Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 05_06/10/1999R b V MEMORANDUM To: Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager From: Scott D. Ladd, Director of ommunity Development ~j Kara L. Irwin, Planner Date: June 4, 1999 Subject: Review of Comprehensive Plan Mandatory ICE Requirements and Joint Planning Area Requirements and Second Reading of Ordinance Adopting E.A.R. Based Comprehensive Plan Amendments. In an effort to meet the new Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE) requirements, that are required to be adopted by local governments in the comprehensive plans by December 31, 1999, the following policies are proposed for inclusion in the Responses to the ORC Report. Also new School Siting and Co-Location requirements are due for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan by October 1, 1999. Proposing these amendments now, as part of the EAR Based Comprehensive Plan Amendments, will avoid having to go through other amendment processes at a later date. Policies 1.1.5 and 1.1.6 in the Intergovernmental Coordination Element will help meet the new ICE Joint Planning Areas requirements of Ch. 163.3171, F.S. Additionally, Policies 1.2.6 and 1.2.7, as proposed, will supplement Policies 1.1.5 and 1.1.6 to meet this requirement, as well as, the new requirements regarding Collaborative Planning for Multi-Jurisdictional Issues. Policy 1.1.7 is also proposed to meet the new ICE requirements regarding Campus Master Plans. New ICE requirements regarding Voluntary Dispute Resolution Processes are already addressed in the Village Comprehensive Plan Intergovernmental Coordination Element, Policy 1.2.5. Policy 2.1.2 in the Future Land Use Element with the accompanying support documentation is proposed to meet the new Public School Siting and Co-Location requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. These new ICE requirements and School Siting and Co-Location requirements will be discussed with you at the June 10, 1999 Village Council Meeting. Tom, attached are nineteen (19) sets of packets, including an original, for the above referenced subject. Each set contains the following items: • Cover memo from me • Notice of meeting • Intergovernmental Coordination Element and Joint Planning Area Requirements • School Siting and Co-Location requirements with attached letter from the Palm Beach County School Board • Village of Tequesta ORC Report Response (this report includes all comments from the Florida Department of Community Affairs Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report) • Copy of Ordinance to Adopt E.A.R. Based Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan The Palm Beach Post has been sent a copy of the Public Hearing Notice and the Public Hearing Notice, along with ten (10) copies of the packets have been placed in the lobby of the Village hall at 357 Tequesta Drive. Copies for public inspection are also available in the Department of Community Development. Please place this item on the June 10, 1999 agenda for the Village Council Meeting. Staff recommends approval. This is not aQuasi-Judicial Hearing. JLH/kli PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE J[TNE 10. 1999 VI1.i.AGE OF TEOUESTA NOTICE OF A_MFNDMENT TO COMPREHE_NS1VF PL•sx The Village Council of the Village of Tequata, Florida;-will ceosider m ordinance, amending its 1989 adopted Campreheauiw Plan to include ndly reYised"andlop. updated data, tend, tables, maps, Sgutes, anaiyais, as wail as goals, objectives and'`policios in the Introduction, Future Lana vac Elanmt, Transportation Eleaomt, Housing Element, Infrastructure Elanmt, Coastal- Maoagomaot Elmtmt, Cmservsticn Elaomy Reermtioo and Open Space Elanent, Intergowrnmsrtal Coordmaticn Eleramt, Capital Improvermat Elanmt, Plevr Monitorarg and Evaluation Section relating to ceosistency with the State Corgrrehmaiw Plan and Public Participation Progradr iequiranmts and omer te~drul rpp~egdmgpts - aod madi8atians; all in relatim to itcnu idmtiSed io the Village's 19% Evahratian and 'Appraisal Report (EAR); providatg for sewrability; P~8 fns the repeal of ordinances in conflict; PCB ~ ocdiScaticn; provid'mg for as e$ective date. The Village Council of the Village of Taquesta, sitting as the Local Pbmnmg Agency, eandueted s public ' hearing m Thursday, February 4, 1999 ad 5:01 P.M. at the Village Hall, 357 Taquesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida. The subject of the public heating was the considetatieo of proposed respaosea to the State of Florida Department of Cw+mumity Affius Objedims, Recarnnrmdatims, sad Comrognta Itepot4; (ORC Report) for the VilFage and the ptgtaratiea of recomriuardations to the: Village Couacil'Peei`sioing~ the Response Report and its transmittal to the State of Florida Deparhnart of Ccxnanmity A1'3aits: The Village Council conducted a public hooting oa March 4, 1999.. at 9:00 P.M. at the Village Hall, 357 ,~ Taquesta Drive, Tegrrasta, Florida, The sriliject of the public Leatmg-waa, t>b cansidetatien of the rowrmnmdatioos of the Local PLroning Aged:ey co4g ~-ot.Village°s proposed teshmses to tie Objectieos, Recommmdatima, and Cow Report and ,its transmittal to the State of Florida Department of CacmaunO.y AEairs. - The Village Council will onnduct a public hearing an June 10, 1999 at 7:00 P.M: at the Village Hall, 33'7 Terpresta Drivq Tequesta, Florida Ln consider the socand reading of the ordnance to adopt the 1996 EAR based Coagrrdrmaiw Plan Aaandments. _ - All iotereeted parties may appear at these public hearings and be heard ceaeeming the proposed Respooso Report sect its transmittal to the State for roview'and carrurrcat. Copies of the proposed Response Report are available for mspactim aR the ollice of the Village Cleric, 250 Tequesta Drive, Suite 300, Tequesta, Florida. . „~ Parties are Hereby advised than i>` a poram decides to.appeal soy declaim made by the Village Cormcil with respect to any mortar emsiderad at. sndr meetnrg,,or hearing, they will need s record of the proeeedo,gs and for such purpose a party may Head to ensure that a verbaKan record ;oaf rho proceedorgs is made, whicfi record ~ctudos the testimmy and evidence open uehieh-the appeal is'to be based. - Disabled persons who need ae aecorrurrodatrm~ order to participate m this Village Council Meietmg are requested m omtact fhe Village MaB~gbr's O~cp at (361) 375.-6200 st least three (3) worl®g days before this Meeting: Hearing impaired persons plea+e nern that wireless Hearing Assistance System Receivers are available hy'requmting the same from the Recocdmg Secretary. Joaos, ]t~sgaoiello _..._ , ViYa=e Clertr ~, .• lnbtishr June lq 1999 ~ ""°""""'" The Village of _ _- _ - '"°'"' ""' TD Q U~7,9 TA - .trove Niue n~eunr~ ~ PIIW 8rA® COIIrIT, rLORlp11 .~~~ EXISTING LAND USE MAP w.a.w .... n...~ nsuae rye ~;:._..~ ~ DAIL 7.17 "" ~~ a,.ar .,nw ~~~ d~ DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO ORC REPORT RESPONSES I. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT (ICE) CAMPUS MASTER PLANS JOINT PLANNING AREAS II. FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLU) SCHOOL SITING AND CO-LOCATION SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS I. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT CAMPUS MASTER PLANS The following Policy 1.1.7 is being added to meet new ICE requirements regarding Campus Master Plans: Policy 1.1.7 The Village shall coordinate with those schools within its j ri diction, which are part of the State University system. regarding the development of campus master plans or amendments thereto, to be done in accordance with Section 240.155, F.S. JOINT PLANNING AREAS In addition to Policies 1.1.5 and 1.1.6 above, Policies 1.2.6 and 1.2.7 are proposed to meet new ICE requirements regarding Joint Planning and Collaborative Planning for Multi Jurisdictional issues. Policy 1 2 6 Notify by letter and involve all poten ~ 1 y affected entities. jurisdictions and / or service providers in the initial stages of the planning and development review process when the action of one government may create an imps on neighboring jurisdiction public facilities and services Policy 1 2.7 Secure the cooperation of neighboring entities, jurisdictions and/or service provides through interlocal agreements and intergovernmental coordination that addresses how the co t for impacts to public facilities and services will be borne, and by whom, when the impacts are imposed upon other entities„ jurisdictions and/or service provides. Interlocal-Agreements and the IPARC Process will be used to identify and implement joint planning areas, when deemed to be agpropria e II. SCHOOL SITING AND SCHOOL CO-LOCATION REQUIREMENTS SCHOOL SITING AND CO-LOCATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS The following policy will be added to the Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the Comprehensive Plan to meet the School Siting and Co-Location Requirements of the Florida Department of Community Affairs; Policy 2.1.2 In the event of a lure annexation that h ufficient land area to site schools or co-locate schools with public facilities such as; Darks, libraries, and community centers, prior to the amendment to incorporate the area into the Village Comprehensive Plan, the Village shall coordinate with the Palm Beach County School Board to determine the need to site a school in the annexed area This plan amendment will allow for public school if there is a need In addition, the