Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Local Planning Agency_03/27/1997i Tf PG ~`' Gf ~~ 9 ~ ~ r _ O 3 ~ '~ c~ A '. 4v ~qCh COU ty VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA Po.St Office Fox 3273 35~ Teque~[a Dries e 'l'cquc,ta. Florida 33=+69-(1??3 G61) ~~>-<_'(x) Pax: (fill ~~-6203 VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA VILLAGE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY WORKSHOP (VILLAGE COUNCIL SITTING AS THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY) MEETING MINUTES MARCH 27, 1997 I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL • The Tequesta Local Planning Agency held a meeting at the Village Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, on Thursday, March 27, 1997. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Mayor Elizabeth A. Schauer. A roll call was taken by Betty Laur, Recording Secretary. Councilmembers present were: Mayor Elizabeth A. Schauer, Vice Mayor Carl C. Hansen and Joseph N. Capretta. Also in attendance were: Village Clerk Joann Manganiello, Village Attorney John C. Randolph, and Department Heads. Councilmember Ron T. Mackail and Village Manager Thomas Bradford were absent. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Mayor Hansen made a motion to approve the Agenda as submitted. Councilmember Capretta seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Joseph N. Capretta - for Carl C. Hansen - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the Agenda • was approved as submitted. Xccr~lcd Paps-r • Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes March 27, 1997 Page 2 ------------------ III. COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS (NON-AGENDA ITEMS) There were no communications from citizens. IV. INTRODUCTION OF OUTLINE FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN An introduction of the outline for the elements that will be presented with changes made to the Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Plan, as required by the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process {presentation by Mr. Jack Horniman, Planning Consultant for the Village of Tequesta; Mr. Scott D. Ladd, Building Official, Village of Tequesta; Mr. Damian Peduto, Planner, Village of Tequesta. • Building Official Scott D. Ladd reported that at the January workshop meeting a process had been outlined so that the Comprehensive Plan could be modified and ultimately an Ordinance created that would adopt the policies and objectives that were a part of the EAR and that the Village Council felt should be a part of the Comprehensive Plan. Five more workshops were scheduled, and in December a first reading of the Ordinance was planned. Planning Consultant Jack Horniman explained that the Village had requested a six-month extension, which would allow the Village to spread the cost over two years. Mr. Horniman reported that the six-month extension had been granted, so that the final due date was now February 8, 1998. Mr. Horniman explained that at the last meeting the plan had been reviewed element by element and comments had been solicited from the Village Council regarding items they wished to have added. Three elements were scheduled for discussion at tonight's meeting, and included additions based on discussion at the last meeting and the results of the EAR: 1. Future Land Use 2. Solid Waste • 3. Open Space • Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes March 27, 1997 Page 3 ------------------ Mr. Horniman explained that the elements were presented with strikeouts and underlines, with strikeouts to be deleted and underlined material to be added. A number of the changes were made in order to maintain adopted policies, examples of which were reviewed by Mr. Horniman. Mr. Horniman explained that additions to Objective 1.5.0 and to Policy 1.5.2 had been added because of rule changes. The name of the ordinance had also been changed in policy 1.5.2 to reflect the correct name of the ordinance. Vice Mayor Hansen questioned what acceptable levels of service were. Mr. Horniman explained that the Village had adopted levels of service in each element of the plan. Mr. Horniman pointed out that Policy 1.11.1 had been changed in order to update and maintain; the addition to Special Policy 1.12.1 had been done to be consistent with the rule; Policies 1.12.2 through the remainder of those policies listed were additions based on the comments provided by the Village • Council at the last meeting. In the absence of Village Manager Bradford, Village Clerk Manganiello presented his comments to specific items. Future Land Use Goal: 1.0.0 - Replace the word "be" with the word "are". Policy 1.1.3 - Coordinate with and support Palm Beach County in the protection of potable water wellfields and adopt the Palm Beach County Wellfield Protection Ordinance or a locally developed version. Comments - Does Martin County have a well field protection ordinance? If so, Tequesta should coordinate with and support the same, since some of our wells are located in Martin County. Mr. Horniman