Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 08B_03/04/1999~ 02!23!1999 15:06 4076941591 VII.LAGE OF TEQUESTA Pose Office Box 3273 • 250 Tequesca Drive • Suire 300 Tequesra, Florida 33469-0273 (561) 575-6200 Fa~c (56]) 575-6203 VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA VILLAGE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY WORKSHOP (VILLAGE COUNCIL SITTING AS THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY) MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 4,1999 I. CALL TO ORDBR AND ROLL CALL PAGE 01 ~~ The Tequesta Local Planning Agency held a meeting at the Village Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, on Thursday, Februazy 4, 1999. The meeting was called to order at 5:03 P.M. by Mayor Elizabeth A. Schauer. A roil call was taken by Joann Manganiello, Village Clerk. Councilmembers present were: Mayor Blizabeth A. Schauer, and Councilmembers Joseph N. Capretta and Ron T. Mackail. Also in attendance were Village Manager Thomas G. Bradford, Village Clerk Joann Manganieilo, and Department Heads. .Absent from the meeting were Councilmember Alexander w. Cameron and Vice Mayor Carl C. Hansen. II. APPROVAL OF AGSIIDA Councilmember >l~ackail made a motion to approrre the Agenda ae 8u~itted. Counci].m~e®ber Capretta seconded the motion. The vote oa the motion nas: glizabeth A. Schauer - for Joseph M. Capretta - for Ron T. lsackatil - for 02/23/1999 15:06 40?6941591 PAGE 02 Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes February 4, 1999 Page 2 The motion Kas th®refore passed aad adopted aad the Ageada ~+as approved as submitted. III. CO~DTICATIONS F~tOM CITIZDTS (1vODT-AQSl1DA IT~68) There were no communications from citizens. IV. PII$LIC BSA~tINd RSVI$11 OH VILLAC38 OF TNQOSSTA•8 PROPOSED BSSPOWSSS TO TSS DSPARI'!t@!QT OF COi®[QNITY AFFAI~tB (DCA) OBaTBCTIO~TS, R?ZCO~DATIONS AND COMN~TPS RNBOftT (OftC) A) A brief overvieM of Evaluations aad Appraisal report (~) Eased Ameadmeat$ Statue to date. 8) 8evie~ of DCA•B Objections, Recc®miendatioas and Caemeats Report and the Village's Etespoases to DCA O~tC 8eport. C) Coos~eats from LpA regarding Village's proposed respoases to O8C 8eport. Consultant Jack xorniman explained that the current Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1989, required an update every five years. The plan was to be updated based upon the BAR report submitted to and approved by the State. Changes were made and reviewed by the State, with comments and objections provided to the Village in the SRC report. The Village's answers to those comments and objections would be sent to the Department of Conoa~unity Affairs (DCA}_ Mr. Horniman explained there was very little comment on the substance of the plan. The major part of the objections were to policies adopted in the original Comprehensive Plan stated to be accomplished by a certain date, and the Village responded in the TAR that those had been done. The Villages proposal was to 02!23!1999 15:06 4076941591 PAGE 03 Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes February 4 , 1999 Page 3 change those policies from something that had been accomplished to an ongoing requirement, and therefore responded in the following manner: Continue to enforce .... ordinance. The State reported there had been a number of administrative hearings with precedents set so that the language must include standards and criteria for each item continued. Pte'. Horniman reported most of the State's objections were dealing with this type of situation. Imo'. Hornirnan reported he had held a series of telephone conversations with staff and DCA, and had reviewed every objection to determine the proper response. Mayor Schauer questioned Mr. Horniman whether DCA could be notified in regard to Policy 1.15.1 that the Village had tried to annex Anchorage Point and that the annexation had failed. Mr. Horniman responded this policy was to have been deleted, referred to page 5 and 6 of the update report which indicated it would be deleted, and stated DCA had been told that the attempt to annex Anchorage Point had failed. rzayor Schauer questioned Mr. Horniman in regard to Objection 15 concerning promoting the use of bicycles and walking, which was stated to be inadequate. Mr. Horniman explained DCA had agreed to the re-written policies in regard to transportation. Mayor Schauer questioned how the Village would encourage programs for affordable housing in regard to Objection 19, Policy 1.2.2, to which Mr. Horniman responded the village participated in the Countywide program through population base. Mr. Horniman explained that Objection 20, Policy 1.2.5, was background and support for the plan, which was an explanation for DCA since they had originally misinterpreted the numbers. Councilmember Capretta requested an example of a 02/23/1999 15:06 4076941591 PAGE 04 Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Nesting Minutes February 4, 1999 Page 4 particular case where DCA had asked for detailed criteria and the Village had responded with the detailed criteria. Mr. xorniman referred to Objection 6 of the updated report in which DCA had