Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Regular_09/24/1974MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF ~~' THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 24, 1974 The second Regular Council Meeting for September was held at 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, September 24, 1974 in the Village Hall. Councilmembers present were: Little, Jones, Leone, Campbell and Taylor. Also present were Robert Harp, Village Manager and John C. Randolph, Village Attorney. The meeting was opened .with Prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flab by. Mayor Little. Taylor moved, seconded by Leone that the Council Meeting be ajourned at 11:QO P.M. due to the lenghty,agenda. Campbell moved, seconded by Taylor and unanimously passed that the minutes of the September 10, 1974 Public Hearing be appr©ved. Campbell moved, seconded by Taylor that the • minutes of September 10, 1974 Council Meeting be approved with two corrections. Campbell brought out an error on page 132, paragraph 3 to be corrected to read, is the ocean sinking or is Florida rising? Taylor made a correction on page 13.1, paragraph 3 to read, ttthe officers of the Assoc- iation". The Village Manager reviewed the receipts and expenditures for the eleven (11) month period ending August 31, 1974. Leone moved, seconded by Taylor that the Financial Statement for August,. 1974_. be approved, the motion was unanimously passed. Balance on hand August 31, 1974 were: First National Bank 8c Trust Co. $ 36,291.00 Petty Cash 25.00 Community Federal Savings & Loam 12,000.00 Fidelity Federal Savings 8c.Loan- 1$,36$.00 Certificates of Deposit 240,000.00 U.S. Treasury Bills 3. 341,02 .35 The Sinking Fund balance was $11.27.00 13~ 9-z4-74 - z The next item was conderation of ~ Resolution to support Palm Beach CQUrrty f:n efforts to continue beach preservation and restor$~~.Qn.program Mr. Herb Kahlert, Palm Beach County Engineer reviewed the Beach Preservation and Restoration Program and answered various question from the Councilmembers. Mr. Kahlert advised the Councilmembers that the deadline for the project had been removed to allow more time for contacting affected muni~.palities. Camc~ibell stated that so far the money put-into beach restoration zs~not~worth it. Mr. Kahlert then went over Delray Ts beach restoration program and asked that the program be adopted so that the~eaunty end Cities will get together on the restoration of the beaches. Campbell asked where the money would come fr~m,,Mr. Kahlert acknowledged that.'~5~ of the cost would probably. be paid for by the municipalities. Taylor wanted to know where in Florida has the program been successful. Mr. Kahlert said-that the Delray program has been very successful but there is not a program like this in any other part of the United States. Campbell said the best way to improve the beach is not to do anything. Taylor wanted to know where,Campbell got the facts to base her statement on. Campbell stated she got her in- formation from sources she--had at hand. Leone gave a report on Long Beach Island and how: they restored the ~ beaches by using Christmas-trees. Mayor Little wanted just wants:~stzpport for t~ make it clear that Mr. Kahlert_- • , , the°;prograin.` Mr. Kahlert agreed. Campbell went through the cost and wanted to know how much the government would pay. Little asked if the research-would be dropped if they found that naturres way of healing was best, Mr. Kahlert answered,; yew:: Campbell: moved not. to support Palm Beach County in their Beach Restoration~and~_Preservation efforts, seconded by Jones. The vote: on the motion was: Taylor - Against Campbell -.For Jones - For Little - Against Leone - Against and the motion was therefore defeated. The next item on the agenda was the proposed Tequesta Drive Improvements. Mr. A.F. Meeks, consulting engineer from Robert E. Owens & Associates, gave a summary of the study made on the improvement to Tequesta Drive. He explained there are approximately 15,000 people in Jupiter-Tequesta now and that figure is expected to jump to 17,000 by 1975, and to more than double by 1990• The proposed median strip would be six (6) wide. Taylor asked ~ if anything could be planted in-the median strip, how long the strip would be and the co"st Mr. Meeks said that the 139 9-24-74 -3 planting of the plants and the cost-of installing irrig- ation supply was not in the plans, but they could find ov.t" if this could be done . The cost of the addition would be around $20,000. The cost of the improvements had gone up about 5~ and the total cost would be around $300,000. The pro 'ect would take one (1) pear to ca®plete, eight f$) to nine ~9) month if the road would be closed. It would include two (2) traffic lanes in each direction, turning lanes, concrete median strip, widening of Alternate AlA, sewer drainage and relocation of the Railroad signals ~n Tequesta Drive. Campbell asked Chief Dusenberry if there had been an increase of accidents on Tequesta Drive. He stated only 5 or 10 percent cif accidents happen on Tequesta Drive. Campbell said. that people don't use Tequesta Drive an much beca-use of the energy crisis. -She also wanted to know if the°Railroad had acknowledged::' our req~ st. Mr. Meeks informed Campbell that the Rail- road would not react until the-city had approved the program and presented them with plans for the proposed construction. Taylor brought tzp the fact that there are 250 units under construction on Cypress Drive, plan- ned construction for Seabrook., County property and other lands still open for building. Jones wanted to know. if the road was improved if this..,wouldp't cause more people to use the roads. Nlr. Meeks statecl~there was limited roads for other p®ople to use. Mr."W.E. Dunham of the Tequesta AsSOCiation of Voters and `Taxpayers read a • letter from the Association. ° The letter stated various reasons against the construction-such as, the road would become a race-way, the beauty of the entrance would become an asphalt desert, and-that there isn't really a need for it. The letter suggested--that Tequesta Drive be used as a one-~u~Ty ~. road,: and use alternate roads such as, Bridge Road, Riverside Drive and Cypress Drive. Mr. Leone asked about water drainage and what did ETVCON have to do with it. E~cON is to Deer-see any drainage being done, Mr. Meeks replied, and that we need new drainage if it remains two (2) lanes or increases to four (~,.) lanes. ^` Mr. Kahlert brought out the point ;that there is money for the four laving part of the Old Dixie and work is proceeding on the acquisition of the right-of-way on both sides of the intersection. Taylor moved that the plans for improvements to Tequesta Drive be approved with the provision that modification be made for treatment of the center strip, seconded by Leone. The vote on the motion was as follows: Taylor - For Campbell - Against Jove s - Against Little - Against Leone - For- the motion therefore did not pass. 1~.0 9-z4-74 -4 Campbell suggested that the Tequesta Drive project not be dropped now but that alternatives be looked at. Little asked Mr. reeks if the proposed plans could be adapted Mr. Meeks advised of the submission of plans for improvemefits with a 1®sser scope several years ago and said he would provide the<Council with copies to review and he would then discuss what they would like to have and then cost proposals-could b$ computed. The Village A~anager gave second reading, by Title Only, Annexing Several Parcels of Land, owned by Shay, Bagdon and Niayi~r, to ~ the Territorial Limits of the Village. Leone moved that the second reading of the Ordinance be approved, seconded by Taylor. The vote on the motion was: Taylor - For Campbell - For Jones - For Little< e For Leone - For the second reading of the ordinance was approved, and first reading of the Ordinance _havng ~i.een approved August 27, 1974 Ordinance No. 222 was tberafare passed and adopted. • Mr. Randolph,•Village Attorney, then suggested the Council agree for Mr. Paul Hardy to sell his yard brash collection franchise to Nichols Sanitation, Inc., but not, to merge into one franchise now. Taylor moved seconded by Leone to approve the sale by Mr. Hardy to Nichols Sanitation, Inc. The vote on the motion was: Taylor - For Campbell - For Jones - For Little --For Leone ~ 'For Mr. Thomas Lafferty, from~the audience, wanted to know why the water was so bad, the Village Manager said the tanks were being cleaned. and painted. Mr. Koch wanted to know if irrigation wills could be drilled and Mr. Leone said we haven't received a report yet from the iRiater Department Consulting-Engineer, Mr. Anson B. DeWolf, on this. But if any wells were drilled it would have to be approved by the Palm Beach-County Board of Health. Taylor suggested the Village-allow wells to be:~dralled for home supply water, on the Peninsula between the North and Northwest fork of the Loxahatchee R~.ver with the provisos that; 1) must have approval of the Palm Beach County Health Department; 2) owner must enter into .written agreement to disconnect from private well and connect to Village's water system when and if water becomes.available; 3) owner-must 141 9-24-74 -5 •. agreed in writing to cap off and abandon the well according to all Health Department or other agencies rec~ uirements when he connects to the Village water system and 4) owner must agree in writing not to hold the Village responsible to connect him to the Village's water system in the event his well should experience salt water intrusion. or cannot provide a proper amount of water. Taylor moved that individual home supply wells on the Peninsula. between the Forth and Northwest fork of the- Loxahatchee River be allowed pursuant to the previously mentioned four (4) provisos. Seconded by Leone. The vote on the motion was: Taylor - For Campbell - For Jones - For Little - For Leone - For the motion was therefore passed. Leone moved, seconded by Campbell that the Village accept Cornelius, Johnson & Clark, Inc. bid for statutory-life insurance in the amount of $4D$.00 fora period of one year commencing October 1, 1974,_ The vote on the motion was: • Taylor - For Campbell - For Jones - For Little - For Leone - For and was therefore passed. Leave moved,:seconded by Campbell to approve the Area Planning Board of Palm Beach County for the Village Planning Agency and that .the Village Manager authorized to sign the contract. The vote on the motion was: Taylor -.For Campbell -~ For Jones - For Little - For Leone - Far and was therefore passed. Campbell asked if Counca.7.. V~orkshop Meeting Minutes had to be approved and wes advised no. Campbell moved, seeonded,by Jones to discharge the Original Zoning Review Committee and extend the 142 9-24.-74 -6 the Village's appreciation to them for their work, the motion was unanimously passed. Mayor Little asked the Village Manager to send a letter of "Thanks" to each member of the Original Zoning Review Committee. Taylor suggested the Council discuss future annexation policies at the next meeting and to begin to determine the relationship of cost of annexed pri~perties to the Village in relation to actual costs to service the areas and the revenue derived-;from taxes in the area proposed to be annexed. The Village Manager advised that the Councilmembers had received a copy of a proposed Water Department Operation and Maintenance Fund Budget for the fiscal year commencing.., October 1, 1974. The proposed budget had been submitted tc~ and approved by the Water`Department Consulting Engineers with several changes which have been incorporated into the fiscal budget figures. The-budget shows Pumping and Storage expense $59,037.00; Distribution Expense $35,045.00;. and Office and Administrative Expense $51,300.00 Totaling $14.5,3$2.00. revenue from watcr~s~les are estimated at $334,000.00 (545,000,OOO,GSllons) and fire hydrant rental fees of $6,000.00. Leone moved, seconded by Taylor that the Water Department Operation;-and`Maintenance Budget • in the amount of $14.5,3$2.00 for the fiscal year commencing October 1, 1974 be approved. The vote on the motion was:,, Taylor - Fob Campbell = Fob Jones -' F€~r' Little ~ -' Fair Leone - 'For and-the Budget was therefore approved. The Village Attorney told the Council that he was ready for the County Commission Hearing on the appli- cation of the Broadview Condominium project for water, on September 26, 3974. 4 Mr. Vincent P. A~y~s name was suggested as a member of the Water Committee. The Council had received a copy of his resume. Leone. moved, seconded by Campbell, that Mr. Vincent P. Amy be'appd3.nt~d as a member of the Water Committee. The votes an the motion was: 143 9-24-?4 - 7 • Taylor - For Campbell - For Jones - For Little - For Leone - For and therefore passed. upon motion by Leone, seconded by Taylor. and unanimously passed, the meeting was ajourned at 10:40 P.NI. Respectfully submitted, Cyre s~ert 144 1 ' ~ TEQUESTA ASSOCIATION OF VOTERS AND TAXPAYERS P. O. Box 3245 • Tequesta, Florida 33458 September 24, 1974 Mr. Robert Harp Village Manager Village Hall Tequesta, Florida 33458 Dear Councilman: The Tequesta Association of Voters and Taxpayers appointed a committee to study the need of four laving Tequesta Drive. A copy of the committee's report of September 21 is attached. Our Board of Directors 'have approved both the committee's report and their recommendation. Respectfully yours, ~`~~ W. EDMUND DUN Vice. Pres. Tequesta Association of Voters and Taxpayers copies - Board of Directors s ' ~RE~EI ~ s ~~~ 2 EP 241974 ~ V!