questioned Village Attorney Randolph whether that could be done, assuming that Martin County did have • such an ordinance. Village Attorney Randolph commented that he believed it should be addressed, and stated that this was • Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes March 27, 1997 Page 4 ------------------ a comprehensive plan within Palm Beach County, however, if the Village had well fields located in Martin County, suggested the following wording: coordinate with and support Palm Beach County and Martin County in the protection of potable water wellfields...etc. Mr. Horniman stated he would check on whether Martin County had such an ordinance. Objective 1.2.0 During each 5-year Comprehensive Developm the housing stock to there are blighted Village in need redevelopment. update to the ent Plan, inventory determine whether areas within the of renewal or Comments: An inventory of the housing stock is not the only determinant of blighted areas within the Village in need of renewal or redevelopment. • An inventory of housing stock would neglect commercial areas which may be blighted. Perhaps the terminology "housing stock" should be changed to "housing/building stock". Mr. Horniman commented that he would prefer to do that as a separate policy because this was in reference to a specific rule as enumerated in the element, and stated he would do that. Policy 1.2.1: There are no blighted areas within the Village of Tequesta. However, the Village will, wherever and whenever appropriate, cooperate with other local governments in these efforts to redevelop and renew such areas within their respective jurisdictions. Comments: I disagree with the statement that "there are no blighted areas within the Village of Tequesta". I believe that the Tequesta Plaza property is blighted, as well as the former Alex Webster/Flame Restaurant. If the Village Council concurs, this policy statement should • be enhanced to state that Tequesta will do Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes March 27, 1997 Page 5 ------------------ whatever it can to redevelop and renew such blighted areas within Tequesta as well as areas outside of Tequesta. Mr. Horniman explained that policy was specifically in regard to housing since it fell under the housing objective. If an objective was to be developed for commercial, then there would be a policy under that. Mr. Horniman stated he would need support from the Building Department for verification which would have to be put into the support documentation, and then develop a commercial based objective and policy. Objective 1.3.3 Maintain architectural control through implementation of the Community Appearance Board Ordinance. • Comments: Enforcement of the Community Appearance Board Ordinance is not the only way to maintain architectural control in Tequesta. Perhaps this objective should be expanded to include reference to the Tequesta Zoning Ordinance and/or Subdivision Regulations. Village Attorney Randolph questioned how architectural control could be maintained through the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Ladd commented that design was not in either the Subdivision Ordinance nor in the zoning code. Ms. Manganiello commented that Mr. Bradford may have been implying that when a developer came in far a new subdivision that when submitting their architectural design that there could be requirements or control under design standards. Mr. Horniman explained that the only design standards under the Subdivision Regulations were for the infrastructure, and that there were no specific design standards within the zoning code. Village Attorney Randolph requested that Mr. Horniman consult with Mr. Bradford on this issue. Objective 1.3.4 Continue low-level profile for future buildings or structures, except in the areas zoned C-2, R-3, and M-U (Mixed Use) • where multi-level may be permitted, through implementation of height • Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes March 27, 1997 Page 6 ------------------ limitations in the zoning ordinance. Comments: What is the definition of low-level profile? Mr. Horniman commented that the discussion regarding this objective was held in 1989, and the definition was either 2 or 3 stories--whatever was permitted in the zoning districts. Mr. Ladd verified that R-1, R-2, C-1, C-3 were 2 stories; and C-2 was 6 or more stories, so he would assume low profile would be three or less, which could be made explicit. Village Attorney Randolph commented that this was a master document describing what the Village was looking for in an area and then the zoning ordinances dealt with specifics. The Village Attorney cautioned against being too specific in this document because if the zoning ordinance was ever changed then the comprehensive plan would also have to be changed. Mr. Horniman agreed with Village Attorney . Randolph and suggested wording to the effect that low profile is defined by the zoning districts except those others because in the districts delineated there could be more than two stories. Mr. Horniman