following items will be added to the support documentation of the Comprehensive Plan: School Siting Recluirernents Village of Tecluesta ITEM I. Revise the definition of Other Public Buildings to read as follows: Other Public Facilities Land uses and activities within land areas concerned with other public or private facilities and institutions such as schools, churches, clubs, fraternal organizations, homes for the aged and infirm, and other similar uses. ITEM II. Add a final paragraph to: Other Public Facilities Land Use" (p.3-18 of support documentation): 3 There are no Fublic schools located within the Village of Tequesta The Village has reached a~~roximately 96 % build-out with less than forty~40) acres of vacant land of which no individual parcels are of adequate size or location for school sites Therefore, thethe Village does_not anticipate. nor does the Palm Beach County School Board anticipate building any school sites within Tequesta during the short or long term Manning periods The Village has received a letter from the School Board attesting to this situation and it is attached as an ATTACHMENT at the end of the FLU Element G1-IOOL D/s THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ~ i 'j OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA ~ PERIONTENDEN~AL ~ ~ PLANNING S REAL ESTATE oFSCNOO~s 9 3320 FOREST HILL BOULEVARD, C-331 WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33406-5813 9~ ~~' ~"~' `~r ~ (561)434-8020 FAX (561) 434-8187 M BFACH COUP ATTACHMENT May 10, 1999 FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT SCHOOL-SITING REQUIREMENTS Ms. Kara Irwin Dept. of Community Development P.O. Box 3273 / 357 Tequesta Drive Tequesta, FL 33469-0273 RE: School Siting and Planning Coordination Dear Ms. Irwin: The School District in planning for school facilities has determined that it will not be constructing a school in the Village of Tequesta over the next five years. Presently there is not a public school in the Village and there are no plans to build one. Based on the Village being almost built out, there is not sufficient land area to accommodate a school at this time. The County's future annexation map shows that the Village plans to annex properties in the future. If there is sufficient vacant land in the Village to accommodate a school in the future, the School District may construct a school. in the area over the next 15 to 20 years. If there are any questions, please call me at 434-8935. Sincerely, ,. . L nda H. Hines, Director Tanning and Real Estate VOT.doc c: Angela D. Usher, Palm Beach County School District An Equal Education Opportunity Provider and Affirmative Action Employer village o~ Tequesta Responses to Department ~~ C ommun~ty A~~a~xs Objections, Recommendations and Comments Fpr Tequesta February 1999 Tequesta Local Planning Agency Consultant: JLH Associates OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS VILLAGE 4F TEQUESTA EAR BASED COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN I. AMENDMENTS WITH OBJECTIONS A_ FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT Objection Policy 1.4.5 does not give clear, meaningful, and predictable standard for the preservation of native plant species in Ecosites Number 61 and Number 63. Policy 1.4.5 states that the Village shall "support efforts" to preserve the sites, but does-not give any guidance in how the. Village will support preservation efforts, or what the efforts in preservation aze. Without specifying the how the Village will support the efforts, and whattype-of Efforts wi11be talrenr the~olicy is vague and ineffective. Section: 163.3177(1), F.S. Rule: 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.003(96); 9J-5.006(3)(b~; 9J-5.013(2)(b)3; 9J-5.006(3)(c)6, F.AC. Recommendation Revise Policy-1.4.5 to specify the standazdsihat are-to ba implementedfor the_preseLVation ofthe native plant species in the Ecosites. Policies should provide meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed LDRs. Specifically, address what efforts will be made and how the Village will support those efforts. Response Two (2) separate Policies will be developed to address Ecosite Number 61 and Ecosite Number 63 and the preservation of native plant and animal species on those sites. Policy 1.4.5 will be re-written as follows: Policies: 1.4.5 The Village supports the U. S. Department of Interior, Bureau of LandManagement /Palm Beach County Environmental Resource Management Interlocal Agreement to co-fund and co-manage the preservation of native plant and animal species on Eco-Site #b 1 as part of the."Jupiter. hilet_Natural AreaMana entPlan". A new Policy 1.4.8 will be added to address Ecosite Number 63: Policies:. L4.$ The Village supports the preservation of plant_and_animal species on Ecosite Number 63 (which occupies a portion of St. Jude's Church) in accordance with the "St__ Jude's Church Miti~tion Plan" as required by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and the Fk>rida dame andFresh Water-Fish Cemmission. 2. Objection Policy 1.4.6 does not provide clear, meaningful, and predictable standards for the protection of mangroves because the standards are deferred to the Land Development Regulations. The policy does not specify how the mangroves are to be protected. Without this specification, the policy is vague and ineffective. Section: 163.3177(5), F.S. Rule: 9J5-5.005(6); 9J-5.003(96); 9J-5.013(2)(b)3, F.AC. 2 Recommendation Revise Policy 1.4.6 to indicate the standards to be Village. Specifically, identify how the mangroves Regulations. Response Policy 1.4.6 shall be re-written as follows: applied in the protection of mangroves within the will be protected through the Land Development Policy 1.4.6 The Villa eg shall protect manQa'oves within Tequesta by deferring the review of mangroves in proposed development and re- development azeas to the County for enforcement and protection under the Palm Beach Countywide Mangrove Protection Ordinance. This shall be made a part of the Village Site Plan Review Process. 3. Objection Policy 1.4.7 does not give protection to potable water wellfield protection azeas because the policy does not designate the appropriate activities and land uses to be allowed. The policy simply states that the Village will designate appropriate activities and land uses. Without specifying what those activities and uses will be, the policy does not give cleaz, meaningfiil and predictable standards for development and does not meet minimum requirements. Section: 163.3177(6)(a), F.S. Rule: 9J-5.003(96); 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.006(3)(c)6, F.AC. Recommendation Revise Policy 1.4.7 to provide immediate protection of potable water wellfield protection areas by indicating the appropriate activities and land uses to be allowed. Policies should provide meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed LDRs. Response Policy 1.4.7 shall be revised as follows: Policies 1.4.7 The Village shall protect potable water wellfields by allowingonly the land uses encompassed within the wellfield drawdown zones of influence shown on the Future Land Use Map. 4. Objection Policy 1.5.2 does not adequately ensure that facilities and services meet locally established level of service standazds, and aze available concurrent with the impacts of development because the policy defers any provisions to the LDRs. Section: 163.3177(6)(a), F.S. Rule: 9J-5.003(96); 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.006(3)D3, F.AC. Recommendation Revise Policy 1.5.2 to provide that facilities and services will meet locally established level of service standazds, and will be concurrent with the impacts of development within the plan The provision should be a clear, meaningful and predictable guideline for more detailed land development. Response Policy 1.5.2 shall be revised as follows: Policies 1.5.2 The Village shall ensure that the availability of public facilities 3 and services meet acceptable levels of service be concurrent with development impacts and that provide for utility services to be authorized at the same time land uses aze authorized 4. Objection Policy 1.5.4 does not adequately provide that facilities that provide utility service to the various land uses are authorized at the same time the land uses are authorized, because the policy defers any measures to the LDRs. Section: 163.3177(6)(a), F.S. Rule: 9J-5.003(96); 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.006(3)(c)3, F.AC. Recommendation Revise Policy 1.5.4 to include clear, meaningful, and predictable standazds for the use of land that provide guidelines for more detailed land use development. Response 'This Policy shall be revised by deleting the second sentence to be read as follows: Policy 1 5 4 The approval and authorization of land use development within the Village shall be concurrent with the provisions of utility service. Objection Objective 1.7.0 pertains to the prohibition of development within the storm flood zones unless it is in conformance with the Coastal Construction Control program regulations. The intention of this policy to only include coastal storm flood zones, or storm flood zones throughout the Village is not cleaz. The Coastal Construction .Control program only regulates coastlines. Additionally, if the Village only intends for this policy to extend to coastal storm flood zones, and then the language of the objective would allow the Village to grant a