Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Workshop_7/29/2024 9 l 1 J MINUTES Workshop Meeting Village of Tequesta, FL Mayor Molly Young Vice-Mayor Rick Sartory Council Member Laurie Brandon Council Member Patrick Painter Council Member Jayson E. French July 29, 2024 6:00 PM Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Mayor Molly Young at 6:00 p.m. A roll call was taken by Clerk Lori McWilliams. Present were: Mayor Molly Young, Vice-Mayor Rick Sartory, Council Member Patrick Painter, Council Member Laurie Brandon. Absent were: Council Member Jayson French. AGENDA ITEMS 1. Florida Power and Light Company Storm Secure Underground Program for the Village of Tequesta Doug Chambers, Director of Public Works, introduced the item. Mr. Carlos Nunez, Production Lead with Florida Power and Light (FPL), introduced Curt Percy, Customer Outreach Specialist with Florida Power and Light. Mr. Percy stated that FPL had identified areas within the Village of Tequesta with power quality issues and frequent outages. FPL was recommending the undergrounding of 4.73 miles of overhead power lines, benefitting 622 residents. The project was expected to take two to three years. He explained that the hardening initiative had begun with transmission lines, which had been reinforced and now connected FPL with other utilities and power plants. He also discussed how undergrounding would improve service and how the area was selected based on data that had been collected and analyzed. Mr. Percy discussed how customer outreach would be conducted throughout the duration of the project, involving various communication methods such as letters, HOA and council meetings, door knockers, phone calls, and updates to municipalities and residents. Customer service representatives would engage with residents to share information and gather feedback. Some residents would need to grant a 10x10 easement for a junction box on their property. FPL would obtain owner consent for the junction box placement, along with an easement form. Mr. Percy also presented before and after photos of the overhead wires and junction boxes. The primary cable would be run in the public Right of Way, and poles would remain due to existing joint communication lines. Mr. Percy discussed how residents may identify a customer outreach specialist (FPL yellow vest, hat, ID, and iPad). The construction process would be completed in three phases, spanning between 4-6 months. Restoration would be the final step and once overhead lines were installed, inaccessible rear outdoor lights would be removed, but property would be restored to its pre-existing condition. Customer information was available as follows: • Storm Secure Underground Pilot Program: www.FPL.com/SSUP • StormSecureUndergroundProgram@FPL.com • Customer fact sheets mailed to property owners Ilan Kaufer, External Affairs Manager, discussed the selection process and remaining telecommunication lines that would remain in place. Village Council asked that the following issues be addressed: • whether there would be possible outages during construction • the idea that post cable burial performance would be 50% better • how FPL intended to handle homeowners who did not want a transformer on their property • if there were white spots on the map that were fed by different feeders, or if that indicated the area was already on the best form of service • asked for assurance that all residents receive the same information • asked FPL to host a community meeting to provide information to residents • asked what the anticipated construction time would be; 2-3 years and additional undergrounding would be based on data • provide information about landscaping around the junction boxes; to which FPL responded they could, but landscaping around the front of the box would not be allowed • how many miles were projected; to which FPL stated the intent was to exceed 30,000 miles (this would be one project in the east region); number of miles in Tequesta was presently unknown • how many poles would remain; FPL indicated they would not know until after the plan design was finalized • flood elevation requirements for transformers; that customer perspectives be taken into account and a higher pad be offered if necessary • provide residents with a contact list for FPL key personnel • wanted to know when door-to-door communications would begin; FPL indicated immediately Brigid A Forman, 361 Seabrook Road, asked if the poles would remain in her backyard. Mayor Young stated poles would go away unless other communication infrastructure items were on them. Ms. Forman said she had plans to put a new roof on her home, and she wanted to know when the project would begin. Mayor Young asked the FPL representatives to meet with her to answer her questions. 