stated that low profile was defined by the zoning district. Mrs. Manganiello verified that the recommendation therefore was to keep this objective broad. Policy 1.3.5 Continue trend of low-density type of residential developments, except in designated high-density areas by requiring consistency between the Future Land Use Map and the Official Zoning Map. Comments: Is the Mixed-Use zoning district area low- density type of residential development or high density? Mr. Ladd stated that there was a third category and it was actually medium density. All three categories were spelled out in the zoning code. Mr. Ladd stated that in reference to this policy statement the mixed-use district would be high density because 18 units per acre were allowed for dwelling units and up to 24 units per acre for ACLFs. Mr. • Horniman objected that would still not be inconsistent with the policy. Mr. Horniman said that the trend in the Village • Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes March 27, 1997 Page 7 ------------------ had been low-density residential in the R-1 and R-lA zoning districts; and what was being said was to continue those trends except in those areas designated high density by requiring consistency between the Future Land Use Map and the Official Zoning map. Mr. Horniman explained that mixed-use had been established to allow a variation which he did not believe would run contrary to this policy. Mrs. Manganiello commented that the Village Manager may have only wanted clarification as to what the mixed use was, to which Mr. Ladd responded it was the Village's highest density-- even more dense than R-3 (12 units per acre). Mr. Ladd stated that they had attempted to change R-3 to 18 units per acre; however had not done so because it would have entailed a comprehensive plan amendment. Policy 1.4.4 Prohibit construction eastward of the Coastal construction setback line. • Comments: Is it the Village Council's intention to prohibit all construction eastward of the Coastal construction setback line? What about reconstruction, remodeling, and the like? Would we allow construction eastward of the Coastal construction setback line if the State approved of the same? Mr. Ladd commented that this policy should say something about the State, which is now approving certain construction forward of the line, and the Village would not object to that if the State would issue a permit. Mr. Ladd explained that the State reviewed each project on a case-by-case basis. Attorney Randolph stated that the Policy should say something about supporting the State in its regulations related to construction eastward of the Coastal construction setback line. Mr. Horniman questioned whether this was a change in the feelings of the Village Council since 1989 because at that time the Village Council did want to prohibit construction east of the line. Mayor Schauer questioned what would happen after a hurricane. Mr. Ladd recalled that a section of the Village's non-conforming use section of the zoning code had been amended to take the • Village out of the enforcement of removing buildings on the beach in the event of a catastrophic event, because of an • Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes March 27, 1997 Page 8 ------------------ outcry from the residents on the beach. Therefore, modifying this policy would be in keeping with Village acts in the past. Mr. Ladd confirmed for Mayor Schauer that wording referring to the State would be added. Mr. Horniman commented that the only thing which could be permitted east of the line was what the State would permit; therefore, if the Village position was that they would allow those things allowable by the State maybe it would be best to simply delete the policy. Discussion ensued, which clarified that if the condo in the Village located east of the line were totally washed away the policy as now written would prohibit rebuilding. Village Attorney Randolph explained that if the State had not asked the Village to address a policy that no policy needed to be stated; and the only reason a policy should be stated would be if the Village wanted to do something more strict than State guidelines. During discussion, Councilmember Capretta • expressed the opinion that policies should be deleted that were not necessary, and that it was implied that the Village would be consistent with State law. Vice Mayor Hansen questioned whether instead of deletion that a reference be made to State law. Councilmember Capretta stated that when the State had clear regulations on an item the Village needed only to have a policy if they desired to be more restrictive than the State. Councilmember Capretta expressed his opinion that the document was too long and should be reviewed for items where the Village wanted to be consistent with the State and delete all those items. Councilmember Capretta commented that the State mangrove trimming law kept changing so that the only thing the Village could do was to agree with the State since the Village could not be more liberal and allow people to trim