HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 7A_4/13/1989 t
•
..---* .
,,
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
►.• ' i� Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive
' 7���,� g Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 • (407) 575-6200
�'� FAX: (407) 575-6203
V='LL PIG E OF TEQUMSTA
LOCAL 11161...AN14=MG AGENCY
WORI<SHO 1=0 MEET I NG M=NUT E S
MARCH 1 6 , 1 9 8 9
I. The Village Council of the Village of Tequesta, Florida, acting
as Local Planning Agency, held a Workshop Meeting on Thursday,
March 16, 1989 at 5:30 P.M. in the Village Hall, 357 Tequesta
Drive, Tequesta, Florida, for the purpose of reviewing the
goals, objectives, and policy statements of the Recreation/Open
Space, Intergovernmental Coordination' and Annexation Elements
of the Village of Tequesta Draft Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmembers present were: Mayor Ron T. Mackail, Vice-Mayor
Edward C. Howell, Councilmember Earl L. Collings, Councilmember
Joseph N. Capretta and Councilmember William E. Burckart.
Village Officials present were: Thomas G. Bradford, Village
Manager; Scott D. Ladd, Building Official; Gary Preston,
Director of Public Works & Recreation and Joann M. Manganiello,
Administrative Secretary. Also present was Jack Horniman,
Village Planning Consultant, JLH Associates.
Mayor Mackail called the meeting to order at 5:35 P.M. noting
that the Public Meeting was held for the purpose of reviewing
certain elements of the Comprehensive Plan and making
recommendations relative to the same.
II. RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
Mr. Bradford noted (page 701 ) that the nomenclature
"bicycle/pedestrian paths" should be changed because they are,
in fact, not "bicycle paths" and were not designed for that
specific purpose. He suggested "pathways" or other such term
that does not refer to bicycles, although people do continue to
use them as such. It was also pointed out that all "bicycle
path" signs have been removed. Mr. Bradford recommended that
this nomenclature be changed in the Comprehensive Plan and
coordinated throughout all Village of Tequesta documents,
ordinances, etc. The term "sidewalks" was agreed upon. Mr.
Bradford also noted (page 701) that Tequesta's long-term goal
is to , have a "pathway system" throughout the Village.
Therefore, it is unnecessary to document "where" they are
located (subject to change all the time. ) Under "Public
Sector" (page 702), Mr. Bradford questioned the accuracy of the
standards/guidelines used as criteria for determining
recreational facilities available to Village of Tequesta
residents as cited by the Palm Beach County Parks Department.
Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes
March 16, 1989
Page - 2
I
Village Planning Consultant Jack Horniman was uncertain as to
whether or not these standards were current (5 acres of
recreation/open space per 1,000 residents. )
In reviewing the goals; objectives, and policies, there ensued
a lengthy discussion regarding the status of Tequesta Park in
the Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Development Plan. The
following points were questioned:
o Does Goal 1.0.0 encompass neighborhood parks, particularly
Tequesta Park?
o Is Objective 1.1.0 "Maintain Tequesta Park. too
specific?
o Is the Village of Tequesta's goal/objective to maintain
Tequesta Park for the residents of Palm Beach and Martin
Counties?
o Does the Village of Tequesta have jurisdictional claim to
Tequesta Park?
o From whom does the Village lease Tequesta Park; what is the
agreement?
o Should the Village of Tequesta coordinate with Martin County
regarding Tequesta Park and tie it in with Intergovernmental
Coordination?
o How is Martin County dealing with the issue of Tequesta
Park?
o If the Village of Tequesta loses Tequesta Park (42 acres),
is there enough land/recreation/open space left in Tequesta
to meet the requirements for the Comprehensive Plan as
regards the same?
o What criteria/standards are used for level of service?
These questions were clarified for Council by Village Manager
Tom Bradford and Village Planning Consultant Jack Horniman as
follows:
o Goal 1.0.0 means that a "multi-purpose" recreational area,
like Tequesta Park, should be provided for.
Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes
March 16, 1989
Page - 3
o Objective 1. 1.0 is specific in that Tequesta Park is the
Village of Tequesta's only major recreational area.
o As it now stands, The Village of Tequesta is in the position
of maintaining Tequesta Park, consequently, providing for
the recreational needs of Palm Beach and Martin County
residents, as well as for the benefit of Tequesta
residents. The Village of Tequesta does not have the
ability to keep Martin County residents from using Tequesta
Park.
o Mr. Horniman pointed out that the Village of Tequesta has no
jurisdictional claim to Tequesta Park and, therefore, cannot
plan outside of its jurisdiction. Martin County has
jurisdiction and polices it; Tequesta maintains it.
o The Village of Tequesta leases Tequesta Park from the State
of Florida Department of Natural Resources for $1.00 a year
(50 year lease. ) The agreement stipulates that the Village
of Tequesta must maintain the same.