2. Environmental Advisory Committee Activities 202312024 Report Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) Member Tom Bradford provided an update to Council. The EAC started in summer of 2019 and had made numerous recommendations to staff and the Village Council. During FY 2023-2024, the most important items EAC completed were: a)completed comprehensive plan elements review and submitted full report to council; and b) made assignments to EAC to work toward reducing greenhouse gases; and c) member assignments on the development of a communication plan; and d) created a pamphlet to ensure regular information for the public on environmental issues on multiple VOT communication platforms Mr. Bradford said the committee members continue to learn about different environmental issues and potential regional problems. He cited the long term health of the Loxahatchee River as an example. The EAC requested that Mr. Bradford speak about the Vulnerability Assessment work that had revealed that some of the infrastructure owned by the Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District, were at potential risk due to rising sea levels. There were questions about whether the District was aware of the state's Vulnerability Assessment Program and the part of the Vulnerability Assessment Project that ultimately would provide a 50/50 cost share using state funds. Council members asked about the flood plain in regard to the Loxahatchee District equipment elevation, status of greenhouse gases. EAC suggested not going the route of LEED certification due to cost versus benefits. Mr. Hubsch had noted that a staff presentation would be made to the EAC in the near future. He also stated that there would be a workshop in the future. Mayor Young inquired about changing the meeting time to later in the day and if it would allow for more applicants. She asked Mr. Hubsch to have the EAC discuss their meeting times. 3. Discussion on Commercial Zoning Overlay's Mr. Jay Hubsch, Community Development Director, had discussed the land development regulations and highlighted the items not currently in the Code; reviewed development incentives (limited and precise if chosen, and a clear and transparent process). He also discussed appropriate development incentives for Town Center and Main Street. Master Plan and Incentives Mr. Hubsch reviewed the Master Plan. He spoke about development incentives and the Town Center. He had also highlighted the four potential areas for "Civic Open Space," that were identified in the Master Plan. He noted that "Civic Open Space" was one of the priorities of the Master Plan. Three of the four potential locations were on public property and the fourth property was at 1 Main Street and was not public property. He shared depictions from all six of the of the citizen master plan design input layouts from the charettes. All six of the plan designs showed a significant amount of interest in civic open space at 1 Main Street. Mr. Hubsch noted that the Mixed Use and C-2 Zoning Code currently required 30% of a development be set aside for open space. This is generally satisfied through landscape buffers, building foundation plantings and parking islands. The Master Plan recommended "open space requirements be more clearly defined as usable civic open space in the form of parks, greens and public squares." In a development like 1 Main Street, 5% Civic Open Space would only be approximately .16 acres or 7,000 square feet. Mr. Hubsch noted that at the Mayor's request, he looked at the comprehensive plan to see what was related, and Policy 1.16.5 states "The Village shall consider providing incentives to developers to preserve trees and natural resources and to encourage additional tree plantings in green areas." In summary, Mr. Hubsch stated that the key recommendations section of the Master Plan lists "Consider Appropriate Development Incentives for Town Center and Main Street". Mr. Hubsch noted that at a previous workshop, he indicated that if a developer chose to provided 15% civic open space in lieu of the required 5%, they would be eligible to apply for a waiver. Mr. Hubsch presented two options for possible height waiver language. Waivers from site or landscape requirements may be requested from certain overlay zone regulations. All waivers must be granted by the Village Council in conjunction with a site plan review application. Waivers could not be used to: Increase the maximum building height. Except that a development over 2 acres that creates 15% civic open space; may be eligible to apply for a waiver for a partial fifth story, which cannot exceed 50% of the building footprint. Mr. Hubsch said that the Village Council could consider restricting this only to uses that are open to the public like restaurants and lounges. Mayor Young wondered if the Council would like to consider the provision of housing that is affordable to residents, which is in the comprehensive plan, as part of the consideration for waiver opportunities. She added that the referenced language was cited from the housing element of the comprehensive plan. Council Member Brandon referred to the beginning of Mr. Hubsch's presentation where he mentioned some items that were not in the code. She asked why those items were mentioned. Mr. Hubsch responded those items were in the Master Plan under key recommendations specific to the Land Development Regulations. Building Height Mr. Hubsch explained how building heights were measured in the different zones and what the height allowances were in North County. He mentioned that height allowances were used in conjunction with incentives to developers. He cited some examples from the Town of Jupiter, Jupiter Inlet District, Abacoa (within the Town of Jupiter), and North Palm Beach, Mixed-Use Code, and more. He noted that