their mangroves. Mr. Horniman advised that the county currently controlled mangrove trimming, but the State required that the Village say in their plan that they have a mangrove trimming ordinance; and in this county the Village happened to fall under the County ordinance; however that was not necessarily true in other areas of the state. It was the consensus of the Village Council to delete policy 1.4.4. Policy 1.4.5 The trimming or removal of mangroves should be consistent with the County Mangrove Protection • Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes March 27, 1997 Page 9 ------------------ Ordinance and subject to approval of the Village Council. Comments: Does the Village of Tequesta wish to be under the Palm Beach County Mangrove Protection Ordinance? Does the Village Council wish to continue to pursue a Tequesta Mangrove Protection Ordinance? Mr. Horniman commented that the County had gotten approval from the State to trim mangroves, and had placed this within the Wetlands Ordinance of the County, which was in the Unified Land Development Code. The Wetlands Ordinance is adopted pursuant to the Environmental Control Act. Because it was adopted in that manner, Tequesta as a municipality could not opt out of it unless the Village adopted regulations as stringent or more stringent than those in the • regulation, which would gain the Village nothing unless it actually wanted to be more restrictive. The county is currently considering amendments to the wetlands ordinance, and the Municipal League was trying to convince the county that they did not have to adopt that ordinance pursuant to the Environmental Control Act, but could adopt pursuant to Chapter 125 and 162, which would give municipalities the ability to have other regulations. Mr. Horniman explained that between 90-950 of the county's wetlands were located within municipal limits, with only a very small percent lying in the unincorporated areas, yet at the present time the county had the regulatory authority over everything. Mr. Horniman explained that if the ordinance was adopted pursuant to Chapter 125 and 162 then the Village would have the right to opt out of those ordinances if they wished. So the Village had no choice at the moment unless they wished to develop more restrictive regulations. Mayor Schauer commented that in previous discussions the Village had had no intention of being more restrictive. Councilmember Capretta discussed how mangrove trimming had been handled during the past when the property owner had to follow a very restrictive procedure, subsequently replaced with a procedure whereby people were licensed to do that work as a business; however, Mr. Horniman was unfamiliar with the • procedures. Vice Mayor Hansen questioned whether in cases where there were existing State or County laws such as the • Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes March 27, 1997 Page 10 ------------------ mangrove trimming under discussion, what position was taken by other municipalities within their Comprehensive Plans. Mr. Horniman stated that in this case of mangrove trimming that it was a specific State law that municipalities must address this in their plan. Councilmember Capretta requested that Mr. Horniman go through all the items, tell the Village Council whether it was required, and if not, to delete the item. Mr. Horniman explained that every policy and objective written was either a requirement under State law or was something that the Village Council at some point in time had wanted. Attorney Randolph questioned what would happen if the authority of the county changed and the Village had adopted a policy saying the Village would be consistent with the County Mangrove Protection Ordinance; to which Mr. Horniman responded that the comprehensive plan would have to be changed. Attorney Randolph suggested the following wording: The trimming or removal of mangroves • should be consistent with the County Mangrove Protection ordinance if applicable, or alternatively consistent to regulations of the Village of Tequesta. After further discussion, it was the consensus of the Village Council to use the wording suggested by the Village Attorney. Policy 1.4.6 The Village shall continue to institute a program to preserve native plant species in Ecosites Number 61 and 63. Comments: Protection of native plant species at Ecosites Number 61 and 63 is commendable; however, there appears to be no policy which protects the native habitat, scrub oak, etc., that the Village promised it would protect after receiving written notice of same from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service relative to that habitat needed by the threatened scrub jay. Mr. Ladd commented that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had devised a map that went out approximately five miles in diameter and highlighted feeding areas outside the ecosites, all over the Village. The very small scrub jay area near the library therefore had to be preserved since it was a • feeding area, and development of the library had been . Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes March 27, 1997 Page it ------------------ stopped until the matter was addressed. The Village Attorney questioned why the Village Manager had commented on this policy. Mrs. Manganiello explained that she believed the Village Manager just wanted to address the item, to which Village Attorney Randolph responded that the Village would be tying their hands, and suggested that Mr. Horniman consult with Mr. Bradford on this item. Policy 1.4.8 The Village shall continue to protect potable water wellfields by allowing only lower density and intensity uses in those areas. Comments: Lower density defined as number of living units per acre, does not necessarily "protect potable water wellfields". High density provided via multi-story buildings might arguably provide more protection to potable • water wellfields. At any rate, it should be noted that Floridan aquifer wells are not affected in the same manner as surficial aquifer wellfields, and have virtually no correlation to density and intensity. Mr. Horniman explained that this was the language used in the County Wellfield Protection Ordinance and that this was another policy that the Village was bound by, by county charter. Village Attorney Randolph commented that although a policy was required to be in the comprehensive plan, it did not have to mention lower density and intensity of uses. The Village Attorney suggested the following wording: The Village shall continue to protect potable water wellfields by providing regulations relating to their protection. Village Attorney Randolph stated that he believed this policy should be looked at and reworded. Mayor Schauer questioned who the staff person was designated to coordinate the impacts of new development within the coastal zone against existing hurricane evacuation plans (policy 1.5.8). Mr. Ladd responded that the designee had been former Police Chief Roderick, and was now Fire Chief Weinand. Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes March 27, 1997 Page 12 ------------------ Objective 1.7.0: Development within the storm flood zone shall be prohibited unless it is in conformance with regulations promulgated under the Coastal Construction Control program and the Village Flood Protection Ordinance. Comments: Does the Village Flood Protection Ordinance contemplate and/or allow for the many variance requests for floor elevation variances that come before the Tequesta Board of Adjustment. If not, either this objective needs to be rewritten or variance requests precluded for floor elevation requirements. Mr. Ladd explained that the flood plain and flood protection ordinance of the Village did set forth the elevations for • the lowest floor elevation which was a requirement in order to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program; but their restrictions were less restrictive than those of the Village. The Village had adopted 8-1/2 feet as the minimum finish floor elevation in order to enter into the CRS program to obtain discounts on insurance for Tequesta citizens. The original discount was 5%, and the most recent audit may allow a raise to 10o. FEMA regulations were established in accordance with the floor map and were typically 6' to 7'. All variances which had ever been issued had been to the Village requirements. No variance had ever been issued to the FEMA requirements. Discussion ensued regarding a specific case, which Mr. Ladd stated had not violated FEMA requirements. Further discussion was held regarding the last section of the objective. It was the consensus of the Village Council that Objective 1.7.0 should be changed to the following wording: Development within the storm flood zone shall be prohibited unless it is in conformance with regulations promulgated under the Coastal Construction Program, or unless a variance is granted by the Village. Policy 1.7.1 The Village should keep abreast of federal requirements to assure resident's eligibility for flood insurance. I • Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes March 27, 1997 Page 13 ------------------ Comments: Shouldn't a policy be included that states that the Village shall strive to seek discounts for flood insurance via the Community rating system CRS. Mr. Ladd agreed that the CRS Program could be acknowledged since the Village was a participant. Mr. Horniman and Mr. Ladd agreed that this should be added as a new policy: Policy 1.7.3 The Village shall continue to strive to seek discounts for flood insurance via the Community Rating System CRS of the National Flood Insurance Program. Objective 1.8.0 All new development within the special flood hazard areas shall be subject to site plan review. • Comments: What is the definition of new development? Would redevelopment be required to go through formal site plan review? Mr. Ladd responded that the wording should state all new development and redevelopment. Comment: Would a new single family which is currently not required to go through site plan review, be required to now have a site plan review if it were proposed to be constructed in a special flood hazard area? What is the definition of special flood hazard area as opposed to flood zone areas, which is referred to in the policy above? After discussion it was the consensus of the Village Council to reword as follows: Objective 1, 8. 