HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 08B_4/11/2002ASSOCIATES NWW6w
city plonning 6 zoning - lobbying - permitting - lond development research
MEMORANDUM
TO: Village Council Members P�aage Manager
FROM: Jack Horniman, JI.H Assoc
DATE: September 17, 2001
RE: Re -Zoning — Rood Property
Mr. Roy S. Rood and Patricia M. Rood, through their agent Gentile, Holloway, O'Mahoney, and
Associates, Inc., are requesting a R-1, Single Family Dwelling District Zoning on a parcel of
land generally described as lying north of Riverside Drive; west of and adjacent to Tequesta
Pines Subdivision; and west of and adjacent to the southern portion of Chapel Court
Subdivision, containing 15.23 acres. This parcel was recently voluntarily annexed into
Tequesta and is being proposed for a future land use designation of Residential Low Density
(maximum 0-5 dwelling units/acre). State planning law requires that land be zoned
,consistent with the land use designated to the property. The R-1 zoning request is consistent
with densities being proposed for the Future Land use designation. The proposed zoning
densities are also consistent with the adjacent neighborhoods to this parcel
It is recommended that the Village Council approved this proposed R-1, Single Family
Dwelling District Zoning application.
8557 S E. Coconut St. - Hobe Sound, FL 33455 9 (561) 545-2404 - Fox (561) 545-2405
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF
TEQUESTA, FLORIDA, APPLYING A ZONING DESIGNATION TO A
PORTION OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
RIVERSIDE DRIVE, WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO TEQUESTA PINES
SUBDIVISION AND THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF CHAPEL COURT
SUBDIVISION CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 15.23 ACRES, TO R-1
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT; MAKING CERTAIN
FINDINGS OF FACT; PROVIDING FOR REVISION OF THE VILLAGE
ZONING MAP; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AN EFFECTIVE
DATE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
WHEREAS, a rezoning application has been made to the Village of Tequesta by
the property owner for real property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a
part hereof, which property is subject to the jurisdiction of the Village; and
WHEREAS, the Village Council of the Village of Tequesta, Palm Beach County,
Florida has received and reviewed staff recommendation to rezone the subject property to
R-1 Single Facility Dwelling District; and,
WHEREAS, the Village of Tequesta Village Council has held a properly noticed
public hearing on the zoning application, and has recommended approval of the
application; and
WHEREAS, the Village Council has received and considered the Department of
Community Development's recommendations and extensive expert testimony and
comment from the public, has held two advertised public hearings pursuant to Chapter
166, Florida Statutes on the application for the subject property, has determined that the
zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the Village, has further determined
that the zoning is in the best interest of the general welfare of the Village, and that R-1,
Single Family Dwelling District is an appropriate zoning for the subject property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF
THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, FLORIDA AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: INCORPORATION OF RECITALS
The above recitals are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION 2: FINDINGS
Based upon competent substantial evidence, the Village Council of the Village of
Tequesta hereby finds expressly that the rezoning of the subject property is consistent
with the Village Comprehensive Plan and complies with all procedural requirements of
Page 2
the Village's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, that the rezoning is consistent with the
general public welfare and in accordance with proper planning principals.
SECTION 3: REZONING OF PROPERTY
The Village Council of the Village of Tequesta hereby designates zoning for the
subject property to R-1 Low Density and hereby directs the Village staff to reflect an R-1
Single Family Dwelling District zoning to the subject property on the official Village
Zoning Map.
SECTION 4: REPEAL OF INCONSISTENT ORDINANCE PROVISIONS
All Ordinances or provisions thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
SECTION 5: SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance for any
reason, is held to be unconstitutional, void or otherwise invalid, the validity of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance shall not be effected thereby.
SECTION 6: EFFECTIVE DATE
The effective date of this rezoning shall be the date a final order is issued by the
Department of Community Affairs or Administration Commission finding the associated
Comprehensive Plan Amendment in compliance in accordance with Section 163.3184,
Florida Statutes, whichever occurs earlier. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by
the Administration Commission, the rezoning may nevertheless be made effective by the
adoption of the resolution affirming the Plan Amendment's effective status.
READ AND APPROVED, on First Reading by the Village Council on the 274'
day of September, 2001.
THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was offered by Councilmember
who moved its adoption. The Ordinance was seconded by
as follows: lmember , and upon being put to a vote, the vote was
as follo
MAYOR GERALDINE A. GENCO
AYE NAY
VICE -MAYOR JOSEPH N. CAPRETTA
AYE NAY
COUNCILMEMBER EDWARD D. RESNIK
COUNCILMEMBER BASIL, E. DALACK
COUNCILMEMBER RUSSELL J. VON FRANK
AYE NAY
_/:yd ► .m
AYE NAY
The Mayor thereupon declared the Ordinance duly passed and adopted this
day of , A.D., 2002
Mayor Geraldine A. Genco
ATTEST:
Village Clerk Mary Wolcott
Page 3
COUNCILMEMBER BASIL E. DALACK
COUNCILMEMBER RUSSELL J. VON FRANK
AYE NAY
AYE NAY
The Mayor thereupon declared the Ordinance duly passed and adopted this day
of , A.D., 2001.