some locations have pretty extreme height allowances. Mr. Hubsch then discussed four options for measuring height: Measure height in stories as recommended in the Master Plan, control height/building mass by maximum floor area ratio (currently how height is restricted in the comprehensive plan), allow architectural features above the maximum building height to be granted during the site plan approval process. This can be done as a waiver or simply as part of the site plan approval, and allow an additional story or partial story to be approved by waiver during site plan process. He noted that Council could consider restricting this only to uses that are open to the public like restaurants and lounges. If council didn't like the look they could choose not to approve. Examples were provided for each option. Density The Village, as of August 2024, allowed residential density of 18 dwelling units per acre in Mixed-Use and C-2 Zoning Districts. There was a maximum floor area ratio of 4.2 for non-residential uses and mixed-use buildings in the Mixed-Use land use district. With the Village's current height restrictions, it would not be possible to construct a building with a 4.2 floor area ratio. Mr. Hubsch provided a wide range of density for example, in slides and in areas throughout the County. He reviewed the density bonuses in North County. Any increases to the number of dwelling units allowed per acre would require updates to the Comprehensive Plan, however, the definition of a dwelling unit could be changed. Mixed Use Parking The Village Code allows for shared parking within mixed-use developments, and the discussion offered several ways to reduce parking. He noted that shared use parking agreements were common. Council raised the following thoughts: Council Member Painter: question raised whether measuring by actual height was development incentive; response was that it would be a benefit or a development allowance, not necessarily an incentive. • density was shown as unit per acre and square foot per acre, are there requirements tied to both of those metrics; response was that requirements were only required to units. Square footage was provided for comparison purposes. • some extra building height might incentivize a nicer looking building - creating more options for builders as long as council continues to have discretion. Council Member Brandon: • should consider not including extra height as a right but use it as an incentive or waiver per property project with the allowance of public feedback. • where parking would fit in on projects that included higher density buildings. • supported council discretion. Vice Mayor Sartory: • Master plan as a vision and waivers as a tool, the developer would have to give up something to receive a waiver; this would help the Village obtain and achieve its vision. • supported rooftops of more than 50%, but thought it should be closer to 65%. Mayor Young: • did not feel residents would support additional density, she thought this was only being discussed because of 1 Main Street. • 1 Main Street was the one property where civic open space was highly desired - public feedback was focused on 1 Main Street and not the whole district. • if moving forward with incentives, define them to avoid subjectivity, and align to the comprehensive plan. Still too open and subjective. • weary about density - long term pressure on infrastructure and public safety. • why change height in the code instead of leaving it as an incentive. • architectural features should be reviewed on a case by case basis. Council Member Brandon mentioned that the rooflines on houses in the west zoning did not all have plain straight rooflines, some had variations and she thought maybe similar language could be used to manage the architectural elements. Council Member Painter wondered how it would work if the Village wanted to apply certain rules to one or two parcels. Mr. Hubsch said that under the code, the Council may grant architectural features during the site plan approval process. He suggested that language could be added to the code to allow for Council approval of additional height for architectural features. Vice Mayor Sartory asked Mr. Hubsch to explain spot zoning. He thought it would be more appropriate to look at any changes as applicable to more than just one or two parcels. He said waivers or incentives may be added to an overlay in any zoning district. He advised the Village Council to look at the big picture and what they want the subject area to look like in the future. Mr. Hubsch reviewed how other jurisdictions handled their incentive/waiver opportunities. Citizen Comments: • Ryan Frankel, Partner with Phil Perko and Tom Frankle on the Paradise Park Project referred to the Unity of Title Declaration (Sec. 78-7) of the Tequesta Code. He said something that would be beneficial to their site with regard to parking agreements with an adjacent building, would be the allowance of Unity of Control. He said Unity of Control would allow two separate owners to combine their parcels as one for shared parking purposes. • Marcia Nielson, 94 Beechwood Trail, noted that the charrette had happened before the bond issue, and in the minds of the residents, the Village owned Paradise Park (even though that was not the case). She