0: A11 new development and all redevelopment within the special flood hazard areas shall be subject to site plan review • excepting single family homes. • Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes March 27, 1997 Page 14 ------------------ Policy 1.8.2 High intensity developments in Tequesta's hurricane flood zone should be serviced by central sanitary sewer systems. Comments: This policy deserves close scrutiny. What is the definition of high intensity development? Where are the hurricane flood zone areas in Tequesta? Isn't the entire Village in the hurricane flood zone area? Precedent should not be set relative to mandating central sanitary sewer systems. Mr. Horniman explained that the State required a policy on this issue, and high intensity would be defined by the Future Land Use Map. After comments by Mr. Ladd, Village Attorney Randolph advised that rather than debate this issue that discussion should be held with Village Manager • Bradford. Vice Mayor Hansen questioned and received verification that this policy was not referring only to new construction. Policy 1.10.1 All structures in the hurricane flood zone should be protected by flood insurance in an effort to ensure that the financial burden from flooding is borne by those desiring to live in such areas. Comments: Isn't all of Tequesta in a hurricane flood zone? If so, doesn't this policy actually encourage everyone in Tequesta to have flood insurance regardless of the flood zone area A, B, or C that applies to the National Flood Insurance Program. Mr. Ladd replied that all of Tequesta was not in a hurricane flood zone, and suggested that the word "hurricane" should not be included in this policy, since there were other situations of flooding as evidenced by the October flooding. Mr. Horniman stated that this was the wording under State rules. Mr. Horniman cautioned against removing already accepted words, since that would raise a red flag at State • level since the submittal must be made showing all deletions and additions. Mr. Horniman agreed to check to see if the • Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes March 27, 1997 Page 15 ------------------ word "hurricane" was required wording. Mr. Ladd commented that people could not be mandated to buy flood insurance. Mayor Schauer requested that Mr. Horniman discuss this item with Mr. Bradford. Policy 1.11.1 The Village shall continue to define and further refine the Downtown area and a Village Center concept which promotes the integration of land uses, pedestrian and vehicular movement and mixed-use development. Comments: What is the definition of a Village Center concept? Mr. Horniman stated that those were all of the regulations adopted by the Village as explained in Special Policy • 1.12.1. After discussion, Mr. Horniman suggested that the word "concept" be changed to "master plan." Mr. Horniman reminded those present that in 1989 everyone in the county had a one-shot opportunity to get any of their projects approved and vested under the traffic performance standards. One of the strategies used when the Village Center Master Plan was developed had been to place this in the comprehensive plan, and then to get what was adopted in that master plan vested in the county for purposes of trips that could potentially be generated under that plan, with no sunsetting provisions. Policy 1.12.1 Utilize the mixed-use provisions of the Mixed-Use regulations or develop a new Special District Urban Standards (e.g. urban design standards, architectural standards, street design standards) and utilize them in the development and/or re-development and/or redevelopment of the Village center. Development of the property or properties shall be subject to Village Council approval of the Master Plan for this site(s) and the land development regulations cited above. • Comments: Where is the Village Center? There is no . Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes March 27, 1997 Page 16 ------------------ longer any master plan for the central business district of Tequesta; therefore, absent a master plan, can the developer do as he/she chooses within the mixed-use or C-2 zoning districts? Mr. Horniman commented that discussion should be held with the Village Manager to determine what he meant by ~~absence of a master plan", since he believed the master plan had areas defined and had been adopted. Mr. Horniman stated that he would discuss this item with the Village Manager. Policy 1.12.2 The mixed-use regulations shall provide for a variety of residential and non- residential land uses; however, commercial uses are intended to be limited to small-scale retail sales and • services, business services, and professional services primarily designed to serve residential neighborhoods. It should be