o It was noted that, at the present time, The Village of
Tequesta hasn't any agreement with Martin County regarding
Tequesta Park (cooperative or otherwise. ) Mr. Capretta once
suggested (at a Budget Meeting between Martin County and the
Village of Tequesta) that both parties cooperate in the
maintenance of Tequesta Park; each would pay 1/2 the cost of
maintenance and share a joint recreation program. Martin
County responded that if the Village of Tequesta didn't want
to maintain Tequesta Park, Martin County would take over the
lease and take it all; an "all or nothing" stance with
absolutely no cooperation. Right now, Objective 1.1.0 leads
one to believe that Tequesta Park is in the Village of
Tequesta's jurisdiction.
o Mr. Horniman suggested that the Village of Tequesta
encourage cooperation/coordination with Martin County in
regard to Tequesta Park and tie it in for consideration with
the Intergovernmental Coordination Agreement. In the
meantime, the Village could continue its present "lease"
arrangement with the DNR. All parties present agreed to
this strategy.
o It is still questionable as to "how" Martin County is
dealing with the issue of Tequesta Park. Mr. Horniman
Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting' Minutes
March 16, 1989
Page - 4
stated that Tequesta Park will show up on Martin County's
Comprehensive Development Plan. Councilmember Burckart
suggested that the Village get hold of Martin County's Land Use
Plan to see how Tequesta Park "affects" the Village of
Tequesta. Specifically, is Martin County addressing zoning,
regulating traffic (Connector Road) properly, and providing
facilities and services for its residents?
o If Tequesta Park is "taken away", Tequesta has only two
"passive parks" (Village Green and Constitution Park) and
very little land available for additional parks. Mr.
Horniman does not know whether a minimum standard for
recreation/open space land exists as a requirement of the
Comprehensive Development Plan.
o As for criteria/standards used for level of service, Gary
Preston explained that Palm Beach County stipulates
acres/service areas = 5 acres for every 1,000 persons, and
that any area with a population under 5,000 would have
nothing but neighborhood parks. The Village of Tequesta,
therefore, is "too small" to meet criteria. Mr. Howell
pointed out that Tequesta Park is really not a neighborhood
park. Mr. Horniman stated that the' Village of Tequesta
needs a criteria for level of service; it cannot use
Tequesta Park to set-up standards; however, Martin County
can.
o Mr. Howell reiterated his concern that the Village must make
sure it has enough parks and recreation areas. Mr. Bradford
noted that these concerns may be met under Objective 1.4.0 -
"Expand recreational facilities with the growth of the
Village to meet the needs of the residents, " and Policy
1.4.5 - "Analyze existing and future neighborhood park
service areas and determine the majority age group served.
Structure facilities to meet the needs of that majority. "
Following this discussion, Council recommended these
revisions to the Recreation/Open Space Element of the
Comprehensive Development Plan:
- leave Goal 1.0.0, as is
- leave Objective 1. 1.0, as is
1
Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes
March 16, 1989
Page - 5
- change Policy 1.1.1 to include " . . . and programs for
school age youngsters in Tequesta Park . . . "
- delete Policy 1. 1.2
- page 702 - Public Sector (Par.4), change "has" to " .
had a cooperative agreement with Palm Beach County School
Board . . . "
- page 703 - change "11,277" acres to 875 acres of golf.
III. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT
Village Planning Consultant Horniman recommended that the
Village of Tequesta be as specific as possible when addressing
particular issues (e.g. , Tequesta Park, Connector Road) in
Interlocal Agreements and suggested adoption of a "resolution"
as a mechanism to this end. Mayor Mackail agreed with the idea
of "specificity" and asked Mr. Horniman to give the necessary
recommendations.
Councilmember Capretta asked Mr. Bradford if the Village of
Tequesta had a franchise with Martin County for water service?
Bradford stated that there was no overriding agreement with
Martin County. In the 1970's the Village of Tequesta tried to
get an agreement with Martin County, but they refused. The
Village of. Tequesta does have a franchise to provide Jupiter
Inlet Colony with water service, an Interlocal Agreement with
Palm Beach County regarding the same, as well as a Traffic
Engineering Agreement and a Mutual Aide Agreement (for
police. ) The Village does not have a franchise with Jupiter
Island for water service either. Residents of Jupiter Island,
in the village of Tequesta service area, get their water from
Jupiter-Martin Association (a private company. )
Councilmembers Collings and Howell inquired as to the Village's
service agreement procedure. Mr. Bradford explained that the
Village had created a Developer Agreement Process whereby the
developer fills-out a Request for Service . questionnaire and
signs the Agreement which stipulates that he is to meet all
Village of Tequesta requirements. If the developer doesn't
sign the Developer's Agreement, he would not have the sub-
element to get permission to begin construction. Tequesta's
Water Department gives the permit to go-ahead with digging,
Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes
March 16, 1989
Page - 6
laying pipes, etc. Consequently, the developer "puts the lines
in" and dedicates them to the Village. The words, "Tequesta
Water Utility" are mentioned in this Agreement and said
Agreement is recognized by Palm Beach County,
Councilmember Mackail asked whether or not, ethically, the
Village has to provide water if it is available? Village
Manager Bradford replied that the Village of Tequesta has a
moral and legal obligation to provide water service to our
designated service areas. In response to Mayor Capretta's
inquiries, Mr. Bradford noted:
o Jonathan Dickinson State Park (Tequesta's northernmost
service area boundary) is designated on the maps in the
Village of Tequesta's Water System Water Plan. It is
recognized by Martin County and is included in its plan.
o -Tequesta has increased its service area since his
appointment as Village Manager 3 years ago.
o The Village does have the capacity to service all of its
areas at the present time.
Concerns were voiced by both Mayor Capretta and Councilmember
Mackail as to the Village's plans for future water service.
Mayor Capretta stated that the Village must develop its
capacity for future projected water use. Mackail stressed that
the Village must plan now; it is a serious economic
consideration if the Village is to continue to provide this
essential service. Capretta asked about the Village's plan for
securing necessary funds to cover its territory. Mr. Bradford
explained that the Village would decide what it costs per unit
(single family unit) and charge a capital connection fee; every
unit "on line" would pay for its capacity needs. Mayor
Capretta believes that the Council should consider the issues
of water conservation, water as an annexation tool, and the
role of the Village as a water supplier. He stressed the need
for a continuous strategy with capital funding to back it up.
Mackail agreed and suggested a Revenue Bond and Capital
Improvement Plan. It was also recommended that the Department
Heads budget in advance (5 years) in order to be prepared to
deal with future expenditures. Mr. Bradford reassured Council
that these concerns were being dealt with right now.
Councilmember Collings noted that the Village has projected to
1991 and asked Mackail, "Do we need to plan beyond this?"
Collings also made reference to the South Florida Water
Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes
March 16, 1989
Page - 7
Management District and whether, or not they would grant
Tequesta permission to go R.O. (reverse osmosis), as he
believes it should. ,
In conclusion, Mayor Capretta summarized Tequesta's future
needs as follows:
o establish boundaries for water service
o increase raw water supply
o filtration capacity staircase type of function/planning
o a. R.O. (reverse osmosis) plant
o plan for funding/permits
and stressed the importance of planning ahead; a critical path
for the Village. Councilmember Mackail remarked that all
Councilmembers were in agreement on these matters.
Following this discussion, Council recommended these revisions
to the Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the
Comprehensive Development Plan:
include Policy 1.1.4, "Promote compatibility with Martin County
in utilities, traffic regulations, zoning, etc. "
include Policy 1.3.2, "Prepare and adopt an official annexation
policy using methods and guidelines established by the Palm
Beach Countywide Planning Council in its annexation policy
adopted May, 1988. "
page 810 - Department of Civil Defense, delete "k", "208" Plan,
Palm Beach County.
III. ANNEXATION
Mr. Bradford pointed out to Council that "Annexation" is an
optional Element in the Comprehensive Development Plan. Mr.
Horniman subsequently noted, that in the late 1970's and early
1980's, the Village of Tequesta tended to push annexation. He
believes the swing has changed now that the Village has
realized that it cannot annex "pockets" without legislation.
Mayor Mackail suggested that the Village take a harmonious
Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes
March 16, 1989
Page - 8
approach to annexation with other municipalities (e.g. ,
Jupiter. ) According to Mr. Horniman, Chapter 9J-5 of the
Florida Administrative Code states that policies are needed to
deal with harmonious annexation. Mr. Bradford noted that most
of the areas Tequesta wants to annex are already developed
(even to the west. )
Councilmember Collings asked if the Village of Tequesta's prime
goal was to annex only "pockets" within the the Village? Mr.
Bradford replied that the primary focus was on the
unincorporated "pockets" in Palm Beach County; that a "pocket"
is also contiguous.
During the discussion, Council and Staff concluded that the
issue of "annexation" was very controversial. Councilmember
Capretta suggested that the Annexation Element be deleted from
the Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Development Plan.
Village Manager Tom Bradford had no objection, and
Councilmembers unanimously agreed to delete it. Village
Planning Consultant Horniman suggested an alternative; let the
Palm Beach Countywide Planning Council shape the annexation
policy. The Village of Tequesta would then state that " .
it would abide by the guidelines set forth by the Palm Beach
Countywide Planning Council in its preparation of an official
annexation policy. " The annexation issue could be addressed in
the Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the Comprehensive
Plan. Council agreed with Mr. Horniman's recommendations.
There being no other issues to discuss concerning the above
referenced Elements, the meeting was adjourned at 7:00 P.M.
Respectively submitted,
Joann M. Manganiello
Administrative Secretary
/JMM
Date Approved:
April 13, 1989