variance for development regardless of the Coastal Construction Control program regulations. Section: 163.3178(1), F.S. Rule: 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C. Recommendation Revise Objective 1.7.0 to state cleazly the storm flood zones that the policy is intended to regulate. Additionally, revise Objection 1.7.0 to allow the Village to grant a variance for development within the storm flood zones only when consistent with the regulation of the Coastal Construction Control program. Response Objective 1.7.0 shall be revised as follows: Obiective 1 7 0 DeveloRment within the storm flood zones shall be subiect to restrictions implemented through the Villa eg of Tequesta on -aoin~ participation in the National Flood Insurance Program /Community Rating System (CRS) and more restrictive requirements established in the Villa~~Zonin~~Ordinance Section X Supplemental Regulations, (A) General Provisions (8) floor elevation above sea level. A new Policy 1.7.4 is added to fiu-ther clarify the objective as written below: Policies 1.7.4 A minimum finish first floor elevation above mean sea level (MSL) for all new construction, additions and substantial imQrovements to existing structures shall be 8.5 ft. MSL; however finished first floor elevations that are between the minimum finished first floor elevation as established by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and the more restrictive requirements established by the Village can obtain a variance which meet the minimum NFIP requirements of 6 0 ft for zone A6 areas and & 7.0 ft. for zone A7 areas. 6. Objection Policy 1.12.2 is internally inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map (PLUM) and the Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1.2. The PLUM shows that the area designated by Special Policy 1.12.1 as the Village Center is actually designated as Commercial. Policy 1.12.2 states that the Mixed-Use regulations that are applied to the Village Center area will contain a variety of residential and non-residential uses. However, Table FLU-1 of Policy 1.1.2, which lists the types of uses, allowed under the Commercial land use category does not contain residential uses. Policy 1.12.2 essentially creates an unmapped land use category. Section: 163.3177(2); 163.2177(6)(a), F.S. Rule: 9J-5.005(5)(b); 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.006(4)(c); 9J-5.006(3)(c)1;S;and 7, F.A.C. Recommendation Revise Policy 1.12.2 to be consistent with the land use designation as shown on the FLUM, by eliminating residential uses from the uses allowed within the Village Center. If the intention of the Village is to create a mixed-use category, revise Policy 1.12.2 to delineate the percentage distribution of the typed of uses allowed, and to establish density and intensity standards for each use. Additionally, revise the PLUM to show the addition of the new land use category. Response The PLUM will be revised to reflect the Mixed-Use land use category. Policy 1.12.2 shall be re-written as follows: Policies 1 12 2 Mixed Use land use areas shall provide for a variety of residential and non-residential land uses: however commercial uses shall be limited to small-scale retail sales and services, business services an~ofessional services primarily designed to serve residential neighborhoods Mixed-use areas shall provide for a range of residential uses from lower density single family uses to higher density multiple family uses Maximum density for residential uses shall be limited to 18 dwelling units per acre with the exception of Assisted Living.Facilities (ALF's) which can have a maximum density of 24 dwelling units per acre Maximum lot coverage shall not exceed 62% in residential areas while non-residential areas with single lots of 3200 sq ft minimum may have 60% lot coverage while non-residential uses with two or more lots in excess of 3200 sq. ft. may have a 70% lot coverage A maximum six (6) stories shall be the maximum height for all uses in the mixed-use area and a minimum 25% of the lot shall be required for landscaping on all residential and non-residential uses. 7. Objection Policy 1.15.1 is internally inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map Series of the Future Land Use Element. This policy states the Village should pursue annexation of the areas delineated on the Future Annexation Map, Figure FLU-5. However, there is not an annexation map within the amendment package. Additionally, astrike-through of the Future Annexation Area Map under the Future Land Use Map Series section of the Future Land Use Element (FLU-7) shows that the Future Annexation Area Map has been eliminated from the map series and replaced by a humcane surge map. Section: 163.3177(2), F.S. Rule: 9J-5.005(a); 9J-5.005(b), F.A.C. 5 Recommendation If the Village chooses to adopt the amendment, include a Future Annexation Area Map within the amendment package and revise the Future Land Use Map Series section to reflect the addition of the map. Response Policy 1.15.1 was supposed to be have been deleted in the update, but was inadvertently missed. Policy 1.15.1 will be deleted and Policy 1.15.2 will become Policy 1.15.1. 9. Comment Our review has established that the Village has not established intensity standards for non-residential uses. The Village should establish intensity standards for non-residential uses within each land use category described in Table FLU-1 of Policy 1.1.2. They should provide objective measures of the Maximum extent to which land may be developed or used. Intensity standards can include floor to air ratios (FARs) or a combination floor coverage percentages with height limitations. Response The comment is acknowledged. B.TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT 10. Objection Policy 1.1.5 list density and intensity of land uses as examples of land use strategies to be coordinated with transportation demand management strategies. This policy does not coordinate transportation demand strategies with land use strategies, but simply states that the Village will at some unspecified time. Without specific guidelines to implement coordination between these two strategies, the policy is ineffective. Additionally, there are no intensity standards established in the Future Land Use Element to be implemented with transportation demand management strategies. Section: 163.3177(6)(j)8, F.S. Rule: 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.019(4)(c)5; and 9J-5.006(7)(c)3, F.A.C. Recommendation Provide clear, meaningful, and predictable standards within Policy 1.1.5 for the coordination of transportation demand management strategies and land use strategies. Additionally, provide intensity standards for each commercial use within the Future Land Use Element that can be applied in Policy 1.1.5. Response Policy 1.1.5 shall be re-written as follows: Policy 1.1.5 The Village shall coordinate transportation demand strategies with land use strategies by requiring_that facilities for bic cl pedestrians are provided for in future development and redevelopment proposals and these requirements be made a part of the site plan review rp ocess. 11. Objection Policy 1.1.6, which addresses the reduction of per capita vehicular miles traveled (VMT) and the discouragement of single occupant vehicle trips, is not adequate. The policy does not specify how the Village will promote the reduction of VMT or the Discouragement of single occupant vehicle trips. Without this specification, the policy is vague and ineffective. Section: 163.3177(6)(a), F.S. 6 Rule: 9J-5.003(96); 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.019(4)(c)6, F.AC. Recommendation Revise Policy 1.1.6 to provide meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land, and to specify the how the Village will promote the reduction of VMT or the discouragement of single occupant vehicle trips. Response Policy 1.1.6 shall be re-written as follows: Policy 1.1.6 The Village shall work with the MPO toward reducing per capita Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and discourage single occupant vehicle trips recognizing that these programs assist in reducing the overall air quality emissions. This can be accomplished through municipal representation on the MPO and providing~for Tri-Rail, alternative fuels, ride sharing, alternative work hour programs, public transit parking management and other transportation control measures that are being continually developed as part of a Countywide effort. 12. Objection Objection 1.2.0 does not coordinate the transportation system with the future land use map or map series, and ensure that population densities, housing and employment patterns, and land uses are consistent with the transportation modes and services. The objective can not give a specific, measurable, and intermediate end that is achievable, and that results in the coordination of the transportation system with the Future Land Use Map. Section: 163.3177(1), F.S. Rule: 9J-5.003(86); and 9J-5.019(4)(b)2, F.A.C.. - . Recommendation Revise Objective 1.2.0 to include a specific, measurable, and intermediate end that is achievable and marks progress toward a goal, so that it coordinates the transportation system with the future land use map or map series, and ensure that population densities, housing and employment patterns, and land uses are consistent with the transportation modes and services. Response As a result of discussion with Department of Community Affairs staff, the objective was found adequate as written and no changes are proposed. 