also discussed the post office was there and in this year, will have a significant deficit. She noted that the post office was a satellite office of the Jupiter Post Office. She said the Village library was also the smallest one in the system, and may be subject to change if there is a consolidation. Ms. Nielson urged the Village not to look at just one parcel, as she felt there were a parcels that could be at risk in the future. • Tom Bradford, 44 Chestnut Trail, had attended the charette and he stated it was very clear at his table that they didn't want extra height or density. You have to have a tool box (code) to build a vibrant community. He suggested the entire block be considered, and not spot zoning. Mr. Bradford stressed the importance of a quality project. • Pat Watkins, 167 River Drive, complimented Mr. Hubsch on providing a great presentation. She agreed with Mr. Bradford and stated the importance of working with the developers. She cautioned making the regulations so stringent that all you have are cell block buildings; she said the Village wants quality, welcoming projects. She cautioned about being too stringent. • Phil Perko, echoed Ms. Watkins and Mr. Bradford's sentiment and noted it was difficult. He felt that Mr. Hubsch's presentation was the best to date. Mr. Perko felt the Tequesta area could be a nice downtown and optionality would be key. He said that the current code is outdated. He asked the Village Council to ask themselves what they want the community experience to be. He suggested consideration be given to what the Village will be like in fifty years. Mayor Young suggested that if the council wanted to add incentives, those would need to be identified, descriptive and not subjective. Attorney Davis said there may be places where increased height or density would make sense. He said the data needs to be gathered to determine where increased density and/or height might make sense. Mr. Hubsch suggested that all property south of Tequesta Drive may be considered, because on the north side there are two-story buildings. Vice-Mayor Sartory suggested East of Old Dixie also. Attorney Davis advised that it was important for the Village to reasonably define why the lines were being drawn at certain points. The consensus of the Council was that they agreed to the block of property located south of Tequesta Drive and East of Old Dixie. Attorney Davis advised if the goal was to get additional civic open space, then a waiver to allow more height, density or parking would be directly related to the goal that the council was trying to attain. The council discussed the incentives, as follows: • Vice Mayor Sartory was in favor of all incentives discussed with the exception of the roof top being used by the applicant for additional height. He thought 50 was reasonable but would like to see more. He was in favor of using height and density for waivers. • Council Member Brandon thought applicants should be allowed to apply for height or density, but not both. • Council Member Painter thought that with additional height, buildings may be more aesthetically pleasing. He thought height and density would be appropriate for waivers at council discretion. He thought options would be needed to offer the most potential for civic open space. He also felt that residents would prefer to keep their options open rather than giving incentives as a right. He thought the council should address unity of control in the future. • Mayor Young thought the language needed to be changed, to include creation of a minimum of 15% of civic open space, and language for additional trees to meet the comprehensive plan objective. Mr. Hubsch asked how the council felt about height by story versus height by feet. The consensus of the council was to use height by feet. 4. PFAS Regulatory Update and Compliance with the New EPA PFAS Rule Ms. Marjorie Craig, reviewed poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). She described these substances that are everywhere; in rugs, ground water, airports, households, etc. PFAS were slippery, resistant to heat, water and oil, and difficult to break the chemical bonds. She reviewed the PFAS cycle and sources: fire fighting foam, wastewater plant discharge, septic tanks, rain, etc. Ms. Craig explained how PFAS cycles through the environment, and the industry was not well regulated. She discussed the new rule set by the US EPA, are 4 parts per trillion (or 1 penny in 1 trillion dollars). Testing is expensive and challenging. The team tested Tequesta drinking water and found no exceedance of current EPA standards in place. Attorney Davis provided an update on the PFAS litigation - phase 2 claimant (July 1 2026 to continue testing water to determine contamination). ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m. MOTION: Council Member Painter made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 pm. Council Member Brandon seconded the motion. Carried unanimously 5-0. Respectfully �submitted, I!M I eW Lori McWilliams, MMC Village Clerk Note: These summary minutes are prepared in compliance with 286.011 F.S. and are not verbatim transcripts of the meeting. A verbatim audio record is available from the office of the Village Clerk. All referenced attachments are on file in the Village Clerk's office.