Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Workshop_Tab 01_5/2/2022Agenda Item #1. Workshop STAFF Meeting: Staff Contact: MEMO Workshop - May 02 2022 Jeremy Allen, Village Manager Department: Manager 11 Discuss Procedures to Consider EAC Recommendations a. Memo - Potential Issues for Consideration in the Village Code of Ordinances Pertaining to Requirements for Florida Friendly Landscaping (FFL) b. Memo -Providing for Protection of the Natural Coastal Dune System in Tequesta From time to time the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) makes a recommendation to Council. The two items listed have been submitted to Council for consideration. This document and any attachments may be reproduced upon request in an alternative format by completing our Accessibility Feedback Form, sending an e-mail to the Village Clerk or calling 561-768-0443. BUDGETED AMOUNT: N/A AVAILABLE AMOUNT: N/A EXPENDITURE AMOUNT: N/A Additional Budgetary Information: Funding Source(s): N/A N/A ATTACHMENTS: .' Dune Memo from EAC to VC Potential Issues in the VOT Code RE FFL VC Memo 032622 Page 3 of 143 Agenda Item #1. Village of Tequesta Environmental Advisory Committee To: Village Council From: Thomas G. Bradford, Chair, EAC rR cc: NA Date: March 17, 2022 Re: Providing for Protection of the Natural Coastal Dune System in Tequesta I am writing to you on this subject at the request of the EAC. Some of the important content of this memorandum was drafted by EAC member Russ Redman and seen by the EAC. before inclusion in this document. As you may know, when we were created the EAC was tasked with developing recommendations for best practices, fostering community partnerships, and within the bounds of the Village's Comprehensive Development Plan, developing recommendations for goals, objectives and policies relative to sustaining and improving the environment of the Village of Tequesta. Of course, reviewing the Comprehensive Plan often leads to looking further into the Code of Ordinances to determine what regulations the Village has in effect today and to ascertain if the Village has taken the required steps needed to implement the various goals, objectives and policies as stated in the Comprehensive Plan. Currently, we are wading through the Conservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, which is perhaps the most important element in the Comprehensive Plan in regard to direct and unequivocal statements about environmental protection in Tequesta. Naturally, both the Comprehensive Plan and the Village Code of Ordinances are, or should be intended to, among many other things, be protective of the Dunes, both the Fore Dune and Back Dune, the Coastal Hammock, of which there is little left in Tequesta, and Dune habitat in general. State rules are very specific about all matters relating to the coastal construction control line (CCCL) in order to ensure continuation of the natural storm protection afforded by dunes and to Page 4 of 143 Agenda Item #1. minimize the potential damage to buildings and facitities with the use of setbacks and enhanced construction techniques to protect private property which run a big risk when being constructed in such a sensitive and dynamic area along an active and often volatile ocean front, This is why since 1986 Florida Statutes, at 161..55., have required the following minimum construction standards within the coastal building zone: "(1) REGULATION OF COASTAL MINOR STRUCTURES. Minor structures shall be designed to produce the m inim um adverse impact on the beach and the dune system and adjacentproperties and to reduce the potentialfor water or wi . nd-blown material. Construction of a rigid coastal or sh o re protection s tru cture des ign c-,,,d prim arily to pro tect a minor s tru cture sh all nod b e perm itted. (2) REGULATION OF COASTAL NONHABITABLE MAJOR STRUCTURES. itable major structures shall be designed to produce the minimum adverse impact on the beach and dune system. All sewage treatment plants and public water suppy systems shall beflood proqfed to prevent infiltration ofsu�face water' nor a 100 year storm event. Underground utilities, excluding pad tranformers and vaults., shall beflood proql�d to prevent infiltration qfsurface water, from a 100-year storm event or shall otherwise be designed so as to.fun ction when submerged by such storm event. (3) LOCATION OF CONSTRUCTION. Construction, except. for elevated walkways, lifeguard support stands, piers, beach access ramps, gazebos, and coastal or shore protection structures, shall be located a sufficient distance landward ofthe beach to permit natural shoreire* u _ctua tions and to preserve dune stability. YY The Tequesta Code does not clearly address these items. Perhaps they are addressed in the Florida Building Code or you have relinquished all authority to the State on coastal construction issues, but that causes matters to not be clear or readily available to the Tequesta general public or for those contemplating construction in such areas in Tequesta. It also creates a situation where your Development Review Committee may be totally oblivious to the details of coastal construction required by the State. In fact, while admirable, the focus of the Tequesta Code relative to