(~q~E of T~QuESr \3 A ~~.4 e 1 \ . _ ' ~ ~/ l ' d ?eport of committee to Tequesta Association of Voters and Ta.:payers • re your-laving of Tequest~~ Drive. ':dc beli~:ve that the proposition before City Council to four-lane "~equest~~ Drive from the r^lorida Last roast Railroad to Route 1 is pre nature. Tnere is a lack of finalization of plans regarding the 'Tillage of TequestP., the County of Palm 3each and the State of Florida in E,cttin~ the coordination ~:f tr~.ffic controls, cords, drainage and -,lher commitments that are required for a final decision on whether or net ^eq~iest~. Drive should be four-laved. In Dece:~ber 1973 and Janut.try 1974 a firm of traffic engineers made traf'_'ic survey. ^or ~ months of the year we have peak traffic on Tequesta. Drive in the forementioned area. It was .the opinion of the traffic firm's engineers that traffic on Tequesta Drive reaches its pes~sc durinJ the ~ months studied. iet in spite of this peak, there. were ver~~ few accidents. ldha.t accidents occurred took place, according tc~ the Crief of Folice, at the intersection of U. S. 1 and Tequesta Dr. ~~iill more accidents-occur if Tequesta Drive is 4-laved? It is quite possible that this stretch of tha road will-become a race track if • 4-1 aned. The. present plans, as we uni3erstand them, include only the !.~-laving of Tequesta Drive from Rt.e. 1 west to the Railroad. No commitment from the State or from the County, to our knowledge, has been made to finish the approaches to the new bridge on Alt. AlA and no definite plans have been made as et, or money .appropriated, to 4-laving Alt. AlA and Old Dixie iiwy. from Indiantown Road to Tequesta Drive. The present plan is to terrmorr~rily connect the bridge with a blacktop road from both north and south entrances to the present '!lt. AlA. Furthermore, no definitecommitment has been made on the imprc~rement of Old Dixie Hwy. north of Tequesta Drive to County Line Road and no guarantee or even indication that money would be appropriated within a reasonable time for this ue~ . Evidently, the engineers who submitted this proposal did not consider any alternate methods. We suggest that mare use be made of Bridge-Road. Left hand turns Prom Tequesta Flaza on to Tequesta Drive could be eliminated entirely by routing cars to Brid~,e Road, right on Old Dixie and north to the traffic light. We suggest widening Tequesta Drive to~ permit a left-band turn lane leading .to Clci :: ~ e, southbound. j - 2- Tequesta Plaza and Lighthouse Plaza should be limited to one entrance • each from Tequesta Drive, one going north into Lighthouse Plaza from which all businesses could be reached through the parking lot and one entrance south to Tequesta Plaza.. Also, Lighthouse Plaza has another entrance north of Tequesta Drive which could be of valuable use if it were properly marked and access permitted on right. turns from II. S.1. The Bank has sufficient entrances from Bridge Road as well as from the Plaza •parking lot. Another method would be to route tr affic south on Cypress Drive to Riverside for those-seeking to go south on Alt. AlA.. The development of both Lighthouse Plaza and Tequesta Plaza has caused a drainage problem on Tequesta Drive which results in quick deterioration of the road and its rep airs. W~t-h the advent of Encon this area can and should be drained. Thh drainage proposal planned to coincide with-the widening of Tequesta Drive can be adapted to the existing dimensions of Tequesta Drive. Four-laning Tequesta Drive means removal of the Royal Palma. The resulting 4-lane road going down the center of two huge .asphalt, blocks will destroy the beauty of the present entrance to the Village and turn it into an asphalt desert.' The median'strip now in existence can be narrowed without losing its beauty. Four-laving Tequesta Drive with the. present -speed limits will not enable any Tequesta resident living west of the Railroad to reach the shoppinL renter any faster. If traffic is delayed, it is due to the railroad and traffic lights. Tequesta residents living east. of II. S. 1 do not need to use any part of Tequesta Drive to visit either Plaza, except to cross from one to the other. 1~-laving will not create more parking space in either plaza. If the plan was proposed to accomodate the increasing population of Jupiter, it overlooks the prob ability of new shopping centers in .Jupiter. It has been assumed that the County would-proceed with condemnation procedures to make land available to enlarge the intersection of Old Dixie and Tequesta Drive, but we understand-there is no ~etinite conanitment by the County to •do this . Insofar as we can determine, the Railroad has not been approached { ~~ -3- with reference to any changes or alterations required on its crossing and there is indication that the Village of Tequesta will have to.bear these costs. In summation, this project is not .only premature, but may never - need to be put into operation. ~In accordance, we recommend that the proposal be abandoned. Malcolm B. Porter, Chairman William B. Tatem A. L. Hutchison Graham Corddry Sept. 21, 1974 ~~