Mayor Geraldine A. Genco
ATTEST:
Village Clerk Mary Wolcott
----- -- .... �'-
f i INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: MR. MICHAEL R. COUZZO, JR.; VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: JEFFERY C. NEW`?LL, COMMUNITY" DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT: YACHT CLUB ESTATES
DATE: 3/29/2002
CC:
As directed by Village Council at the March 14, 2002 meeting, Mr. Burg has modified his re -plat to
meet the request of Council to address the dead-end street into the subdivision (see attachment
"exhibit A", p.17).
The re -plat as presented on March 14, 2002 had a conflict with the subdivision regulations in the
following area:
1) Art. IV General Requirements and Design Standards:
a. Section 3 (10): "....Dead end streets shall be prohibited.... except as stubs to
permit future extensions or when designed as cul-de-sacs."
b. Section 3 (15): " .... Street right of ways shall be as follows:
i. Maximum widths:
1. urban principal 120'
2. urban collector 80'
3. local (minor) streets 60'
4. alleys 20'
The subdivisions regulations do not establish a minimum width for street right of ways, but the
regulations do establish a minimum width for paving. Article V, section 4 (b), and p.1245. The width
for this type of roadway is twenty (20) feet. The current width of the right of way is twenty p(}) feet.
In the year 2000, Council approved a three -lot subdivision with a waiver to allow a dead-end street
and the acceptance of a twenty (20) foot right of way coupled with a delay in the sidewalk installation.
As to the building lots, they have met the zoning requirements.
Mr. Burg has resubmitted his alterations to the roadway as directed. The roadway has been modified
in the following:
1) Roadway Placement: The roadway has shifted to the north towards the canal. This
repositioning has not affected the lot requirements of the zoning district. The current
structure located on the east portion of lot 2 (as it is today) blot 3 if the re -plat is
approved] is in compliance with the zoning requirements. The paved portion of the
roadway is tilted at a one percent (!°%) slope to the south. This will force the drainage
flow to the swales located on the south side of roadway.
2) Roadway Right of Way: The right of way width has been increased to twenty-two and
one half (22', y) feet. This represents an increase of two and a half (2'/2.) feet to the right
of way.
a. The subdivision regulations do not establish a minimum width for a right of
way. The paving width is established at twenty (20) feet. Therefore, the
minimum right of way cannot be less than twenty (20) feet.
3) Drainage Swales: The drainage swales have been redesigned with the majority being
located on the south side of the roadway. There are two extensions to this system that
are located in the western and eastern portions of the right of way. The calculations has
been reviewed to determine if they meet the required standards.
4) Cul-de-Sac: The addition of the cul-de-sac at the west end of the right of way satisfies
the requirement of Article IV, section 3 (10) ". dead end streets shall be prohibited. ".
The cul-de-sac is in conflict with the design criteria of the subdivision regulations. This
is demonstrated in the criteria:
a. Article IV, section 3 (11), p.1238: " .... Cul-de-sacs, permanently designed as
such, shall not exceed four hundred (400) feet in length and be provided at the
closed end (cul-de-sac) with a turn around having an outside roadway diameter
of at least eighty (80) feet and a property line diameter of at least one hundred
(100) feet.
b. The cul-de-sac that has been added to the roadway is designed at the following
specifications:
i. Forty-two (42) foot diameter at the property line.
1. code requirement is one hundred (100) feet at the property
line.
The roadway reconfiguration meets the following code criteria:
1) The right of way width. The code only establishes a maximum width of sixty
(60) feet. The new right of way will have width of twenty-two and a half (22
'/2) feet.
2) The required paving width is established by code is to be no less than twentv
(20) feet for this type of roadway. The right of way width of twenty-two and
half feet is sufficient to meet this requirement.
3) The ten (10) foot utility easement meets the requirements of the code.
4) Staff and the consulting engineer Mr. Tom Jensen of Reese Macon
Engineering have reviewed the drainage requirements.
The outstanding issue is the design of the Cul-de-Sac. In its current configuration, it fails to meet the
oot diameter at the property line.
diameter requirement of a one hundred (100) f
Understanding, that Council is granted the authority under Article VI, section 1,2; p.1247 to accept
the current design of the Cul-de-Sac.
Staff Comments: The approval of the re -plat of Yacht Club Estates is based on the configuration of
the roadway. The resubmitted plan of the roadway design, coupled with the authority granted to
Council in Article VI of the Subdivision Regulations (if enacted to accept the cul-de-sac's current
design), would qualify the re -plat. This qualification is based on the acceptance of the current design
of the Cul-de-Sac. The four (4) lots in the re -plat have been evaluated against the zoning
requirements and have met the minimum standards.
Any further redesign or modification of the re -plat will require a review by staff and associated
agencies.