coastal and dune issues is almost exclusively focused on Sea Turtle protection requirements. See See. 10- 69 of the Tequesta Code. In our EAC deliberations, we have occasionally referenced the SeaGlass project south of Coral Cove and expressed displeasure that a concrete pad sifting atop the dune placed there by the prior owner was not removed and that a section of dune was not restored in its place. As it is, there is a gap in the dune line in that area, and the concrete structure will likely exacerbate any future, erosion of sand in that area. As we work through the Comprehensive Plan and the Code, we notice that there is nothing to indicate that the concrete pad should not have been allowed to remain. Tequesta had the power in the development review process to insist that the concrete pad be removed and FIA Page 5 of 143 Agenda Item #1. the dune restored to its full profile as a condition of approval regardless of whether the State indicated that the concrete pad was grandfathered. We are aware that there are current plans and near -future plans to develop and/or redevelop properties in this one on the south end of Jupiter Island in Tequesta's R-3 zoning district. We are also aware that a healthy dune system is an essential factor in retention of sand, a boon to native plants and wildlife, a natural buffer between natural forces and property, a source of protection for the human lives that live in those properties, and an economic buffer for the Village in the face of climate change and rising costs of each renourishment. In light of the foregoing, we recommend that the Village Council consider changing the codes to require any development or redevelopment in this zone to rebuild and maintain a healthy, natural dune system, planted with the native plants naturally occurring in the existing dunes in this area. We recommend that such a code would require removal of structures that prevent rebuilding of the dune, effectively pulling the developed footprint back -from what would and should be the dune line. In addition, any new structures proposed must be set back. sufficiently from the dune line to both protect the dune and to protect the newly constructed private property from the anticipated increase in destructive storm events due to rising sea levels. Please keep in mind that many of the condominiums along the beach in Tequesta were built long before 1986 and the implementation of the requirements of F.S. 161.55 enumerated above. Redevelopment of those properties will be the opportune time to effect compliance regardless of any claims to grandfathering. In addition, since we are all aware of potential demolitions and new construction in this same area, now would be an opportune time to declare Zoning in Progress to thwart any ncw development from happening until such time as the Code is amended by Village Attorney Davis to effectuate the Code protections needed for the dune system and enhanced protection of private property. Although it is not the subject of this memorandum or the bailiwick of the EABC, I feel I would be remiss if I did not bring this to your attention. In the event you should pursue Zoning in. Progress for the R-3 zoning district as alluded to above, I noted that there are no design criteria listed in the Zoning Code specifically for the R-3 Zoning District. This is important since the tallest buildings in Tequesta, up to 101 feet tall and I I stories, will be found here. There should be detailed design criteria for every zoning district in your Code. Cc: Environmental Advisory Committee Members Jeremy Allen, Village Manager 3 Page 6 of 143 Agenda Item #1. Village of Tequesta Environmental Advisory Committee To: Village Council From: Thomas G. Bradford, Chair, EAC rR Cc: Jeremy Allen, Village Manager Date: April 1, 2022 Subject: Potential Issues for Consideration in the Village Code of Ordinances Pertaining to the Requirements for Florida Friendly Landscaping (FFL) At past EAC meetings, I wrote to the EAC about the question of code issues pertaining to FFL. Based on preliminary concerns I had noted, I looked further into every section of the Code of Ordinances and other documents listed in the text box at the end of this memorandum. I did a search of three words while at the Tequesta Code section of Municode.com: Those three words were "Florida Friendly Landscape." All and all, the Code as it relates to landscaping seems to be fine, with just a few things to address, in my opinion. The EAC concurred and requested that I present these findings to the Village Council for a potential fix. The FFL concerns noted in the Tequesta Code of Ordinances are listed below. 