the intention of these regulations to provide for a range of residential uses from lower density single-family uses to higher density multiple family uses. Maximum density, however, in residential areas shall be limited to 18 dwelling units/acre with the exception of AL F's which can have a maximum density of 24 dwelling units/acre. Comments: ALFs should be changed to ACLFs. Policy 1.12.3 - Comments - clarify with Mr. Bradford the term Village Center Master Plan. Policy 1.12.4 - Comments - clarify with Mr. Bradford the term Village Center Master Plan. Objective 1.15.0 The Village should actively pursue annexation of neighboring areas that are • consistent with the character of the community, which can be provided • Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes March 27, 1997 Page 17 ------------------ facilities and services consistent with levels of service standards established by the Village, and which specifically discourage urban sprawl. Comments: How can the annexation of adjacent similar land uses such as residential single family homes be of a manner which "specifically discourage urban sprawl"? Mr. Horniman explained that "urban sprawl" had a specific definition under State law, and that the areas the Village would seek to annex would not meet that definition. Mr. Horniman advised that this objective specifically came from the rules and new requirements under State law, and he wanted to be sure the Village was consistent. • SOLID WASTE Policy 1.1.3 Enlist the Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County to assist the Village in analyzing private haulers and comparative rates of those haulers. Comments: The Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County can be uncooperative in this regard, and is hesitant in providing information which could be construed as negative when analyzing private haulers. Additionally, the rates that the Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County is familiar with have virtually no applicability to the Village of Tequesta in light of the tremendous volume and service area encompassed by the Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County. Mr. Horniman advised that this item was not a specific requirement, but for some reason the Village Council had wanted it included the last time. Mayor Schauer requested that Mr. Horniman discuss this item with Village Manager Bradford. • Policy 1.1.4 The following solid waste levels of service • Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes March 27, 1997 Page 18 ------------------ are established by the Village: Residential Single-family - 6.01 lbs/capita/day Multi-family - 3.41 lbs/capita/day Non-Residential Total - 125 lbs/acre/day Restaurants - 75 .lbs/acre/day All Other - 50 lbs/acre/day Comments: How were these solid waste levels of service established? Mr. Horniman commented that it was very complicated and was included within the support documentation. He explained that he had worked with Nichols Sanitation and followed State rules based on generation rates. Mr. Horniman explained that the key here was that the Village was well • within the Countywide level of service. Objective 1.2.0 Maintenance of collection service that best serves the residents and businesses of Tequesta. Comments: Suggested that this be changed to: Maintenance of collection service that best serves the residents and businesses of Tequesta. Policy 1.2.2 As a part of the site plan review process, continue to encourage new multiple family living areas to consider utilizing single large containers for ease and time savings in collecting solid wastes by requiring that the applicant coordinate with the private hauler to assure containers are provided that the hauler can service. Evidence must be provided by the applicant as part of the site plan review process. Comments: Suggested change: Substitute the word "require" for the word "encourage". After • discussion, this was agreed upon. • Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes March 27, 1997 Page 19 Policy 1.4.1 Existing deficiencies will be addressed by undertaking the following activities: Solid Waste - Hazardous materials management concerns should be deferred to the Solid Waste Authority. Comments: Hazardous materials management concerns should be deferred to the Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County for disposal activities. Hazardous materials management and/or control is a function of the Village of Tequesta Fire Rescue Department via its Hazmet Section. Mr. Horniman explained that he had not been aware of that, and would adjust this item. • Recreation and Open Space Mayor Schauer questioned why Constitution Park was not mentioned in this document. The response was that it fell under a different level of service as a neighborhood park rather than a community park. Goal 1.1.0 Maintain Tequesta Park as a community park and a total recreation area meeting the needs of all age groups in Tequesta during the five (5) year planning period. Comments: What is the definition of "total recreation area"? After