3
MOTION, r' vc)t11 ran"YC9f�1%PaiY� Cili�.3]'ove the w����,���i3L�L�)3Cl lf�3i,
seconded v > Counciffnei}iber R2sntk; molio l rcrr'saea 4-0, (0u,icilweinher Dalacic
a101 vote; bee,YZdse' f f 1i i'���afllct t f 1l1t�.3`LJ?..
!i
May -or �:eYad: o prsosented a Ri s ?l',,A;Orl �. la'.1 2c L-1 1� ; a:r a i-,, t Ibis-orra. or
Liohthouse Venter for the arts.
Meeting broke at 7:25 p.m., and resumed at 7:40 p.m
y' I PRESEATATIONS AND PROCll_,ANI LADPiS
See under `Unfinished Business."
B. Status Report and Presentation on C onstniction or"Public Safety_ Facility—
'01ic°e (t 4a / Stephen ,: A1;json
Poiiae Chief _Alison deferred to Fire Chief Wlenand. He stated that the
project his about halfway through its first stage. They have been a doing
daily supervision and looking at everything they can do to save money
He showed large aerial photos of the construction that were shot on
February 20, 2002. He remarked that next week on -March 18"' they
should be able to set trusses.
Yacht Club Point, ii Yacht Club (Tract D), Tequesta, flor°ida—Dina
Burg applicant. —Community Development Director Jeffrey C. Neweh'
1. Replat of Yacht Club Point,
1. Swearing in o, f witnesses
Village Clerk Wolcott swore the witnesses in en mass.
2 Disclosure o, f'ex parte communications
Councilmernber Resnik stated he had been by the property r,Ind a.iso
talked to Brian O'Brien.
Councilmember Dalack stated he, on Tuesday night, had 'istZneL
to comments of the public and representatives of the landov..ners.
plus he spoke to Brian O'Brien and Mr. Aumack and had thes_-
input, and went over some of the drawings.
Councilrnember von prank mentioned that he was here on Tuesday;
and bad tcl, r -111se i?IIm-,o l;'c'.ca1iF <of-aE;,3 i ia1 �C3_ri�el.
EXHIBIT "A"
4
Mayor Genco stated she had exparte communication with Mr.
Burg, Mr. O'Brien and the attorney. Essentially everything was in
the sense of fact finding.
Councilmember von Frank stated he spoke to Mr. O'Brien and Mr.
Ryan.
Village Attorney Randolph remarked they should not have any
preconceived notions, and they must make their decision based
upon the testimony you hear at this hearing this evening.
3. Testimony of witnesses and cross-examination, tf any
a. Testimony by applicant
Attorney Joseph Grosso of Madden and Grosso stated this
application has been discussed for a couple of months, and
this is a proposal to replat. The first thing is the
application, and given the nature of this type of application,
he is entitled to the approval. If he meets the code he is
entitled to the approval notwithstanding personal
preferences. He meets the requirements.
b. Staff comments
Community Development Director Newell mentioned this
parcel was originally divided into three lots through
subdivision regulations, and the roadway was granted a
variance to remain at a 20 foot right-of-way. In its current
state, a four lot subdivision would allow a four lot
configuration, and meets the minimum zoning
requirements, only if the roadway remains in that state.
Should a widening of the roadway occur and/or a cul-de-
sac is required, then the replat would not meet the minimal
requirements.
C. Village Council comments
Councilmember Resnik asked what decision was made in
August.
Village Attorney Randolph stated it was a first step in a
process, and not binding.
(qN Mayor Genco remarked under Article IV Section 2 in the
subdivision rules, this should conform to a plan by the
5
neighborhood, There were safety factors that were noted, I
think a cul de sac. The sidewalk issue has now changed. Is
<' there anything else we have similar to this in the Village?
Community Development Director Newell stated this
particular arrangement is the only arrangement in R1-A.
Mayor Genco asked going through the RI -A District, what
is the conformity`? If I were to drive around Golfview, are
all the houses 20 feet apart?
Community Development Director Newell stated in the
older residences you are bound to have some
nonconformity. Some are greater than 10 to the side, some
are less than 10,
Vice Mayor Capretta stated he would like to pursue the
statement made by Mr. Grosso when he said that
fundamentally if his client meets the code, the Village is
obligated to approve it. Does this meet the codes?
Community Development Director Newell responded if the
Council chooses to approve the roadway as it is, then it
meets the codes.
Vice Mayor Capretta stated the road only services the three
lots we approved, and doesn't serve the fourth lot. As you
look at lot four, there is the possibility that it could be
served at that roadway.
Community Development Director Newell stated there is
enough frontage on the fourth lot to be serviced by that
roadway.
Councilmember Dalack requested to pursue Mr. Capretta's
question about entitlement.
Village Attorney Randolph stated if he meets all the criteria
of your code, he is entitled to a subdivision. You need to
make a determination whether or not the applicant meets
the criteria of the subdivision code. Any question you
might have with regard to the size of the building is not
really dependent on this.
rol
Mayor Genco questioned that based on the plan, if the
Council approves, the Council is willing to allow the
variances.
Village Attorney Randolph stated yes if there are variances
needed.
Councilmember Dalack stated the road is really a driveway,
apparently it is going to be widened. The adequacy of that
would seem to fall into this. A 20 ft wide road.