requested further clarification of a storm flood zone, and standards and criteria for construction. Anew policy 1.7.4 had been added stating the standards far construction. An objection to Policy 1.1.7 had been initiated by Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council as a result of an objection from ENCON regarding septic tanks, which Mr. Horniman explained had been re-written in the language requested, which contained nothing contrary to the original statement. Councilmember Capretta commented he had previously suggested a program to measure to see if any septic tanks were discharging into the river, which would have to be done if the Village won the case regarding delaying the sewering for three years. Mr. Horniman stated that Policy 1.1.7 should be corrected to read: The current utilization of septic tanks within the village is deemed to be an acceptable alternat#ve presuming State water quality standards are met. If State standarde are not being met, a central sanitary sewer system must be provided. Councilmember Capretta questioned the Village s position regarding low-cost housing, when 250 new rental units were going to be constructed which were not. low priced. Mr. xorniman explained that the Village had been able to demonstrate low and moderate income relative to the local situation, through census tracking information, and that was how the Village had been able to qualify for funding for the drainage improvement project. Mr. xorniman commented that low and moderate in this area was different than. low and moderate in other areas. Councilmember Mackail questioned how disasters affecting non-conforming use properties applied to the plan, to which Mr. Horniman responded the non-conforming uses were defined within the Zoning ordinance and allowed a certain time for reconstruction. If the time allowed for 0~/23i1999 15:06 40?6941591 PAGE 05 Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes February 4, 1999 Page 5 ------------------ reconstruction was not met then the non-conforming use would revert to the new regulations. Director of Community Development Scott D. Ladd explained that if a non-conforming use property was destroyed more than 50$ of its assessed value then it must be brought up to a conforming use. The same was true of a non-conforming building, which if destroyed more than 50'~ of its assessed value, must be brought up to building codes. If a non-conforming use were abandoned for more than 90 days, the use would revert to that allowed within the zoning district. Mr. Ladd explained that the .only objections in this area that the State had ever made were in the coastal areas. Mr. Horniman and Mr. Ladd agreed the Village was in good standing regarding this issue. Mr. Horniman explained how new criteria could be written for non-conforming lots so that they would conform to current code. Mr. Ladd discussed a non-conforming lot owned by Mr. Hernandez currently existing within the Village, on which something was allowed to be built. Only one other lot, a small commercial property, was non- conforming. Village Manager Bradford requested review of Policy 1.1.7; questioned the use of the word presuming, and recommended substituting in the event that. The village Manager stated if someone announced State water quality standards were not being met, the way the policy was written, that would automatically trigger removal of septic tanks when the water quality standards could be reduced by virtue of upstream pollution not associated with property within the Village of Tequesta. Discussion ensued. The final wording was as follows: The current utilization of septic tanks within the Village is deerrred to be an acceptable alternative in the event that State water quality standards are being met, In the event that State water quality standards are not being met due to septic tank degradation as determined by ©2/23/1999 15: D6 4©76941591 PAGE 06 Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minute$ February 4, 1999 Page 6 official State DSP findings, a central sanitary sewer system must be provided in the areas subject to the findings. Village Manager Bradford questioned whether the response to Policy 1.12.1 was so detailed that it would make a variance difficult. Mr. Horni.man responded it would not because it would still be subject to the Village ordinance. Mr. Horniman commented regarding the conservation Coastal Zone that a lot of explaining had to be done because the village was subject to several county-wide ordinances for which the State had requested standards and criteria, which the Village could not provide since these were not village ordinances. Mr. Horniman explained how response language had been written to be acceptable to the State. During ensuing discussion, Mr. Ladd explained that the Village wished to be included under many of the county~s ordinances because of the costs which the Village would have to pay if they had their own ordinances. Mayor Schauer questioned whether the Village planned to object to the Town of Jupiter~s western corridor. Village Manager Bradford explained that Jupiter's amendment proposed construction of the corridor as set forth in mediation. Mr. Horniman commented it was a County road; therefore, Jupiter could make very little comment. Mr. Horniman also commented that the county's plan indicated the Central Boulevard area was not to be resolved until after the western corridor was built; however, most of that land was owned by the MacArthur Foundation, who was in the process of selling it, causing scenarios of development to change. D) Public Co~nmeats Hattie Siegel, 498 Dover Road, asked whether State « 02/23/1999 15:06 4076941591 PAGE 0? Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes February 4, 1999 Page 7 ------------------ statutes were being followed and what the penalty would be for not following those statutes. Mr. Horniman responded State statutes were being followed and the penalty for not doing so would be that the State would not grant compliance of the village's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Horniman explained that final comments had not been received and he expected a few more comments to be received. Discussion ensued regarding when the Village Council would accept the LPA's recommendation. Mr. Horniman explained that could be done at the next Village Council meeting and if there were a couple more comments later then those could be heard aC a regular meeting. Preference was to wait until the March meeting of the village Council, or until after final comments were received. S) LPA recammaeadatioa (s ) to the village Council regarding proposed Viilage•s responses to O8C Report Couacilme4ober Mackail made a motion to recommmead to the village Council that they approve the reapoaaaes to the ORC ~teport. Cowncilmem:ber Capretta seconded the motion. The vote on the swtioa Mas: gii~abeth A. Schauer - for Joseph W. Capretta - for Aa~a T. xackail - for The motion Nas therefore passed sad adopted. v. ANY OTSS~t DfATTB~s There were no other matters to come before the Local Planning Agency. • 02/23/1999 15:06 a0?6941591 PAGE 09 ~. Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes February 4, 1999 Page 8 VI. ADJOIIR~I~dBN'P Couacilmember Mackail made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion Mas seconded by Couacilmember Capretta. The vote oa the motion .gas: $liaabeth A. Schauer - for Joseph Z1. Capretta - for xoa T. ~[ackail - for The motion +ras therefore passed and adopted and the meeting eras adjourned at 6:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Joann Manganiello, Village Clerk Acting Recording Secretary ATTEST: Joann Manganiello village Clerk DATE APPROVED: 02x23/1999 15:06 4076941591 _ VII.LAGE OF TEQUESTA Pou Office Box 3273 • 250 Tcquesta Drive • Suite 300 ,~O Tcqueua, Florida 33469-0273 (561) 575-6200 Fax: (561) 575-G203 VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA VILLAGE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY WORKSHOP (VILLAGE COUNCIL SITTING AS THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY) MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 4,1999 I. CALL TO ORDSR AND ROLL CALL -~PA-~G7E-~ 01 The Tequesta Local Planning Agency held a meeting at the Village Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, on Thursday, February 4, 1999. The meeting was called to order at 5:03 P.M. by Mayor $lizabeth A. Schauer. A roll call was taken by Joann Manganiello, Village Clerk. Councilmembers present were: Mayor Blizabeth A. Schauer, and Councilmembers Joseph N. Capretta and Ron T. Mackail. Also in attendance were village Manager Thomas G. Bradford, village Clerk Joann Manganiello, and bepartment Heads. Absent from the meeting were Councilmember Alexander w. Cameron and Vice Mayor Carl C. Hansen_ II. APPROVAL OF AGBbiDA Councilmember ]la<a-ckail made a motion to approve the Agenda as emitted. Cottncilm~eoalber Capretta seconded the motion. The vote on the motion eras: 811xabeth A. Schauer - for Joseph M. Capretta - for Ron T. ~[atckatil - for 02/23/1999 15:06 40?6941591 PAGE 02 Village Local Planning .Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes February 4, 1999 Page 2 The motion eras therefore passed sad adopted aad the Ageada was approved as submitted. III. COMSO~TICATIO~TS 8'R~ CITIZDTS (1!~ODT-A(38NDA IT~fl3~ There were no communications from citizens. IV. PIIBLIC 8'SAHINO 88VIS11 OF YILLAC3S OF TBQVSSTA' 8 PHOPOSHIt RSSPO~YSFS TO TSB DSPARTMSIQT OF COi®[Q1~ITY AFFAIRS (DCA) 08.TSCT14~TS, TIOSS AND C~lITS RSPORT (ORC) A) A brief overview of LCvaluatioas aad Appraisal Report ($AR) Saaed Ameadmeats Status to date. 8) HevieM of DCA•s Objections, RecamQeadations and Comments report asid the Village's Responses to DCA OEtC Report. C) Ca®eats from LPA regarding village's proposed responses to ORC Report_ Consultant Jack Horniman explained that the current Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1989, required an update every five years. The plan was to be updated based upon the EAR report submitted to and approved by the State. Changes were made and reviewed by the State, with comments and objections provided to the Village in the ORC report. The Village's answers to those comments and objections