discussion, Mr. Horniman was requested to ask the Village Manager what wording he would like in this item. Policy 1.1.1 Provide recreation facilities and programs for school youngsters in Tequesta Park which offer sufficient choice and variety for all age groups. Comments: What is the definition of "school youngster"? • It was decided that Mr. Horniman would discuss this item • Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes March 27, 1997 Page 20 ------------------ with the Village Manager. Policy 1.1.2 Continue the implementation of recreation programs for Tequesta Park, with periodic evaluations of how these programs are meeting the recreation needs of the Village. Comments: The Village of Tequesta does not provide for recreation programs in Tequesta Park. How can Tequesta continue to implement the same? Mr. Horniman was not aware that the Village had no programs at Tequesta Park, and agreed that an explanation was needed for this item and that it should be left broad and to encourage other organizations to continue their programs there. • Objective 1.21 As part of the Special Exception Use and/or site plan review process require that recreation areas be provided as a part of the development, or accept a recreation fee in lieu of land, where and when appropriate. Comments: I believe that the Recreation Impact Fee Ordinance of the Village now precludes the offer of developer land in lieu of the recreation impact fee. Additionally, even if a developer provides for a recreation area in his proposed development, it is not optional. The developer must pay the recreation impact fee. This objective should be rewritten in its entirety. Mr. Ladd agreed. Objective 1.2.2 The Village shall zone all properties they want for recreation and open space purposes as R/OP, Recreation/Open Space. Comments: The terminology, "all properties they want for • recreation and open space purposes" is a very broad statement. • Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes March 27, 1997 Page 21 ------------------ Mr. Horniman explained that it was very broad and this was saying make sure all properties designated as open space be zoned recreation open space. Mayor Schauer requested that Mr. Horniman discuss this item with the Village Manager. Policy 1.4.6 The following Level of Service Standards shall be adopted for recreation and open space facilities within the Village of Tequesta. Level of Service Standards Table Under Classification Area/Activity Comments: The level of service standards concerns me. The Village of Tequesta provides no beaches nor any golf course. Since this is the case, it seems to me it would be more realistic to • delete beaches and golf courses from our level of service standards since we do not nor have any intention of ever providing for the same. Mr. Horniman stated he would check the rule; he believed beaches must be addressed. Mayor Schauer requested that Mr. Horniman talk to Mr. Bradford concerning this item. Policy 1.4.9 Enter into a form of joint use agreement with Martin County for shared expenses associated with Tequesta Park (located in Southern Martin County) to help them meet level of service standards for community parks. Comments: The Village Council should consider dropping this policy if it can be argued that the same allows Martin County to meet their level of service standards for community parks without actually having to enter into a joint use agreement with Tequesta for the use of Tequesta Park. It was the consensus of the Village Council to delete this • entire policy. . Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes March 27, 1997 Page 22 ------------------ Objective 1.6.0 As part of the annual budgetary process, the Public Works Committee, made up of various Councilmembers, shall consider all citizen concerns in determining recreational needs of the community. Comments: The following words should be deleted from this objective: "as part of the annual budgetary process" and also the word "citizen". It was the consensus of the Village Council to delete the wording indicated by the Village Manager. Village Clerk Manganiello commented those were all of the Village Manager's comments. • Mr. Ladd suggested that it might be advantageous to confer with the Village Manager in the future before the meeting, which would be done. Mr. Horniman commented that Coastal Management and Conservation would be presented at the next workshop. V. ANY OTHER MATTERS There were no other matters to be addressed by the Local Planning Agency. VI. ADJOURNMENT Vice Mayor Hansen made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Capretta. The vote on the motion was: Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Joseph N. Capretta - for Carl C. Hansen - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the meeting . Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes March 27, 1997 Page 23 ------------------ was adjourned at 8:48 P.M. Respectfully submitted, t;7~'~`c'c~"~ ~` Betty Laur Recording Secretary ATTEST: Jo nn Mangani to Village Clerk • DATE APPROVED: C