13. Objection Policies 1.2.5 and 1.2.6, do not establish guidelines for the accessibility of new development in public transit corridors, are not adequate. These policies lack the specifications needed to provide guidance in how the LDRs are to promote accessibility to public transportation, and how the Village will encourage future land uses which promote public transportation. Without this specification, the policies are ineffective. Section: 163.3177(6)(j), F.S. Rule: 9J-5.003(95); 9J-5.005(6}; and 9J-5.019(4)(c)9, F.A.C. Recommendation Revise policies to provide meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land, and that describes the way in which the Village is to encourage future land uses which promote public transportation in public transportation corridors, and the way in which the LDRs are to be revised for this purpose, so as to be consistent with 9J-5.019(4)(c)9. 7 Response Policy 1.2.5 shall be revised to read as follows: Policies 1.2.5 Encourage future land uses which promote public transportation is public transportation corridors in new development areas and in re-development areas. Policy 1.2.6 shall be re-written as follows: Policies 1 2 6 Require land uses building and site design guidelines that assure accessibility to public transit. 14. Objective Objective 1.5.0 and accompanying Policies 1.5.2, 1.5.3, 1..5.4, 1.5.5, 1.5.6, 1.5.7, 1.5.8, and 1.5.9, which address the provision and planning of transit within the Village, are not adequate. The Objective and each policy use vague and ineffective language, and simply state that the Village will support the efforts of the County, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, or the Florida Department of Transportation in the improvement of transit services to Village residents. The Objective and Policies do not specify how the Village will support the efforts. Therefore, the Objective and Policies do not meet minimum requirements. Section: 163.3177(6)(a); 163.3177(6)(j); F.S. Rule: 9J-5.003(86); 9J-5.003(95); 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.019(4)(b)4, F.AC. Response Objective 1.5.0 shall be re-written as follows: Objective 1.5.0 Encourage the use and provision of mass transit facilities in Palm BeachCounty by supporting P.B.C.'s efforts established in the Transportation Element of their Comprehensive Plan by implementing the following Policies. Policies 1.5.1 and 1.5.6 shall be combined into one Policy as Policy 1.5.1 re-written as follows: Policies 1.5.1 The Village shall work with the Coun and support the Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) efforts through municipal representation on the MPO to increase the presence and use of mass transit services in the County throu~~i modification of the existin rg oute system; increasing service in areas with high propensity for transit use, and through increased services in the coastal communities, including Tequesta. Policies 1.5.2, 1.5.3 and 1.5.4 shall be deleted. Policies 1.5.5 shall be revised to read as follows: Policies 1.5.5 The Village supports the County's effort, throu municipal r~resentation on the MPO, to declare guidelines by the year 2000 to improve desi~tt and functionality of transit station /stops. Attention should be given to how their location relates to surrounding areas and how the promote a pedestrian environment and usage. Design should relate to transit user amenities, sidewalks and bicycle paths that link to other nodes in awell-developed system. Policies 1.5.7 and 1.5.8 shall be re-written as follows: Policies 1.5.7 The Village shall not object to the County's efforts to encoura a the future location of Palm Trap bus routes with new developments. Policies 1 5 8 The Village shall not obiect to the Metropolitan Planning Organization's efforts to encourage the use of rail modes of transportation as Tequesta can be favorably imQacted by these efforts. Per discussion with DCA staff, Policy 1.5.9 shall not be revised and shall remain as written. 15. Objection Objective 1.8.0 and accompanying Policies 1.8.1, 1.8.2, 1.8.3, 1.8.4, and 1.8.5, which attempt to promote the use of bicycles and walking, are not adequate. These policies continuously use vague language such as "consider" and "encourage" without specifying the strategies that are to be implemented to promote the use bicycles and walking. In the absence of clear and meaningful strategies within the Policies, they are vague and ineffective. Section: 163.3177(6)(j), F.S. Rule: 9J-5.003(95); 9J-5.005(6); and 9J-5.019(4)(c)5; 9J-5.019(4)(b)1; 9J-5.003(86), F.AC. Recommendation Revise the above Objective and accompanying Policies to specify the strategies that are to be implement in the promoting the use of bicycles and walking. Additionally, include meaningful language that provides clear guidelines and operational standards that can be measured. Response Objective 1.8.0 shall be re-written as follows: Objective 1 8 0 The Village shall promote the increased use of bicvcle and walking as viable alternative means of transportation through implementation of the Policies below. Policies 1.8.1, 1.8.2, 1.8.3, and 1.8.5 shall be re-v<~ritten as follovvs: Policy 1 8 1 Bikeways shall be given full consideration ni the plamtu~g and development of the Village roadway and transportation facilities and programs as part of the Site Plan Review Process. Policy 1 8 2 The Village shall work toward pro~7ding pedestrian and bicvcle lnikages between existuig residential audpon-residential land uses, especially for commercial and open space, as part of its capital improvements and budgetary review process each year. Policy 1 8 3 The Villa eg shall provide for the design of mixed use and multi- use developments and planned developments to be of a pedestrian scale and design by incor_poratingtransit stops bicycle and sidewalk connections. Policy 1 8 5 The Village shall review the recommendations of the MPO's Long Range Bicycle Facilities Concept Plan and implement appropriate recommendations of the Plan as an alternative means of transportation throughout the Village. As a result of discussion with DCA staff, Policy 1.8.4 shall remain the same. 16. Objection The Transportation Element does not adequately meet the requirement of 9J-5.019(4)(c)10, which states that a policy must establish numerical indicators against which the achievement of the mobility goals of the community can be measured Section: 163.3177(6)(j), F.S. Rule: 9J-5.019(4)(c)10, F.A.C. Recommendation Establish a policy, which gives numerical indicators against which the achievement of the mobility goals of the community can be measured, such as modal split, annual transit trips per capita, and automobile occupancy rates. Response Anew Policy 1.8.6 is developed as follows to address the Objection: Policy 1 8 6 The Village shall work toward increased Mobility in the community byproviding for increased amounts of bicycle oaths and sidewalks in new development and re-development areas. Comment The phrase "continue to" should be deleted from Objective 1.4.0. Response The comment is acknowledged. C. HOUSING ELEMENT 18. Objection Policy 1.2.1, which provides for affordable housing by supporting activities that lower costs for housing construction by adopting the Countywide Amendment to the Standard Building Code, is not adequate. The policy does not specify the activities that the Village is to support through adopting the Countywide Amendments. Without this specification, the policy is ineffective. Section: 163.3177(6)(f)a, F.S. Rule: 9J-5.005(6); and 9J-5.013(3)(c)2, F.A.C. Recommendation Revise Policy 1.2.1 to specify the actual activities or programs to be implemented that the Village is supporting in the facilitation of affordable housing construction with the adoption of the Countywide Amendment to the Standard Building Codes. Response Per discussion with DCA staff, Policy 1.2.1 will remain the same. 19. Objection Policy 1.2.2, addresses the confirmation of the current agreement the Village has with Palm Beach County concerning the provision of affordable housing, is not adequate. It does not describe the responsibility of the Village in assisting and supporting the County in the provision of affordable housing. The Policy simply states the Village will "encourage programs" by participating in the agreement without establishing implementation measures that the Village is to take in encouraging programs through an agreement with the County. Rule: 9J-5.010(3)(c)10, F.A.C. 10 Recommendation Revise Policy 1.2.2 to generally describe the responsibility of the Village in the provision of affordable housing through the interlocal agreement. Additionally, establish implementation measures for facilitating the implementation of the County's Community Block Grant Program. Response Policy 1.2.2 shall be revised as follows: Policies 1 2 2 Encourage programs throughout Palm Beach County which attemptto alleviate housingproblems including continued interlocal participation at the current level in the Community Block Grant Program and associated activities by entering into Interlocal Agreements with Palm Beach County Housing and Community Development to accomplish these ends. 20. Objection Policy 1.2.5 which states that low income housing efforts will be oriented toward the provision of elderly rental units, is not adequate because it only provides