would be sent to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA} _ Mr. Horniman explained there was very little comment on the substance of the plan. The major part of the objections were to policies adopted in the original Comprehensive Plan stated to be accomplished by a certain date, and the Village responded in the BAR that those had been done. The Village's proposal was to 02/3/1999 15:06 4076941591 PAGE 03 Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes February 4, I999 Paq® 3 change those policies from something that had been accomplished to an ongoing requirement, and therefore responded in the following manner: Continue to enforce .... ordinance. The State reported there had been a number of administrative hearings with precedents set so that the language must include standards and criteria for each item continued. Mr. Horniman reported most of the State's objections were dealing with this type of situation. Mr. Horniman reported he had held a series of telephone conversations with staff and DCA, and had reviewed every objection to determine the proper response. Mayor Schauer questioned Mr. Horniman whether DCA could be notified in regard to Policy 1.15.1 that the Village had tried to annex Anchorage Point and that the annexation had failed. Mr. Horniman responded this policy was to have been deleted, referred to page 5 and 6 of the update report which indicated it would be deleted, and stated DCA had been told that the attempt to annex Anchorage Point had failed. mayor Schauer questioned Mr. Horniman in regard to Objection 15 concerning promoting the use of bicycles and walking, which was stated to be inadequate. Mr. Horniman explained DCA had agreed to the re-written policies in regard to transportation. Mayor Schauer questioned how the Village would encourage programs for affordable housing in regard to Objection 19, Policy 1.2.2, to which Mr. Horniman responded the village participated in the Countywide program through population base. Mr. Horniman explained that Objection 20, Policy 1.2,5, was background and support for the plan, which was an explanation for DCA since they had originally misinterpreted the numbers. Councilmember Capretta requested an example of a 02123'1999 15:06 4076941591 PAGE 04 Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Nesting Minutes February 4, 1999 Page 4 particular case where DCA had asked for detailed criteria and the Village had responded with the detailed criteria. Mr. Horniman referred to Objection 6 of the updated report in which DCA had requested further clarification of a storm flood zone, and standards and criteria for construction. Anew policy 1.7.4 had been added stating the standards for construction. An objection to Policy 1.1.7 had been initiated by Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council as a result of an objection from ENCON regarding septic tanks, which Mr. Horniman explained had been re-written in the language requested, which contained nothing contrary to the original statement. Councilmember Capretta commented he had previously suggested a program to measure to see if any septic tanks were discharging into the river, which would have to be done if the village won the case regarding delaying the sewering for three years. Mr. Horniman stated that Policy 1.1.7 should be corrected to read: The current utilization of septic tanks within the village is deemed to be an acceptable alternative presuming State water quality standards are met. Zf State standards are not being met, a central sanitary sewer system must be provided. Councilmember Capretta questioned the village s position regarding low-cost housing, when 250 new rental units were going to be constructed which were not low priced. Mr. Horniman explained that the village had been able to demonstrate law and moderate income relative to the local situation, through census tracking information, and that was how the village had been able to qualify for funding for the drainage improvement project. Mr. Horniman commented that low and moderate in this area was different than. low and moderate in other areas. Councilmember Mackail questioned how disasters affecting non-conforming use properties applied to the plan, to which Mr. Horniman responded the non-conforming uses were defined within the Zoning ordinance and allowed a certain time for reconstruction. If the time allowed for ~, ©2/23/1999 15:D6 4©76941591 PAGE 05 Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes February 4, 1999 Page 5 ------------------ reconstruction. was not met then the non-conforming use would revert to the new regulations. Director of Community Development Scott D. Ladd explained that if a non-conforming use property was destroyed more than 50$ of its assessed value then it must be brought up to a conforming use. The same was true of a non-conforming building, which if destroyed more than 50'~ of its assessed value, must be brought up to building codes. if a non-conforming use were abandoned for more than 90 days, the use would revert to that allowed within the zoning district. Mr. Ladd explained that the .only