Mayor Genco questioned if they want to give the variances
the previous replat enjoyed.
Village Attorney Randolph stated in order to approve this
they have to find a variance from the cul de sac provision.
61 Comments by the public
Steve Gordon, Yacht Club Place stated he was neither for
nor against this, but he is interested. He is concerned that
the Council -Developer relationship is not looking at the
Council -New Resident relationship. He is bringing new
residents into the neighborhood.
Donna Meyers, 23 River Drive, read a letter into the record
(attached).
Brian O'Brien, 16 Yacht Club Place, stated they are
concerned with the safety of the neighborhood. This has
been confusing, multiple applications have been submitted,
and we are at the preliminary hearing point. People are
being quoted in the paper as stating it meets the codes —it
requires a huge variance in the road, it needs to be designed
to promote the public safety, health and welfare. The
matter goes past three minutes. A 20 ft right of way was
not considered. My kids are out there in the street playing.
Julie O'Brien, 16 Yacht Club Place, quoted an article about
safety issues with people and trucks backing up. She was
concerned about her children playing in the street, and the
service trucks and more traffic going in and out of the
development.
MaryEllen Aumack, 15 Yacht Club Place, wanted to see
where the new house was being built on the property, and
7
was it on a lot with a four lot plan, or one of the three lots
originally approved.
Robert Aumack, 15 Yacht Club Place, addressed the issue
of the code minimum requirement if 12,000 square feet,
and asked if the cut de sac was put in would it meet the
minimum requirement with four lots.
Lonnie Martosha, 252 Golfview Drive, asked the Council
to consider going back to three lots. He asked them to
conform it to a proper situation with a cut de sac, or cancel
it and go back to the original plat.
Jim Ryan, 20 Yacht Club Place, asked the Council to
consider that the house is the scheme of the neighborhood.
A house on the road has over 30,000 sq. ft. and he has
approximately 21,000 sq. ft. of lot coverage, Mr. O'Brien
has close to 21,000 sq. ft, and someone else has 23,000 sq.
feet. The lots on the water side are what I bought into this
neighborhood for.
Tom Tardonia, 4 Hickory Hill Road, was concerned that
the issues being brought up were only opinion, especially
1 the safety issues. The safety concern is not as bad as they
are talking about. This is not about code, but about public
opinion on how the decision is made. This gentleman is
doing all he possibly can to accommodate the code.
Mayor Genco questioned the construction on the lot.
Village Attorney Randolph stated there was a request for a
lot split and the Village denied the request. An application
was made for a building permit to build a home which met
the requirements of the code, and they chose to site it to
leave a big side yard, suggesting an opportunity to come
before you to get it split into a subdivision. There was
enough room left to build another house if the Council
decides to divide it.
Mayor Genco stated someone brought up some type of
notice of violations.
Community Development Director Newell stated Mr. Burg
proceeded with the building pad, and his crew put in footer
/�" trenches. They started installing the form boards without a
HI-
perunt, tut we addressed that issue, brought it to a lhah, and
f�,Ir. Burg complied and got the proper permitting.
Mayor Genco asked about the issue of the trucks as far as
trash pickup.
Community Development Director Neviell stated a letter
WdS submitted from Nichols Sanitation, and they expressed
an opinion that it %vouid not be a problem for them. If the
bash containers are being brought to the cul de, sac, they
can Trove in the radius of the cul de sac and backing up
wouldn't be required.
Mayor Genco stated if the people put the trash in front of
their Douses, I'm sure they'll be backing out. Mayor Genco
stated according to the code the minimum lot size width is
100 t, and I see the back isn't 100 ft.
Community Development Director Newell stated the code
only addresses the &ont, not the back.
�. Fimil comments by crpplicani
Attorney Grosso stated there have been complaints brought
p g
up to me. There was supposed to be a workshop, and we
heard public comments. Some folks chose not to make
comments because it is my understanding they feared we
would have time to consider those and address those
comments now. There is a lot of talk about safety issues
and clearly the developer does not want to create an unsafe
situation, but no real talk about specific safety problems
except for what is in the backing up. I contend, just
because there is a cul de sac doesn't mean that trucks
delivering, people visiting friends, are going to leave
someone's house and decide to drive to the end of the cul
de sac and turn around. The same turn around that takes
place all around that road is going to take place in (here.
Comments about the character of the neighborhood —where
do we choose to decide what properties we are going to
look at to determine the character of the neighborhood.
This proposed subdivision meets the minimum
requirements of your code in our opinion. There is
allegations of changes in surveys, clearly that is meant to
impress the Council there is something shaky going on. I
don't think it is accurate. t'iat people got restraining orders.
We believe this meets the code, the road has been
n
N
approved, its been dedicated. All wC are doing is changing
the configuration of the lots oil the road. If there are safety
C
co.41ccryls we'll provide access to the fourth log as or the cul
de sac. We would ask that this be approved.
