HomeMy WebLinkAboutHandouts_Workshop_Tab 1_12/03/2018 (2) � Y r
Frank D'Ambra
From: Frank D'Ambra <frankdamb@comcast.net>
Sen� Monday, November 26,2018 7:40 PM
To: 'Christine Merrell'
Cc: 'Vlad Dumitrescu'; 'Greg Corbitt; McWilliams, Lori (Imcwilliams@tequesta.org); 'Vince
Arena'
Subject: Take Aways from the Meeting with the Residents Surrounding the Seabrook Location
held on November 18th.
CMristine,
Listed below are the key discussion points, resident suggestions and our responses(offerings)to make the Community
Center site more palatable to the homeowners whose properties border the Seabrook site. . As we discussed there are
several(2 to 4j that will be against the Seabrook site no matter what we do to mitigate an any perceived adverse
impacts. We emphasized repeatedly that the Community Center was proposed,that we were in the process of
gathering community input and the final decision on whether to proceed with the Center would be made by a vote of
Council or if Council choose by a re#erendum of Tequesta residents. We shared with those gathered that this was the
first public meeting(the results of the surveys completed in the spring of 2018 were discussed) being held expressly to
begin the,process of gathering community input and that the initial community wide roll out to Teques#a residents
would take place at Tequestafest.
1. Offered-Build an 18"to 24" berm around the entire perimeter of the property to be topped by a 6 foot
concrete and stucco wall providing a total height of 7.5'to 8'.
2. Request- For low level lighting(below the top of the wall)to eliminate light pollution in resident's
backyards. We indicated this was doable.
3. Request-The second floor windows be placed so as to not offer a view into residents backyards and homes. We
stated we would take this back to the architects but believe this can be done.
4. Request that gaps between the new wall and residents side fences be bridged at the Village's cost. We stated
that this was a reasonable request and would be included in the final design concept to be submitted to Council.
5. Offered—Resident input to the location of landscape(trees)to maximize screening and privacy.
6. Request—A study or survey of local realtors for their assessment of the Center's`impact on property
values. We indicated this could be done but questioned that if the result was no adverse or even a positive
impact would everyone be accepting of the outcome.
7. A question was asked if an Environmental Impact assessment had been done on the basis that there could be
scrub jays or gopher turtles on the property. Our response was it had not, it was too soon in the process and it
is not clear that such a study will be needed.
8. A question was asked if something positive would be done with the old fire station building, i.e.tear it down for
green space. We responded that the issue was separate from and outside the scope of the Center project but
residents could certainly raise this with Council.
9. Concerns were raised about storm water collection and drainage. We assured everyone that this issue would be
fully addressed as part of the site plan approval and we would also be looking to run a pipe to the collection area
immediately behind the site.
10. A question was posed on the use of the facility as a storm shelter given that it will be a CAT 5 structure. We
shared that as the Center is located in an evacuation zone it cannot be used as a shelter pre a storm
event. However,post a storm event the Center can serve to assist residents on a temporary basis.
11. One resident asked about the presence of the small outdoor playground that children could use while waiting
for their parents to pick them up from an activity or while other sibling(sj may still be engaged in an activity in
the Center. We indicated this was an element which could be deleted if the community so desired.
��I�}arl�Sl�o ����8
� -�'La..�;c�
���
� ` a
Councilman Arena asked each resident to sign in and provide email addresses, phone numbers and for those with out a
computer or smart phone physical addresses so we could keep them informed of development and future meetings and
this information will be forwarded to Lori McWilliams.
In a meeting with the Village Manager last week a revised suggestion was made to move the mechanical room to the
site of the 1�floor Activity/EOC room and then stack the EOC directly above the mechanical room. This would require a
reconfiguration of Greg's office. As we discussed we would like to discuss the pros and cons of such a change at
Wednesday's meeting and perhaps Vlad can produce a revised floor plan for us to review.
Thanks for all your help. Calt me if you have any questions.
Best Regards,
Frank D'Ambra
2