a vague provision for the elderly population and the data and analysis is not consistent with this policy: a. The support documents state that 21.7% of the total households have a housing cost burden of 30% the total household income. Additionally, 13.4% of the total households have a housing cost burden of more than 35% of the housing income. However, Table 5-6 shows that the wrong numbers aze reported in the text and that 21.7% should actually be 30.1%, and 13.4% should actually be 18.5%. The Village is understating the number of households in the community with a housing cost burden. b. The Village states that the cost burden is over represented because of the large elderly population that owns homes without mortgages. This would be an adequate assumption for the population of home owners. However, they are 212 rental units in the Village, and 47.2% of them exhibit a cost burden cost more than 30% of total household income. This is a close to half of the rental population. The Village does not provide data to show a significant population of elderly persons in the rental units to justify excluding younger adults and families from the policy. This Policy therefore, is internally inconsistent with Objective 1.2.0 which calls for the provision of adequate and affordable housing all segments of the population. Without providing for all segments of the population, this policy is inadequate. Rule: 9J-5.005(a); and 9J-5.10(3)(b)(1); 9J-5(2)(v), F.AC. Recommendation Provide data and analysis that accurately describe a large proportion of elderly renters to support the exclusion of families and younger adults, and revise Policy 1.2.5 to specify what efforts the Village will take to provide low-income rental housing for elderly. Otherwise, revise Policy 1.2.5 to include families and younger adults with specification of what efforts the Village will take to provide low-income housing for all segments of the population. Response Supplemental Census data (STF 3A File) indicate that 77% of the rental households in the Village that ~av 35% or more of their income for gross housing_costs aze headed by a household aged 65 years and older This furtherjustifies apolio to focus upon the provision of elderly affordable rental units. Policy 1.2.5 shall be re-written as follows: Policy 12 5 Low income housing efforts shall be oriented towards the 11 provision of affordable elderly rental units by permitting, development of independent supportive congregate living facilities within the Mixed-Use areas up to a maximum 24 dwellings units per acre. D. UTILITIES ELEMENT Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element 21. Objection Policies 1.1.3 and 1.3.1 are both vague and lack clear and meaningful standards for implementation. The policies use vague language, such as "should encourage" and "should consult". Policy 1.3.1 also defers implementation guidelines to the LDRs, while Policy 1.1.3 simply states that the Village should consult with the wastewater service provider. Without clear and meaningful standards of implementation, these policies are ineffective. Section: 163.3177(5), F.S. Rule: 9J-5.003(95); 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.011(2)(c)1, F.AC. Recommendation Revise Policies 1.1.3 and 1.3.1 to include specific standards of implementation to achieve Goal 1.0.0. Replace language that is vague with more detailed guidelines for the establishment of the most effective wastewater system and the minimization of point and non-point discharge into surface waters. Response As a result of discussion with DCA staff, there will be no changes proposed to Policy 1.1:.3; therefore it will remain the same. Policy 1.3.1 shall be revised as follows: Policies 1.3.1 The Village shall incorporate into local plans, codes and ordinances various land use and wastewater system design and construction criteria that will minimize point and non-point discharges into surface waters. 22. Objection Policy 1.1.7 eliminates the Village's commitment to cease the use of septic tanks if water quality standards are violated. The Village deletes a detailed guideline for the elimination of septic tanks in the event of violating water quality standards, and replaces it with a vague and ineffective policy that lacks the standards to be implemented when water quality is threatened by septic tanks. This policy is inconsistent with policies in the Strategic Regional Policy Plan regarding septic tanks. SRPP: Policy 6.3.3.1, and Policy 6.5.1.6 Rule: 9J-5.011(2)(c)1; 9J-5.006(b)1,4; 9J-5.012(3)(6)2; 9J-5(3)(c)6; 9J-5.013(3)(b)1; 9J-5.013(3)(c)1,6, F.A.C. Recommendation Revise Policy 1.1.7 to promote the elimination of septic tanks within the Village, as well as a provision that requires the connection to regional wastewater collection facilities in areas where the potential for ground or surface water contamination is high. Response Per discussion with DCA Staff Policy 1.1.7 should read as follows: Policy 1.1.7 The use of existing.properly constructed and functioning septic tank systems within the Village is acceptable; however, when analysis indicates that septic tank systems are adversely impacting the environment according to State Water Quality Standards (Ch. 62-302, 12 FAC for surface water Ch 62-520 FAC for groundwater and Ch. 100- 6 FAC for bathing places) and that public health standards are endangere septic tank systems causins~ the situation will be repaired or replaced Add a new Policy 1.1.8: Policy 1 1 8 When a central sanitary sewer system becomes available to currently unsewered areas and the current septic tank systems fail to meet State Water Quality Standazds (Ch 62-302 FAC for surface water Ch. 62-520 FAC for groundwater and Ch. 100-6 FAC for bathingplaces) and endan eg r the public health, hook-up to the central system shall be required E. CONSERVATION ELEMENT 23. Objection Policies 1.2.1, 1.3.1, 1.4.1, 1.6.1, 1.6.2, 1.6.3, 1.6.4, and Objective1.2.0, 1.3.0, 1.4.0, 1.5.0, 1.6.0, 1.8.0, and 1.9.0 are not cleaz, meaningful, and predictable and defer. protection measures to the LDRs. Policy 1.2.1 pertains to maintaining on-site stormwater retenrion/detention criteria of the South Florida Water Management District and Palm Beach County. This policy does not give a description of the implememation criteria, but defers this specification to the LDRs. Policy 1.3.1 pertains to restricting development on Ecosites #61 and #63, which are identified on the Coastal Management/Conservation Map. This policy does not specify what controls are to be used in the restriction of development on this site. Policy 1.4.1 pertains to the protection of mangroves through preservation or mitigation. The wording of this policy is unclear, as it only states, "The Village shall require preservation or mangrove mitigation (i.e. replanting)." The Village does not specify the general criteria used to determine which strategy; preservation or mitigation will be implemented to ensure the protection of mangroves. Policy 1.6.1 pertains to the protection of native wetland vegetation buffers adjacent to the Loxahatchee River and Indian River Lagoon estuaries. The protection measures aze deferred to the LDRs. Policy 1.6.2 pertains to the designation of Ecosites #61 and #63 as environmentally sensitive lands and their protection and preservation. This policy defers the protection measures to the LDRs. Policy 1.6.3 pertains to the restriction of development activities which may effect the survival of endangered species, as well as the mitigation of the development impacts on their habitats. This policy defers all restriction and mitigation criteria to the LDRs. Policy 1.6.4 pertains to the restriction of non-recreational development of park site reservations. This policy defers all implementation measures to the LDRs. Objective 1.2.0 pertains to maintain the recommendations of the Palm Beach County Area-Wide Plans related to the Urban Best Management Practices, and the restriction of off-site stormwater pollutants in accordance with the criteria of the SFWMD. This objective does not describe how the Village intends to implement the recommendations and criteria of these two agencies. Objective 1.3.0 pertains to the preservation of the native vegetation of undeveloped land. This objective defers implementation criteria to the LDRs. 13 Objective 1.4.0 pertains to the preservation of mangroves, except when the proposed use is water- dependent or awater-related land use. This policy defers implementation criteria to the LDRs. Objective1.5.0 pertains to the restriction of public works projects from disturbing mangroves, except in case of public health, safety, and welfare. This policy defers the implementation criteria to the L;DRs. Objective 1.6.0 pertains to the protection of natural wild life area and environmentally sensitive lands. The protection measures are deferred to the LDRs. Objective 1.8.0 pertains to requiring the use of native vegetation for dune stabilization. This policy defers implementation criteria to the LDRs. Objective 1.9.0 pertains to the provision of public access easements for new developments in the coastal azea. The policy defers implementation measures to the LDRs. Section: 163.3177(5); and 163.3177(6)(d), F.S. Rule: 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.003(86); 9J-5.003(95); 9J-5.013(2)(b)2; 9J-5.013(2)(c)1; 9J-5.013(2)(c)3; 9J5.013(2)(c)5; 9J-5.013(2)(c)7; 9J-5.013(2)(c)9, F.A.C. Recommendation Revise the above policies and