4Execulive 7essio�7
Council raeinber Resnik stated he has some objectives to
bring out. I have listened to everybody, I have walkod out
on the road- I don't know why the bast Co
uncil didn't
provide some means of turnaround. I know the code says
100 fl radius, 50 ft diameter, but it also indicates the
Council can adjust their decisions to best suit the particular
neighborhood. I was told that if any adjustment Is made to
the road, then it digs into the builder's property. Some kind
of turnaround should be at the end of that street. I believe
"lost auto traffic coming out of the homes will come out
driving out of their driveways not backing down the street.
In fact UPS people driving in will pull into driveways and
not back out. The garbage people should be directed to
back in and drive out. There should be some basis for a
turnaround down there that the builder can accommodate.
It would be beneficial to the safety aspect of this thing. As
far as legal, if the code is met for the property, it, is my
understanding that you can have that approve, I but if the
roundabout at the end takes away from your property, then
you won't meet the code, so it has to be part of your
property in order to maintain the lot size.
Village Attorney Randolph stated he would not have
buildable lots if they were to put the cut de sac in. They
could not use their own property for tale cul de sac because
we require that be dedicated to the public. They would not
be able to modify this subdivision so as to' -modify the
subdivision,
Councilmember Resnik stated the decision was not do
anything regarding the road previously.
Jim Burg stated in Tequesta Oaks there j,-, a similair
situation, a dead end stroct, and At xaas t1l.rnijU J, 100 ft
-r o 11
wide by 15 ft Ion-. 1 could provide that 1__� - it for you. This
dcick has to be relocated and the dicl- vv;lI Tj r t�_
r� . 0 1 CIC
there. Mr. Burg pointed out the locatior, where he could
10
place the tUfDaFOUnd and a barrier to prevent going into the
water. Councilmember Von Frank asked if that was a cul-
do-sac, to which Village Attorney Randolph responded no,
that Mr. Burg was offilering that in lieu of a cul-de-sac,
Mayor Genco stated it was literally a front end in and then
you back out. Counclimember Dalack commented he did
not understand and it was not within the Country Club
Comi-nunity and was not consistent with the rest of the
neighborhood.
Vice -Mayor Capretta. corrurnented he understood these lots
-were the most controversial there had ever been in the
Village; that he had been through many of them and he
always checked to see if they complied with the code. Vice
Mayor Capretta commented that when the Council met at
other times to discuss setting up the codes and ordinances
as to how they wanted homes built, that was the time to
change them, and they could not be changed retroactively.
Vice Mayor Capretta stated he went over this project with
staff and Mr. Newell step by step, and knowing that the
Council had previously approved the three plots —as long
as the Council approved that road the way it is and as long
as they said lot 4 which was the one nearest the cul-de-sac
was to be open or that side the road would only be used for
three. Some people liked to call it a driveway, but it
happened to be a driveway six inches wider than Yacht
Club Place, and it had been widened by the Village to 20'
to make it the same as Yacht Club Place. Vice Mayor
Capretta stated therefore he always went by the code -' he
had helped develop the code; he had been on the Council
for years and it had been changed many times. The Vice
Mayor commented that people used lot line homes and
these lots were 12,000 — 14,000 foot lots —much bigger
than most homes in the Country Club community. Bigger
than half of them, and these would not be cheap million
dollar homes —they would be expensive. This would
upgrade property values in the neighborhood, aid anyone
wanting to buy one of these homes would need more than a
million dollars to buy one. Vice Mayor Capretta
commented one gentleman who spoke had experience in
this area, and if you went along River Drive and looked a
what was happening, on every large lot people were buying
the homes, tearia. then down, and building two homes
because the lots were so large--20,000 to 40,000 feet —so
they could be split and still be larger than any lot in the
neighborhood. Vice Mayor Capretta commented that what
i I
should be looked at was the percentage of the lot that the,
house took and the amount of open space. Vice Mayor
Capi-jata advised that the Village's code was very specifif,.
regarding this and it said the maxif-um lot coverage the
house could have was 37% in R-l-A and the minimum lat
open area had to be at least 30%, Vice Mayor Capretta
stated these did not even come close to that and when
somebody bought a lot to build a house he had to protect
property values and make sure the neighborhood was
maintained the way it was, and when somebody wanted to
OyUild 4 houses in the Perry COMO estate that vie going to be
a million to 2-1/2 --nnihion dollars in value, they would be
I beautiful mansions. In letters he had received someone was
worried about monster mansions and that they were too
expensive, and the owner should build cheaper homes.
Vice Mayor Capretta commented you could not have it
both ways, and as he saw it he could ld not oppose building 4
0
million dollar plus homes on 12,000-15,000 square feet
with a road just as wide as Yacht Club Place it because it
met the code . Vice Mayor Capretta commented in his
opinion the only question ever was the road, but since it
was already approved long ago for the three lots he saw no
reason to change it, particularly since he thought the fourth
lot would face the cul-de-sac and would not even use the
road.
Councilmember Von Frank stated his background was
insurance, that he had to go back to Mr. Schwartz's letter of
March 6, and had to go with public safety and dead end
streets —he was always worried that it could create a
serious problem regarding life and property loss.
Councilmember Dalack commented lie had been
impressed with Mrs. O'Brien and her presentation and
citation of a publication dealing with automobile impact,
and that had been very significant to him. Councilinernbei-
Dalack commented he believed the only means of &-afing
with that would be what Councilmember Von Frank
referred to in the letter of 3/6/02 from Klmley-Iforr, and
that situation could not be alleviated, as the 'Village
Attorney had stated. Councilmember Dalack commented
the place was not physically capable of having a cul-de-sac.
So this Council would have to waive the requirement ftu- a
cul-de-sac in order to obviate the problems created by the
absence of a cul-de-sac, Councilmember Dalar'_`.- stated it
could not be alleviated —the s;�fety hazard was there. and
12
y.
he would not; feel comfortable in waiving that requirement.
Councilmember Dalack commented on the conformity of
this project to the rest of the neighborhood.
Councilmember Dalack stated he could not disagree more
With rice Mayor Capretta, and in his view the monster
mansions would diminish the property values of the
sui-roundi.lg properties; that Yacht Club Place which lie
rode his tricycle every day was not 20' wide and he
believed it to be 50' like all the other streets he swv in the
neighborhood, and therefore the driveway did riot conform
;with the rest of Yacht Club Mace,, but that was just the
beginning. From :lira Ryan's house down to the existing
cul-de-sac at the beginning of the Ferry Como property
there were ;fir. Ryan's house and then three more houses
which was 4=00' of homes on Yacht Club Place facing the
water, and the developer wanted to put in four homes and if
anybody went down Yacht Club place and saw the
expansive area between the homes and then went inside the
old Perry Como house, those things were jammed together.
Councilmember Dalack commented to him this proposal
was absolutely inconsistent with the plan of the rest of the
neighborhood, and that was another reason he thought this
proposition should not be waived. Councilmember Dalack
stated first, safety, then the non -conformity of this
development with the rest of the neighborhood.
Mayor Genco commented when the plan originally came
before the Council she had looked at what was presented —
the three lots —and she thought it was a superb plan. She
looked at the roadway, amount of green space, amount of
impervious space, and whether or not it was part of the
record she did think about the turnaround and the cul-de-
sac, and based on the existing proposed green space versus
building she had been comfortable with granting a variance
without having a cul-de-sac. The Mayor stated that had
this plan been presented to her at that time, she would have
changed her mind. Mayor Genco stated she would not
have been in favor of this 4-lot subdivision the way it was
being presented for the reason that it did not have a cul-de-
sac, that she had now learned about the safety issues about
which she was somewhat concerned with the trash pickup.,
and she found that the Council had to look at the spirit of
the code and consider what people would like to see -
besides just appreciating real estate values. Mayor Genco
st�Y d she fOU d that the four -subdivision plat before the
Council did not ineet the spirit of the code. The Mayor
n,
stated she was looking at dais as if it were coining before
i her Eor the first time and would not approve this and was
looking for a 1-notion based on findings of tact.
A 5-minute break was declared and the Council was
advised they could speak to no one during the break. The
Council reconvened at 10:00 p.m.
Attorney Grosso asked for additional consideration for Mr.
Burg's proposal regarding the turnaround to possibly �Nork
oa,t something that would alleviate the safety and insura.rice
concerns, and to that extent requested the Village Council
table a decision to allow the applicant time to explore and
present that proposal. Village Attorney Randolph advised
that it was the prerogative of the Village Council if they
wished to allow the applicant an opportunity to redraw the
plan to attempt to alleviate their concerns. Councilmember
Von Frank asked, when you turn around, what was on the
other side of that line. Mr. Burg indicated a guard rail
would be added along the water. Village Attorney
Randolph commented it was his understanding the
applicant could not re -draw the plan to provide a cul-de-sac
as provided in the code. The applicant responded no, that
he could not provide a 80' or 100' round cul-de-sac, but
under the definition of cul-de-sac was also turn -around,
which had been allowed other places in the Village, serving
more houses.
Councilmember Dalack commented Attorney Randolph's
question led to a further question, if there was a definition
of cul-de-sac in the code and read aloud the definition:
Cul-de-sacs permanently designed shall not exceed 400' in
length and be provided at closed -end. Cul-de-sac with a
turn around having an outside roadway diameter of at least
80' and a property line diameter of at leant 100"
Councilmember Dalack asked if the applicant could supply
that; applicant responded, no. Councilmember Dalack
stated there would be no point to tabling this becauso the
applicant could not comply with the cul-de-sac Provision.
The applicant commented he might be able to comply.
Mayor Genco stated it was understood the applicant could
not provide a cul-de-sac and that answered the question.
14
��. t'i!lil7al� �j� i'y,�'l �Le4'{.'Cl �}�J G`f)Y32Z7L'd�°�1F, aS'7�asi'.�i3izr11�e�1
clitkiMOIJOn 10 i�fI,1;Y'ove4Iej:7r,'.
MOTIOW
Free Nlayor Cap etta wa& a rnotior. to alloyth applicant
a rti;asonablc period of tiin to- comOl back with a p;-oposaa ter
provide; a turn around to alleviate the safety conditions that
seine of the people were concerned about, like
Councilmember Von prank and several people in the
audrence who made persuasive presentations about safety,
wh-Ich he assumed the applicant could do beforQ the, nes-t
neetin , and the applicant responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Resnik seconded the motion. During
discussion, Mayor Genco asked if this did come back and
did get tabled as a result of this motion, if the whole
process would start over from the beginning. Attornev
Randolph advised it would continue to by a quasi-judicial
hearing and the public would have an opportunity to speak
in regard to the modifications. The Mayor asked if then the
entire process that had been gone through t0nig1:t -would be
done again, to which Attorney Randolph responded, yes,
the opportunity had to be provided; however, the likelihood
of going through all the same comments again was not
expected, however, the opportunity had to be given.
Councilmernber Dalack stated he believed a delay would be
pointless because the developer had just said he could not
comply with the definition of cul-de-sac; therefore, it was
undisputed that the proposed project did not comply with
Section 310 of the code. Councilmember Dalack :stated the
compliance was not for a turnaround, it was for- a cul-de-
sac, so it was pointless to delay. Vice Mayor Cz,jjretta
commented it was not pointless, that the Council could
approve it if they liked the turn around. Councilynember
Resnik reinerated that the Council had the authority to
adjust the end of that road to meet the unique requirerneaty
of that particular situation if they did not put in a rL111 cul-
de-sac. Mayor- Genco agreed that the Council had that
discretion. The vote on the motion was-
p7ce XIi9X)I- t;af)Tctta -for
r
C70: i ac ilmember Yon I r,-z ,' - (maifzsl
Ib u ,or Cfenco - agcimst
ANIotion failed.
't?ZJ?1L°,'h nenr1be? Valac k Imiel.?. ,:i i,voji 1 tip C�i iSj' t>1E
request h/.di':.' l on tf1e j)l1t)';ljpg .fjylttr',,jg; of _ t: �vTt). % It is
19'di,sns i 'd tilt>t the l r~ q>()sal violates the prorrisiorl of Section 310
that dead encl prohibitezl It al u violates Sectioi,.l 3.1 of
article 4, and he thought the letter o:f 3. 6-02 page 7S(g) supljorts
;�tt pr,- TTl sition, tied, arrther he si��aultl find that t ,e propos-d rise
was .not consistent with the rest of the neighhorhood.
Cof-n-cil in r lber Tort 1'; tr. tic set t art%tl the motion.
During discussion, Conncilinember Resnik stated it was his
understanding if the Village Council denied the motion the
plat would revert back to the 3-lot decision with a dead-end
road, so there was no safety added into this —all that would
do would be to delete a house --and that decision was
irrevocable, and if the issue was a dead-end street, that was
what it would be. Councilmember Dalack accepted that
and he was glad Councilmember Resnik had said this and
he would move to reconsider the earlier motion —that there
may be a means of alleviating the safety factor if the
developer was given a chance to submit a proposal.
Councilmember Dalack moved to reconsider the vote on
the motion to table. Vice Mayor Capretta comn-tented he
thought that was a good proposition, and stated he had been
shocked at Councilmember Von Frank's vote since he had
brought up all the insurance actuary and then when the man
offered him a chance to eliminate the safety problems and
the turnaround problem, he voted against it; therefore,
Mayor Capretta had come to the conclusion that
Councilmember Von Frank was not serious or was being
facicious. Attorney Randolph advised on a motion to
reconsider it was made by someone on the prevailing side
and anyone could second the motion. Motion was
seconded by Vice Mayor Capretta. Attorney Randolph
commented that the Village Manager had indicated to him
that Councilmember Dalack had made a motion to deny
that was seconded that had not been withdrawn.
Councilmember Dalack stated he withdrew his motion to
deny and now made a motion to reconsider the tabling,
which was seconded by Vice Mayor Capretta. %favor
Genco stated there ivas nowa motion to reconsider the.
developer coming back to the Council with anoner
Proposition which it was believed would entail a
turnanound. Mayor Genco stated ,he voulie repo ;d h��Y�.elf
that slie felt this was tantamount to blackmail, because had
16
this developr Merit of tour homes come before leer when she
voted on it originally she would not have approved it
without a cul-de-sac. The subdivision code required a cul-
de-sac, and the Council was now having to settle for
something that was less than the subdivision code ► equired.
Mayor Genco stated she kllc v sometimes they had to
compromise and now they were being forced into a
situation of compromise because the developer did not take
the time to really think through what he wanted to do with
his propery and all of a sudden in her opinion saw an
opportunity of greater gain and chose to disregard thz.
Village's codes and requirements. We nowhave to look at
a compromise.
Village Attorney Randolph stated he is making a motion to
reconsider to defer, after that is voted on, if the motion to
r consider passes, then there can be a motion to defer.
Motion to reconsider:
1,Iohon carried =lei' with Coiii.cilmember von. h'ranh dissen ing.