1) FFL landscaping is required in all zoning districts, but there is no listed minimum required percentalze of FFL except in the R- 1, R I -A and R-2 zoning districts, which are required to use 50% FFL. Therefore, all zoning districts listed below have no minimum FFL that must be achieved. Without a minimum FFL requirement, the adoption of FFL requirements could be rendered as meaningless. Why would the zoning districts below be allowed to have more non-native plants than our residential districts? In my opinion, this should be changed, quickly. oC-1 Commercial District Page 7 of 143 Agenda Item #1. oC-2 Community Commercial District oC-3 General Commercial District o Mixed Use District oR-3 Multiple Family Dwelling District oR/OP Recreation and Open Space 2) The VOT Code, Sec.78-402, states that, in addition to 100% of all new construction, the FFL requirement for landscaping kicks in when the work to be done for redevelopment, renovation or modification for single-family or duplex properties is in excess of 50 percent of the value of the existing structure or the land upon which a landscape renovation is proposed, with said value being that as of prior to the start of construction, but gives no instruction to staff on how to estimate that value. A definition is very important to provide consistency in the determination of value and to avoid claims of arbitrary and capricious applications of value. Perhaps the Building Department has a process that they use and if it makes sense to you, it can be used, but should be codified. A definition should be added to the Code to give direction to staff on how to estimate value like either: a. "Construction value. The value of all construction including, but not limited to, contractor supplied labor and materials, subcontractor supplied labor and materials, ownerldecorator supplied labor and materials, and all associated overhead, supervision, and prqflt. The construction value shall be representative of the market value of construction as established by comparable construction in the village;" or b. Alternatively, instead of continuing to leave the question of "value" to be at the discretion of staff, just specify by Code amendment "the value shall be market value as determined by the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser. for the current tax year.for Improvement Market Value andlor Land Market Value or Total Market Value, whichever is applicable to the permit application. In this case, if the structure is worth $500,000, then 50% is $250,000 and if the structure's renovations exceed $250,000, then the FFL requirement would kick in. If the owner is only modifying his/her landscaping for 100%© of their property and the value of the land is $200,000, then if the value of the landscaping project exceeds $100,000, then the FFL requirement would apply. c. The Village Council should consider reducing the threshold for the value of a landscaping only renovation project where the FFL 50% requirement kicks in. Using my own property as an example, the Property Appraiser indicates that the current taxable value of my land is $177,000. Per the Tequesta Code, the value of my landscaping renovation project would need to exceed $88,500 for the 50% FFL requirement to kick in if the entirety of the new landscaping on my lot is being removed and changed out. That is a very high threshold to enable the FFL requirement to kick in. Since it is important for FFL to be in widespread use to save water, reduce the need for fertilizer, promote beneficial insects, increase the bird population and butterflies etc. Even if you reduced the landscape only FFL kick in threshold to 25%, in my case, I would have to spend over $44,250 on my landscaping project before FFL would be required. If we do not give this threshold some serious thought it will take an inordinate amount of time to bring back our 2 Page 8 of 143 Agenda Item #1. Tequesta landscaped areas to a better balance for man, flora and fauna. Please consider lowering the threshold for the landscape only renovation for FFL to kick in. Alternatively, why not just simply have the Code indicate that when you do any landscaping renovation 50% of it needs to be FFL? No need to do math calculations if you do that. 3) Sec. 78-392 -Applicability (FFL). This section appears to have a conflict. 78-392(a)(2) states: "Parks, open spaces and trails will be designed with these principles (FFL) in mind, as applicable". But then Sec. 78-392 (b)(7) Exemptions states: "Public parks and other play areas indicated on an approved site plan." Parks are exempt from using FFL? Parks and play areas, to the extent that they have added landscaping for aesthetics, parking lots, and other areas not subject to heavy foot traffic should require FFL landscaping. Adding insult to injury, Sec. 78-392 (c) states: "Exemptions to the requirements of this division may be granted by variance for individual projects if the applicant can demonstrate that compliance will be impractical and will result in an undue hardship". This exemption possibility is across the board for any project, not just parks. It goes without saying that a variance can be requested by using the existing formal variance process in the Zoning Code, but why encourage it by stating it here? It makes it feel like we are apologizing for requiring FFL, but just in case it bothers you we want to highlight that we will consider a variance for FFL? 4) Sec. 78-402. - Landscaping on single-family and duplex lots. This section requires single family homes to use FFL, but also says "...(and) comply with the Florida friendly landscape concept as set forth. in the South Florida Water Management District Waterwise Guide, as amended, with a minimum of 50 percent native landscaping required..." If you look at the Water Wise Guide shown in the link below, nowhere does it make any mention of FFL. So, what does a homeowner and their design professional do, follow the FFL guidelines elsewhere in the Code or use the SFWMD Water Wise guidelines, which do not mention FFL a single time? This should be clarified to eliminate ambiguity. 5) Sec. 78-402(1). — This Code section says the estimates of value are determined by the department of community development. I thought that the Building Department handled individual residential permit applications, not the Department of Community Development. The Department of Community Development typically handles new residential subdivision applications and subdivision modifications. Can the Village Council verify which department does this and modify the Code accordingly, if needed? I hope this is not falling between the cracks with one department thinking another department is doing something that is not being done. 6) Sec. 78-400(6)- Landscape Plans — here the Code twice mentions the SFWMD Water Wise Guide, first as the "village approved landscape guide" and then states "fifty percent of all required landscaping shall be landscaping indigenous to the South Florida area as indicated in the Waterwise Guide (which makes no reference to FFL), as amended." So, big picture, there are the FFL guidelines, SFWMD Water Wise Guide, non -guidelines, and now plants indigenous to South Florida, as opposed to just being native to Florida. I realize indigenous and native are the same thing, but how about having continuity in the use of language when writing a Code? I also realize that multiple attorneys have written and modified the Code over many years, so I am not blaming anyone. Again, in regard 3 Page 9 of 143 Agenda Item #1. to the SFWMD Water Wise Guide it is a very important document, but it pertains to ways to conserve water and native plants help conserve water. Nevertheless, the SFWMD Water Wise Guide is not a guide for FFL. Is there a way to make this less complicated for the person attempting to create or modify their landscaping? 7) Sec. 78-397.- Prohibited plant species. The existing list in today's Code is good to have, but appears to be outdated and just a fraction of what SFWMD considers exotic today. See the list entitled Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council 2003 List of Category I (Most Invasive) Species on pages 16 and 17 in the link below to the SFWMD Water Wise Guide for South Florida. It is recommended that the VOT prohibited plant species list updated accordingly. 8) Sec. 78-406 (d) - Interior landscaping of parking areas. Trees have to be per the SFWMD Water Wise Guide. No mention of FFL in the SFWMF Water Wise Guide. 9) Sec. 78-393. - Definitions. The definition of "Landscape" does not mention that FFL is required. Perhaps it should to make FFL ubiquitous wherever possible. By way of background, the EAC is concerned that the future for Tequesta foretells more demolitions of existing older or out of date properties with the rebuilding of bigger more modem homes with larger footprints and greater heights, thereby reducing open green space and water catchment capabilities, while towering over the little cottages of their adjacent neighbors below. In addition, we now have higher minimum flood elevation requirements from FEMA, lifting all new homes even higher up. We learned that Sec. 78-402 of the VOT Code does require the use of FFL when a renovation exceeds 50% of the estimated value of the existing property for the R- 1, R- I A and R-2 zoning districts. Thus, a demolition, with a rebuild to follow, in one of the listed zoning districts is going to have to use FFL, assuming the Code is enforced. At one point I was concerned that Sec. 78-402 only applied to the R-1, RI -A and R-2 zoning districts. The VOT has more zoning districts than the three listed. However, Sec. 78-402 is contained within the Landscaping Article of the Zoning Code and it states repeatedly within this Article that all zoning districts require FFL, yet there are no minimum FFL requirements in the non-residential zoning districts. What is good for the goose, should also be good for the gander. Meanwhile, parks, in say the Recreation and Open Space zoning district, or located within any zoning district, are exempt. That makes no sense, except on playing fields and other areas with heavy foot traffic. If one of your park designers were to forego any FFL this would not only set a bad example for the rest of us, but also require you to spend more money to irrigate and fertilize the installed non-native plants in your VOT park with taxpayer dollars. Your consideration in directing that these Code changes be made will be greatly appreciated by the EAC, which you have charged with developing recommendations for sustaining and improving the environment of the Village of Tequesta. SEE REFERENCE SOURCES ON THE NEXT PAGE Cl Page 10 of 143 Agenda Item #1. Reference Sources Tequesta Code of Ordinances link: https:Hlibr4ry.municode.com/fl/tequesta/codes/code—of ordinances SFWMD Water Wise Guide for South Florida link: https://www.sfwmd.gov/sites/default/files/documents/wwO—waterwise—all.pd FFL Plant Guide for Zip Code 33469 link-, https:Hffl.ifas.ufl.edu/pIants/ FFL Home Page link: https:Hffl.ifas.ufl.edu/ 5 Page 11 of 143