objectives to provide a general description of the Programs, measures, and activities for protecting natural resources, so as to establish clear, meaningful, and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development. Additionally, provide cleaz language in Policy 1.4.1 to cleazly state the commitment of the Village to the protection of mangroves through preservation or mitigation strategies, and specify the implementation criteria. Response Policy 1.2.1 shall be revised to read as follows: Policies 1.2.1 The Village shall maintain on-site stormwater retention/detentioncriteria established b~ Chanter 62-302, F.AC. and as administered by South Florida Water Management District and Palm Beach County in its land development regulations. Per discussion with DCA staff, Policies 1.3.1, 1.6.1, and 1.6.2 shall remain as written. Policy 1.4.1 shall be revised to read as follows: Policies 1.4.1 The Village shall require preservation or mangrove mitigation (i.e. re-planting) through implementation of its adopted man rg_ove re _ ations. Policy 1.6.3 shall be revised as follows: Policies 1.6.3 The Village shall restrict development activities that may adversely affect the survival of endangered and threatened wildlife species and provide for the mitigation of development impacts on their habitats and food source b~requiring an environmental assessment at the time of a development or re-development proposal as part of the siteplan review process. Policy 1.6.4 shall be deleted from the Comprehensive Development Plan. Objective 1.2.0 shall be revised to read as follows: 14 Objective 1.2.0 Require future development to restrict off-site runoff of stormwater pollutants in accordance with drainage criteria established by the South Florida Water Management District and the Urban Best Management Practices established by area wide plans. Objective 1.3.0 shall be revised to read as follows: Objective 1.3.0 The Village shall maintain landscape regulations that provide for the preservation of a minimum 60% native vegetation that is indigenous to the South Florida area on all new development and re- development areas. Objective 1.4.0 and 1.8.0 shall remain as written due to discussion with DCA staff. Objective 1.5.0 shall be re-written as follows: Objective 1.5.0 Notwithstanding the intent of Policy 1 4 0 of this element, the Village shall continue to restrict public works projects from disturbing existing mangroves except where such work is essential to the continued health. safety and welfare of the public. Objective 1.6.0 shall be revised as written below: Objective 1.6.0 The Village shall protect natural wildlife areas and environmentally sensitive lands by implementing the following policies. Objective 1.9.0 will be re-written as follows: Objective 1.9.0 The Village shall require the dedication of public access easements for new development in the coastal area. 24. Objection Policies 2.11.14 and 2.11.15 address the requirement to protect and conserve wetlands. However, the policies do not contain implementation strategies or criteria. Policy 2.11.14 simply states that wetlands will be protected through a comprehensive planning process with supporting data and analysis without specifying the strategies or measures that will be taken to ensure the protection of wetlands- Policy 2.11.15 states that incompatible uses will be directed away from wetlands or development will undergo a mitigation process. However, the policy does not provide implementation measures for the protection of wetlands. Additionally, the policy states that it would be consistent with Policy 2.13.4 of the same element.. Policy 2.13.4, however, refers to the planting of native trees for aesthetic purposes. The consistency with this policy is unclear. Section: 163.3177(5), F.S. Rule: 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.003(95); 9J-5.013(3)(a); 9J-5.013(3)(b), F.AC. Recommendation Revise Policies 2.11.14 and 2.11.15 to include a general description of the measures and activities foe the protection and conservation of wetlands. Additionally, resolve the inconsistency in Policy 2.11.15 by correcting the reference to Policy 2.13.4. Response The Village of Tequesta is part of the Countywide Wetlands Protection Ordinance, as the Village has not adopted it's own wetland regulations. Therefore, the Village is subject to the countywide regulations. Policies 2.11.13 and 2.11.14 should be deleted and replaced by a new Policy 2.11.13, which incorporates 15 the phrase and terms of the Palm Beach County Wetlands Ordinance. New Policy 2.11.13 shall read as follows: Policies 2.11.13 The Village shall continue to implement the Wetlands Protection Section of the Unified Land Development Code and shall continue to review and comment on wetland alteration applications being reviewed by other agencies to ensure that no activity results in the net loss of wetland values and functions. Ensure that the following steps are taken in order when assessingproposed activities that may result in wetlands impact: 1. Avoidance of wetland impacts. 2. Minimization of unavoidable wetlands impacts and 3. Compensation for wetland impacts through mitigation• Require for any wetland that is degraded or destroyed, that mitigation be provided through the creation of new wetland habitat, through the restoration of degraded habitat, or through the enhancement of functions and values provided by existing habitat Mitigation efforts that include creating new wetland habitat shall be des~ed, constructed, and maintained in a manner which will reflect the habitat beingaltered, d~aded or destroyed; Designate appropriate and inappropriate uses for wetlands including the use of wetlands for wastewater treatment, to ensure that the functions and values of existing wetland systems are maintained or enhanced; Do not allow activities that would diminish the functions and values of wetlands by altering the quantity or timing if water availability to existing wetlands or altering their water regimes; Require, when reviewin~pment activities adiacent to or within wetland areas, that a buffer zone of native vegetation, which may include canopy, understorv and ground cover, as appropriate, be provided and maintained around all wetlands. The area requirements for the buffer zone shall be consistent with the Treasure Coast Strategic Regional Policy Plan• and support wetland creation, restoration, enhancement, and preservation and shall encourage public and private sector initiatives for these efforts. F. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION 25. Objection Policies 1.1.5 and 1.1.6, which pertain to establishing a multi jurisdictional interlocal agreement to coordinate a comprehensive intergovernmental program with the County, surrounding cities, the School Board, SFWMD, and various other agencies, are not present in the plan. However, the policies are not shown to have been deleted from the plan. Additionally, the EAR report recommends that the policies be amended from being time-specific to on going since the agreement has been established. Recommendation Include Policies 1.1.5 and 1.1.6 in the plan, and revise the policies to reflect the EAR recommendation. If the Village's intention is to delete the policies, properly note the deletion in the plan. Response Policies 1.1.5 and 1.1.6 were inadvertently left out of the Plan. They will be reinstated in the Comprehensive Development Plan as sited below: Policy 1.1.5 The Village shall enter into the "Comprehensive Plan Amendment" with its fellow cities, County, School Board South Florida Water Management District and various special districts that opt to participate in a formalized effort to establish a countywide intergovernmental coordination program for reviewing proposed 16 changes to wmprehensive plans of adjacent local governments and the plans of other units of local government providing services but not havingre~ulatory authority over the use of land. Policy 1.1.6 The Village shall enter into the "Multi-Jurisdictional Issues Coordination Forum Interlocal Agreement" with its fellow cities, County, School Board South Florida Water Management District and various special districts that opt to participate in a formalized effort to create a multi jurisdictional issues forum which will facilitate the identification and possible resolution of countywide issues by providing a vehicle for consensus building througl~e joint research of issues and debate on same. G. COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT 26. Objection Objectives 1.1.0, 1.2.0, 1.3.0,2.1.2, 3.1.0, 3.3.0, 4.1.0, 4.2.0, 5.1.0, 5.2.0, 5.3.0, 5.4.0, and 6.1.0 are not clear, meaningful, and predictable, and defer measurements of the coastal management to the LDRs. Objective 1.1.0 pertains to enhancing the coastal environment quality through ordinance related water quality, shoreline stabilization, wetland preservation, and wildlife and habitat protection. This objective defers coastal environment enhancement measures to the LDRs. Objective 1.2.0 pertains to the protection of estuarine water quality and resources. This objective defers the measures of protection to the LDRs. Objective 1.3.0 pertains to the preservation and protection of the existing coastal resources.. This objective defers the measures of protection to the LDRs. Objective 3.1.0 pertains to the identification and protection of mangroves and other environmentally sensitive wetlands. This objective is unclear in the wording. The objective states that the Village will maintain in its ordinances, regulations in enforcing and identifying mangrove.wetlands." This objective does not state what the regulations are enforcing. The objective also defers any protection measures to the LDRs. Objective 3.3.0 pertained to the preservation of mangroves. The criteria and standards for preservation are deferred to the LDRs. Objection 4.1.0 pertains to the prohibition of disturbances of the sea grass beds and productive mangrove and high marsh areas, except for the purposes of public, health, safety and welfare. The measures and criteria for this objective are deferred to the LDRs. Objective 4.2.0 pertains to the limiting of development and redevelopment in the construction of infrastructure in the coastal high-hazard area. The measures and criteria for this objective are deferred to the LDRs. Objective 5.1.0 pertains to the limiting of public expenditures that subsidize development permitted in coastal high hazard areas, with the exception of natural restoration. This objective defers implementation criteria to the LDRs. Objective 5.2.0 pertains to the hurricane evacuation procedures. This objective is not clear in the wording. The wording indicates that the Village wishes to maintain evacuation procedures to reduce evacuation. Additionally, the objective defers any measures to the LDRs. 17 Objective 5.3.0 pertains to the provision of post-disaster redevelopment plans. The general specifications of the plans aze not included in the objective, and the implementations of the plans are deferred to the LDRs. Objective5.4.0 pertains to the protection and preservation of historical resources by an azchaeological and historic review procedure. The general implementation of the procedure is deferred to the LDRs. Objective 6.1.0 pertains to the establishment of Level of Service standazds for beach access, water- dependent land uses, and infrastructure. The LOS standazds are deferred to the LDRs. Section: 163.3177(5); and 163.3177(6)(g), F.S. Rule: 9J-5.003(86); 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.012(3)(b)1; 9J-5.012(3)(b)2; 9J-5.012(3)(b)4; 5; 6; 7; and 11, F.AC. Recommendation Revise the objectives to include a general description of the programs, measures, and activities for coastal protection and management, to provide clear, meaningful, and predictable standards for development. Additionally, reword Objectives3.1.0 and 5.2.0 to cleazly state the intentions of the Village. Response Per discussion with DCA staff, Objectives 1.1.0 and 1.2.0 shall remain as written. Objective 1.3.0 shall be re-written as follows: Obiective 1.3.0 The Village shall continue to preserve and protect existing coastal resources while providing for future water-dependent and water- related land uses by implementing the Policies below. Policy 2.1.2 (identified as Objective 2.1.2, which was wrong) will bedeleted-from the text. It is recommended that Objective 3.1.0 be deleted from the Coastal Management Element because. a revised Policy 1.4.6 in the Future Land Use Element is developed regarding protection and preservation of mangroves. Also, Objective 1.6.0 and Policy 1.6.1 in the Conservation Element address the protection of wetlands. It is recommended that Objective 3.3.0 be deleted as wee due to the new revised Policy 1.4.6 in Future Land Use and it's coverage under Objective 1.4.0 and Policy1.4.1 in the Conservation Element. Objectives in the Coastal Management Element will have to be re-numbered appropriately based on the above-proposed changes. Objective 4.1.0 shall remain the same with no changes, as a result of discussion with DCA staff. Objective 4.2.0 shall be revised to read as follows: Obiective 4.2.0 The Village shall limit development and re-development in the construction of infrastructure in the coastal high-hazazd azea as provided for in Policy 4.2.3. Objective 5.1.0 shall be revised to read as follows: Objective 5.1.0 The Village shall limit public expenditures that subsidizes development permitted in coastal high-hazard areas except for restoration or enhancement of natural resources. Objective 5.2.0 shall be revised to read as follows: 18 Objective 5.3.0 shall be revised to read as follows: Objective 5.3.0 The Village shall~rovide for post-disaster re-development plans which reduce or eliminate the exposure of human life and public and private property to natural hazards. Objective 5.4.0 shall be revised to read as follows: Obiective 5.4.0 Protect and preserve historic resources by_establishing an azchaeological and historic review procedures in the site plan review rp ocess• Per discussion with DCA staff, there are no changes proposed to Objective 6.1.0. 27. Objection Policies 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.3.1, 4.2.3, 5.3.1, and 5.3.2 aze not cleaz, meaningful, and predictable and defer measures to the LDRs. Policy 3.1.1 addresses the preservation and mitigation of existing of mangroves. The policy does not state the criteria used to determine which strategy the Village will employ or how the Village will them. These criteria and specifications aze deferred to the LDRs. Policy 3.1.2 provides for the cooperation by the governmental authorities in the preservation of natural resources. The provisions and criteria of cooperation and preservation aze deferred to the LDRs. Policy 3.1.3 pertains to the restriction of public and mangrove areas, except for reason of public health, safety, and welfare. The restriction standards aze not included in the policy and aze deferred to the LDRs. Additionally, the Village does not specify exactly what is to be restricted from the areas. Policy 3.3.1 pertains to the protection of mangrove areas. The policy defers protection to the LDRs. Policy 4.2.3 pertains to the providing regulations regarding the relocation, mitigation, or replacement within the coastal high-hazazd area. The policy does not specify exactly what is to be relocated, mitigated, or replaced. Additionally, and measures are deferred to the LDRs. Policy 5.3.1 addresses the immediate and long-term repair and cleanup actions. The policy does not contain any measures for the distinction, and defers to the LDRs. Policy 5.3.2 provides for the general hazard mitigation of regulation of flood plains and beach and dune alterations. This policy defers all measures to the LDRs. Section: 163.3177(5), 163.3177(6)(g), F.S. Rule: 9J-5.003(95); 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.012(3)(c)1; 2; 3; 5; 7; 9; 15, F.A.C. Recommendation Revise the above policies to provide a general description of the specific activities and implementation strategies to be employed, so as to provide cleaz, meaningful, and predictable standazds for development. Additionally, revise policies 4.2.3 and 3.2.3 to cleazly state the intentions of the Village, as well as specific guidelines as described above. Response It is recommended that Policy 3.1.1 be deleted because of the newly proposed Policy 1.4.6 in Future Land Use Element and because it is addressed in the Conservation Element in Objective 1.4.0 and Policy 1.4.1. It is recommended that Policy 3.1.2 be deleted because it is already addressed in the Conservation Element in Objective 2.11.0 and Policy 2.11.1. 19 It is recommended that Policy 2.1.3 be deleted because it is addressed in the Conservation Element in Objective 1.5.0. It is recommended that Policy 3.3.1 be deleted because it is addressed in the Conservation Element, Policy 1.3.2. The Policies will have to be re-numbered based on the Proposed changes stated above. Policy 4.2.3 shall be revised to read as follows: Policy 4 2 3 The relocation, mitigation or replacement of infrastructure within the coastal high hazard area shall be prioritized when State funding is anticipated to be needed as follows' 1 When the general health, safety and welfare of the community is directly impacted the use of state funding shall be for replacement of infrastructure 2 When the general health, safety and welfare is not directly impacted, mitigation of infrastructure can be considered while relocation of infrastructure shall be the lowest of priorities when using State funds Policies 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 shall be combined into one Policy as follows: Policv 5 3 1 The Village shall distinguish between immediate repair and clean-up action needed to protect the public health and safety and long term repair and re-development activities by abiding_by the following criteria and procedures: 1. Mobilize Village crews contractors and appropriate entities to assess and re-activate essential services (e g power, water, sewer roads cable telephone etc) as part of the immediate repair and clean-up activities• 2 Issue press release to establish a hotline for impacted residents and businesses to assess post disaster damages and send out "Disaster Relief Information Forms" directly to residents and businesses to help assess same• 3 Cooperate and coordinate with FEMA DCA and the PBC Department of Public Safety Division of Emergency Management to perform on-site inspection of damages; 4. Based on the previous activities perform the final repair and re-development of damaged facilities and: 5 The Village shall seek post-disaster redevelopment funds to offset local costs of post-disaster re-development activities H. CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 28. Objection The proposed comprehensive plan