objections in this area that the State had ever made were in the coastal areas. Mr. Horniman and Mr. Ladd agreed the village was in good standing regarding this issue_ MC. Horniman explained how new criteria could be written for non-conforming lots so that they would conform to current code. Mr. Ladd discussed a non-conforming lot owned by Mr. Hernandez currently existing within the Village, on which something was allowed to be built. only one other lot, a small commercial property, was non- conf orming , village Manager Bradford requested review of Policy 1.1.7; questioned the use of the word presuming, and recommended substituting in the event that. The Village Manager stated if someone announced State water quality standards were not being met, the way the policy was written, that would automatically trigger removal of septic tanks when the water quality standards could be reduced by virtue of upstream pollution not associated with property within the Village of Tequesta. Discussion ensued. The final wording was as follows: The current utilization of septic tanks within the Village is deemed to be an acceptable alternative in the event that State watex quality standards are being met. In the event that State water quality standards are not being ~t due to septic tank degradation as detezmfned by 02/23/1999 15:06 4076941591 PAGE 06 Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes February 4, 1999 Page 6 officia.Z State DSP findings, a central sanftary sewer system must be provfded in the areas subject to the findings. Village Manager Bradford questioned whether the response to Policy 1.12.1 was so detailed that it would make a variance difficult. Mr. Horniman responded it would not because it would still be subject to the Village ordinance. Mr. Horniman commented regarding the Conservation Coastal zone that a lot of explaining had to be done because the Village was subject to several county-wide ordinances for which the State had requested standards and criteria, which the village could not provide since these were not village ordinances. Mr. Horniman explained how response language had been written to be acceptable to the State. During ensuing discussion, Mr. Ladd explained that the Village wished to be included under many of the county's ordinances because of the costs which the Village would have to pay if they had their own ordinances. Mayor Schauer questioned whether the Village planned to object to the Town of Jupiter's western corridor. Village Manager Bradford explained that Jupiter's amendment proposed construction of the corridor as set forth in mediation. Mr. Horniman commented it was a County road; therefore, Jupiter could make very little comment. Mr. Aorniman also commented that the county•s plan indicated the Central Boulevard area was not to be resolved until after the western corridor was built; however, most of that land was owned by the MacArthur Foundation, who was in the process of selling it, causing scenarios of development to change. D) Public Cam~o~eats Hattie Siegel, 498 Dover Road, asked whether State 02/23/1999 15:06 4076941591 PAGE 07 Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes February 4, 1999 Page 7 statutes were being followed and what the penalty would be for not following those statutes. Mr. Horniman responded State statutes were being followed and the penalty for not doing so would be that the State would not grant compliance of the village's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Horniman explained that final comments had not been received and he expected a few more comments to be received. Discussion ensued regarding when the Village Council would accept the LPA's recommendation. Mr. Horniman explained that could be done at the next village Council meeting and if there were a couple more comments later then those could be heard at a regular meeting. Preference was to wait until the March meeting of the village Council, or until after final comments were received. S) LPA racammoneadatioa (a) to the Village Council regarding proposed villages responses to oitC Report Councilmeaober Mackail made s motion to reco®end to the village Council that they approve the responses to the ORC iteyort. Covacilme:nber Capretta seconded the motion. The vote oa the notion Mas: 8lizabeth A. Schauer - for Joseph ]~. Cspretta - for icon T. ]~ackail - for The motion Mae therefore passed sad adopted. v. AWY oTHRR MATTSita There were no other matters to come before the Local Planning Agency. i. 02/23/1999 15:06 40?6941591 Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes February 4, 1999 Page 8 ----- ------------- VI. ADJOIIR~'P PAGE 09 Couacilmember Mackail made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion acs seconded by Couaci3.m~ber Capretta. The vote an the action Hass $lizabeth A. Schauer for Joseph l~. Capretta - for Ron T. Mstckail - far The action Kas therefore passed and adopted cad the meeting Eras adjourned at 6:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Joann Manganiello, Village Clerk Acting Recording Secretary ATTEST : Joann Manganiello village Clerk DATE APPROVED: