 5.4.0 shall be revised to read as follows: Objective 5 4 0 Protect and preserve historic resources by ich; g an archaeological and historic review procedures in the site plan review r+ocess- Perdiscussion with DCA sta$ there are no changes proposed to Objective 6.1.0. 2'7. Objection Policies 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.3.1, 4.2.3, 5.3.1, and 5.3.2 are not clear, meaningfW, and predictable and defer measures to the LDlts. Policy 3.1.1 addresses the presernation and ntigation of existing of mangroves. The policy does not state the criteria used to determine which strategy the Village will employ or how tbe Pillage will them These criteria and specifications are deferred to the LDlts. . Policy 3.1.2 provides for the cooperation by the governmental authorities is the preservation of natural resources. The provisions and criteria of cooperation and preservation are- deferred to the LD)ts. Policy 3:1.3 pertains to the restriction of public and mangrove areas, except for reason of public health, • safety, a~d.welfare. The restriction standards are not included in-the:policy and are deEeared to the LDRs. Additionally, the Village does not specify exactly what is to be restricted from the areas. ~~~ Policy 3.3.1 pertains to the protection of mangrove areas: The policy:defers protection to the LDlts. Policy 4.2.3 pertains to the providing regulations regarding the relocatioq mitigatioq or replacement within the coastal high-hazard area. The policy does not specify earactly what is to be relocated, ntitigated, or replaced. Additionally, and measures are deferred to the LDRs. Policy 5.3.1 the immediate and long-term repair and cleanup actions. The policy does not contain any measures for the distinctioq and defers to the LDRs. Policy 5.3.2 provides for the general hazard mitigation ~ regulation of flood plains and beach and dune alterations. This policy defers all measures to the LDRs. Section: 163.3177(5), 1b3.3177(6xg), F.S. Rote: 9J-5.003(95); 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.012(3)(c)1; 2; 3; 5; 7; 9;15, F.A.C. Recommendation Revise the above policies to provide a general description of the specific activities and implementation strategies to be employed, so as to provide clear, meaningful, and predictable standard for development. Additionally, revise policies 4.2.3 and 3.2.3 to clearly state the intentions of the Village, as well as specific guidelines as described above. Response It is recommended that Policy 3.1.1 be deleted because of the newly proposed Policy 1.4.6 in Future Land Use Element and because it is addressed in the Conservation Element in Objective 1.4.0 and Policy 1.4.1. It is recommended that Policy 3.1.2 be deleted because it is already addressed in the Conserva6an Element in Objective 2.11.0 and Policy 2.11.1. 19 LJ It is recommended that Policy 2.1.3 be deleted because it is addressed in the Conservation Element in Objective 1.5.0. It is recommended that Policy 3.3.1 be deleted because it is addressed in the Conservation Element, Policy 1.3.2. The Policies will have to be re-numbered based on the Proposed changes stated above. Policy 4.2.3 shall be revised to read as follows: Policy 4.2.3 The relocation. mitigation or replacement of infrastrucdue within the coastal high hazard area shall be prioritized when State funding is anticipated to be needed_ as follows- 1 When the gcneral health, safety and welfare of the community~s dam' ,•tly impacted the use of state funding shall be for redacement of infiastruchue• 2 When the general health. safety and welfare is not directly impac_?~ mitiaRttioar of infeastructure can be considered wh>7e relocation of infrastructure shall be the lowest of priorities when using State funds Policies 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 shall be combined into one Policy as follows: • Policy 5 3 1 The Village shall distinguish betoveen immediate repair and clean-up action needed to protect the public health and safety and loin term repairand re-development activities by abi ' Q by the following criteria and•procedtrres~ 1 Mobilize Village crews. contractois. and.. approffiiate entities to assess and re-activate essemial servfoes ie g: power, water sewer. roads. cable. telephone etc 1 as part of the. .. immediate repair and dean~rp activities- 2 Issne ,Laces release to establish a hotline for impacted residents and businesses to assess post- diSaStei damages and send out "Disa.~der Relief i~nrmatinn Fnrma" directly to residents and businesses to help assess same- 3 Cooperate. and coordinate with FEMA. DCA and the PBC Department of Public Safety Division of Emergency Management to perform on-site inspection of damages: 4. Based on the previous activities perform the final repairand re-development of dammed facilities and 5 The Village shall seek post-disaster redevelopment funds to offset local costs of post~isaster re-development activities H. CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 28. Objection The proposed comprehensive plan does not meet the minimum requirements of 9J-5.0055, which states that the Village must adopt as a component of the eornprehensive plan, objectives, policies, and standards for the establishment a~f a concautency management system that will ensure that the issuance of a development ordea or permit is conditioned on the availability of public facilities and services for the new development. The proposal comprehensive plan does not contain objectives, policies, or standards for the requirement. Section: 9J-5.0055(1)(6) et.seq., F.AC. Recommendation Inchate objectives, policies and standards to provide a concutrency management system that ensures that the issoance of a development order or permit is conditioned of the availability of public facilities and services to serve the new development. Response 20 r~ u The Village shall add to the Capital Improvements Element an Objective 1.7.0 and Policies wader the Objective to meet the recommendation. Obiective 17 0 The Village shall maintain a ooncuumency manag went system to ensure than public facilities and services to support development are available concurrent with the impact of development Policy 171 For sanitary sewer slid waste drainage and potable water facilities at a minimum_ the Village shall meet the following standards to satisfy the concurrence requirements: 1 A development order or permit is issued subject to the condition that. at the time of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent the necessary facilities and services are in place and available to serve the new development: or 2.At the time the development ortiler or permit is issued. the necessary facilities and services ae~ guaranteed in an enforceable development agrit. pursuant to Section 163 3220 Florida Statutes, or an r osier issued.mrrsuant Cfiapter 380, t at the time of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent {Section 163.3180(2Na}. Florida Statutes} Policy l 7 2 For parks and recreation facilities at a minimum. the Vil1A~ shall meet the following standards to satisfy the concurrence • requirement: - 1 At the time the developmieut order or permit is issued the necessary facilities and services are in place or u actual construction: or 2 A development order ar permit is issued subiect to the condition at the time of the issuance of a certificate of occuupr~y or its factional ceuivalent the acreage for the necessary facilities and services to serve the new development is dedicated or acquired by the Village or funds in the amoum of the developer's fair share are committed and a. A development order ar permit is issued subject to the conditions that the necessary facilities and services needed to serve the new development are scheduled to be in glace or under actM~ral oonsttuction not more than one year after issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent as provided in the adopted local government 5- year schedule of capital im~ovemems- or b. At the time the development order or permit is issued the necessary facilities and services are the subject of a binding executed agreement which requires the necessary facilities and services to serve the new developmerrt to be in dace or under actual constnuction not more than one year after issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent: or c. At the time the development order or l~ermii is issued. the necessary facilities and services are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement. pursuant to Section 163 3220 Florida Statuutes, or an agreement or development order issued pursuant to 21 • Chapter 380. Florida Statutes, to be in place or under achaal construction not more than one near after issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent. (Section 163.3180(2Nb). Florida Statutesl Policy 1.7.3 Transportation facilities (roads and mass transit designated in the adopted Village Comprehensive Plan). at a minimum. the Village shall meet the following standards to satisfy the concun-ency requirement, except as otherwise provided in subsections (4) - (Z) of this section. 1. At the time a development order or permit is issued. the necessary facilities and services are in~lace or under construction: or 2. A development order or permit is issued subject to the condiao_ ns that the necessary facilities and services needed to serve the new development are scheduled to be inpLive or under actual construction not more than three years after issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent as provided in the local government five year schedule of capital improvements. The schedule of capital improvements may recognize and include transportation projects included in the first three yea~.rs.of the applicable, adopted Florida Department of Transportation five year work program The Capital Improvements Element must include the following policies: • a. The estimated date of commenceme~ of actual construction and the estimated date of proiect completion. b. A provision that a plan amendment is required to eliminate. defer, or delay construction of abroad or mass transit facility or service which is needed to maintain the adopted level of service standard and which is listed in.the five-year schedule of capital improvements; or 3. At the time a development order or permit is issued. the facilities and services are the subject to a binding executed a~ereement which requires floe necessary facilities and services to serve the new development to be in place or under actual construction no more than three ears after the issuance of a certificate of ocx~cv or its functional equivalent; or 4. At the time a development. order or permit is issued. the facilities and services are guaranteed in an enforceable develoQment ~merrt. pursuant to Section 163.3220. Florida Statutes, or an agreement or development order issued pursuant to Chapter 380,Florida Statutes. to be in place or under actual construction not more than three years after issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent. f Section 163.3180(2xc), Florida Statutes] II. OTHER AMENDMENTS CJ 22 A. FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT L School Siting and Co-Location Requirements In order to meet the deadline for the new School Siting and Co-Location requirements by October 1, 1999, the following amendments and support documentation will be included with the EAR based comprehensive plan amendments, to avoid having to go through other amendment processes at a later date. TO BE INCLUDED IN THE VILLAGE OF TEOUESTA SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION ITEM I. Revise the definition of Other Public BuildinQS to read as follows: • Other Public Facilities Land uses and activities within land areas concerned with other public or private facilities and institutions such as schools, churches, clubs, fraternal organizations, homes for the aged and infirm, and other similar uses. ITEM II. Add a final paragraph to: Other Public Facilities Land Use" (p.3-18 of support documentation): There are no public schools located within the Village of Te,~uesta The Villa~ghas reached approximately 96 % build-out, with less than forty (40) acres of vacant land of which no individual p,~rcels are of adequate size or location for school sites. Therefore, the_ Villa¢e does not anticipate, nor does the Palm Beach County School Board anticipate building any school sites within Teguesta during the short term plannine period The Village has received a letter from the School Board attesting to this situation, and it is attached as an ATTACHMENT at the end of the FLU Element SCHOOL SITING AND CO-LOCATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN • AMENDMENTS 23 • The following policy will be added to the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan to meet the School Siting and Co-Location Requirements of the Florida Department of Community Affairs; Policy 212 In the event of a future annexation that has sufficient land area to site schools or co-locate schools with public facilities such as; parks hbraries and commumty_oenters prior to the amendment to incorporate the area into the Village Comprehensive Place. the Village shall coordinate with the Palm Beach County School Board to determine the need to site a school in the annexed area. This plan amendment will allow for public school if there is a need B INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT 1. In an effort to meet the new Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE) requirements, that are required to be adopted by local governments in the comprehensive plans by December 31, 1999, the following policies are proposed for inclusion in the Responses to the ORC Report. Policies 1.1.5 and 1.1.6 in the Intergovernmental Coordination Element will help meet the new ICE Joint Planning Areas requirements of Ch. 163.3171, F.S. Additionally, Policies 1.2.6 and 1.2.7, as proposed, will supplement Policies 1.1.5 and 1.1.6 to meet this requirement, as well as, the new requirements regarding Collaborative Planning for Multi Jurisdictional Issues. Policy 1.1.7 is also proposed to meet the new ICE requirements regarding Campus Master Plans. New ICE requirements regarding Voluntary Dispute Resolution Processes are akeady addressed in the Village Comprehensive Plan Intergovernmental Coordination Element, Policy 1.2.5. ITEM I. CAMPUS MASTER PLANS The following Policy 1.1.7 is being added to meet new ICE requirements regarding Campus Master Plans: Policy 1 1 7 The Viler- shall coordinate with those schools within its jurisdiction, which are Bart of the State University system, regarding the development of campus master plans or amendments thereto, to be done in accordance with Section 240.155, F.S. ITEM II. , OI PLANNING AREAS • In addition to Policies 1.1.5 and 1.1.6 above, Policies 1.2.6 and 1.2.7 are proposed to meet new ICE requirements regarding Joint Planning and Collaborative Planning for Multi-Jurisdictional issues. 24 • Policy 12 6 Notify by letter and involve all potentially affected entities jurisdictions and J or service providers in the initial stages of the planning and development review process when the action of one government may create an impact on neigiiborina jurisdiction public facilities and services. Policy 1.2.7 Secure the cooperation of neigh o~rmg entities, jurisdictions and/or service _providers through iuterlocal agreements and intergovernmental coordination that addresses how the cost for impacts to public facilities and services will be borne and by whom, when the impacts are impos won other entities jurisdictions and/or service providers. Interlocal-Agrcements and the IPARC Process will be used to identify and implement joint planning areas when deemed to be appropriate U 25