does not meet the minimum requirements of 9J-5.0055, which states that the Village must adopt as a component of the comprehensive plan, objectives, policies, and standards for the establishment of a concurrency management system that will ensure that the issuance of a development order or permit is conditioned on the availability of public facilities and services for the new development. The proposed comprehensive plan does not contain objectives, policies, or standards for the requirement. Section: 9J-5.0055(1)(b) et.seq., F.AC. Recommendation Include objectives, policies and standards to provide a concurrency management system that ensures that the issuance of a development order or permit is conditioned of the availability of public facilities and services to serve the new development. Response 20 The Village shall add to the Capital Improvements Element an Objective 1.7.0 and Policies under the Objective to meet the recommendation. Obiective 1.7.0 The Village shall maintain a concurrenc~mana eg ment system to ensure that public facilities and services to support development are available concurrent with the impact of development Policy 1 7 1 For sanitary sewer solid waste drainage and potable water facilities, at a minimum, the Village shall meet the following standards to satisfy the concurrence requirements: 1.A development order or permit is issued subject to the condition that. at the time of the issuance of a certificate of oceupancv or its functional equivalent. the necessary facilities and services are in place and available to serve the new development or 2.At the time the development order or permit is issued the necessary facilities and services are guaranteed in an enforceable development a_ ~'eement, pursuant to Section 163 3220 Florida Statutes or an ee t r devel men order i sued,pwsuant to Chapter 38D ment at the time of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent. {Section 163.3180(2)(a), Florida Statutes} Policv 1.7.2 For parks and recreation facilities at a minimum, the Village shall meet the following standards to satisfy the concurrency requirement: 1.At the time the development order or permit is issued the necessary facilities and services are in place or under actual construction- or 2.A development order orpernut is issued subject to the condition that at the time of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent, the acreage for the necessary facilities and services to serve the new development is dedicated or acquired by the Village or funds in the amount of the developer's fair share are committed- and a. A development order or Hermit is issued subject to the conditions that the necessary facilities and services needed to serve the new development are scheduled to be in place or under actual construction not more than one year after issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional 'valent as rovided in the ado ed local overnment 5- year schedule of capital improvements- or b. At the time the development order or permit is issued, the necessa~ facilities and services are the subject of a bindingexecuted a ement which requires the necessary facilities and services to serve the new development to be in place or under actual construction not more than one year after issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent; or c. At the time the development order or permit is issued, the necessary facilities and services are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement, pursuant to Section 163 3220 Florida Statutes, or an agreement or development order issued pursuant to 21 Chapter 380, Florida Statutes to be in place or under actual construction not more than one ear after issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent SSection 163 3180(2)tb) Flonda Statutesl Polic 1.7.3 Trans rtation facilities roads and mass transit desi ted in the adopted Village Comprehensive Plan) at a minimum, the Villaee shall meet the followm standards to sates the concurren requirement. except as otherwise provided in subsections (4) (7) of this section. 1. At the time a develo ment order or nnit is issu the necessa facilities and services are in lace or under construction- or 2. A develo ment order or rmit is issued sub'ect to the conditions that the necessa facilities and services needed to serve the new develo ment are scheduled to be in lace or under actual construction not more than three ears after issuance of a certificate of occu or its functional equivalent as provided in the local government five year schedule of capital improvements The schedule of capital improvements may reco~e and include transportation tnoiects mcluded m the first three ears of the a licable ado ed Florida Department of Transportation five-year work proer~m The Capital Improvements Element must mclude the followine policies a. The estimated date of commencement of actual construction and the estimated date of proiect completion b. A provision that a plan amendment is required to eliminate defer or delay construction of any road or mass transit facility or service which is needed to mamtam the ado ted level of service standard and which is listed in the five-year schedule of capital improvements or 3. At the time a develo ment order or nnit is issu the necessa facilities and services are the sub'ect to a bindin executed a Bement which re wires the necessa facilities and services to serve the new development to be in place or under actual construction no more than three years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent: or 4. At the time a develo ment order or rnut is issu the neces facilities and services are anteed in an enforceable develo ment agreement pursuant to Section 163 3220 Florida Statutes or an agreement or development order issued pursuant to Chapter 380 Florida Statutes to be m lace or under actual construction not more than three nears after issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional urvalent. fSection 163 3180(2)(c) Florida Statutesl 22 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, ADOPTED IN 1989, IN RELATION TO ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN THE VILLAGE'S 1996 EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED, SO AS TO INCORPORATE NEW, REVISED AND/OR UPDATED TEXT, TABLES, MAPS, FIGURES, ANALYSIS, AS WELL AS GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES IN THE INTRODUCTION, FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT, INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT, COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT, CONSERVATION ELEMENT, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT, INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT, CAPITAL IIvIPROVEMENT ELEMENT, PLAN MONITORING AND EVALUATION SECTION RELATING TO CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER TEXTUAL AMENDMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS; ALL IN RELATION TO ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN THE VILLAGE'S 1996 EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR); PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, being the. Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, the Village of Tequesta may adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency of the Village has held public hearings to make recommendations to the Village Council and has recommended the adoption of the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan contained herein; and WHEREAS, the Village Council at its regular meeting held on June 10, 1999, wishes to approve and adopt the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan incorporated herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT ORDAINED BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Village Council does hereby amend the 1989 Comprehensive Plan of the Village of Tequesta in relation to items identified in the Village's 1996 Evaluation and Appraisal Report and in accordance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulations Act, as amended, so as to incorporate new, revised and/or updated text, tables, maps, figures, analysis, as well as goals, objectives and policies in the Introduction, Future Land Use Element, Transportation Element, Housing Element, Infrastructure Element, Coastal Management Element, Conservation .Element, Recreation and Open Space Element, Intergovernmental Coordination Element, Capital Improvements Element, Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Section relating to consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan and Public Participation Program Requirements, and other textual amendments and modifications, all as attached hereto which is hereby adopted and_incorpgrated by this Ordinance as if fully set forth herein. Section 2. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. Section 3. If any court or competent jurisdiction holds any word, part, section, paragraph or provision hereof to be unlawful or unconstitutional, such ruling or finding shall not affect the remaining portions of this Ordinance, which shall remain in full force and effect. Section 4. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon passage. PASSED UPON FIRST READING THE DAY OF 1999. PASSED AND ADOPTED UPON SECOND READING THE FOLLOWING HEARING THE DAY OF 1999. VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, FLORIDA Mayor Vice Mayor Council Member Council Member Council Member ATTEST: Clerk