1d10TIGN. T ice �,Vayoy, l:i:r,��reita moved to tadl�e this vote aaltil iltr
next Council meeting to allow kfr. Burg to come back with his
proposalfor a turnaround to avoid the safety problem. Seconded
h , C, ouncilinember Resnik.
G ice Mayor C apretta
aye
Councilmernber Resnik
aye
Coo cilinember Dalack
ayve
Councilmember von Frank
AA:yor Genco
aye
Motion carried 5-0.
LK CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed under Consent Agenda are considered to be routine and i1411 be
enacted hj, one motion. Yhere ►r'ill he no separate disf fission oj these j ?i;,,,
a b illage Council Afem her so requests, its which event the item will he
girt>m the Con -sent nt Agenda and considered it' ils nonnal seque� ce on the e l �,Ukx.
A. Village Council Regular Meeting Minutes of February 14, 2002.._v&qgr :
C'lei-k it fart' t'olcott
B. Boar off ����iistr:l�r2?. I':a t'� � inu-tes of October 1J �+00l.--1ill���,-e,
�u
Clerk A fiiry ff7olco
I�
;
Apr-02-02 01:51P Rees�,Macon&Assoc_
P-02
r) RMA
Reese, Macon and Associs tes, Inc.
MEMORANDUM
Date: April1,
To: Jeff New 11
From: Thomas 0. Jensc
Res Yacht Club Estates
As requested, the follow�ng are my comments to the March 27, 2002 submittal made by Captce
regarding the above.
1. Depending upon he schedule of construction for the adjacent homes, it may be advisable
to place the asph It in two (2) 3/4-inch lifts, with the final lift occurring after the last
home is construe ed.
2. The extension of Yacht Club Place will be a Village owned/maintained roadway. The
Developer is plai ining on placing paver bricks in the: road at the entrance and the cul-de-
sac. This is typi4 ally done on private roads. The Village may want a maintenance bond
from the Develo r/Association for the brick pavers.
3_ The cul-de-sac, ow shown, has only a 20-ft. radius which is exceptionally tight.
Typically, a sma I cul-de-sac has a minimum 38-ft. radius, which will allow service
trucks the ability to turn around and exit. i do not believe that the cul-de-sac as shown
now, will aeeo lish what the Council was trying to achieve in preventing vehicles from
backing out of th subdivision.
4. The revised drait age plan is acceptable:. They should outline why they plan to use plastic
drainage structures as opposed to concrete.
Should you have ques
Encl.
cc: Russell White
tcj02 065/02-106
io�s or wish to discuss this further, please call_
6415
Worth Road • Suite 307 • Lake Worth, F1. 33463-2907
cphonc (561) 433-3226 • Facstmik (5, 61) 433-801 l
APr=02-02 01:51P RoasMacon&Assoc_
P_03
n
a
i
V�f 'QUA
al � �vb— s
t
J 4
�£ u
\P
MAR 2 8 2002
Civil Engt�ring Professionals
COMIUUNi OPmr
March 27, 2002
Mr. Jeffery Newell
Director of Community Development
Village of Tequesta
250 Tequesta Drive, Suite 305
Tequesta, Florida 33469
RE: Drainage Plan for Yacht Club Estates
Dear Mr. Newell:
Please find attached, three sets of plans and calculations, which demonstrate
compliance with the 3-year, 24-hour stomrwater retention requirements for Yacht
Club Estates.
Following a review of Mr. Jensen's comments of January 7, 2002, we have
amended the calculations to reflect existing site conditions.
The concept used for the four (4) lot configuration drainage plan looked at the
incremental increase in impervious area that the new development would realize
versus what used to exist on the property.
The attached calculations show that the four (4) lot configuration can possibly
generate 7,183 square feet (sf) of additional impervious over what was existing.
This calculation is based upon a maximum allowable building area of 37% for
each new lot. The four (4) lot configuration drainage plan needs to incorporate
1,245 cubic feet of retention area. This is achieved via roadside swales, which
will generate approximately 1,426 cubic feet of retention area. The new catch
basins will be located within the swale and connect to the existing outfall pipes.
The road is designed and will be constructed to the Village of Tequesta
Construction Standards with a Type-F curb on the North side and a 12" flat curb
on the South side. It will also incorporate brick pavers at the cul-de-sac end and
ten feet at the entrance. The pitch of the road will be to the South at 1 percent
(1 %). The Florida Department of Transportation requires a Type F,curb and
minimum one (1) to one and a half (1.5) feet of Clear Zone for roads with speeds
of less than 25 MPH or less near bodies of water. The Clear Zone created
ranges from six (6) feet to eight and three -tenths (8.3) feet.
300 S.W. St. Lucie Avenue • Stuart, FL 34994 • 561-692.4344 • Fax: 561-692-4341 • E-mail: captecI0aol.com
J. Newell, Dir. of Community Development
Drainage Plan for Yacht Club Estates
March 28, 2002
Page 2
Please have the appropriate staff members review these calculations and plans.
If you have any questions or require further clarification, please do not hesitate to
contact this office. A finalized plan shall be submitted upon Joe Capra's return
on Thursday, April 4, 2002.
Sincerely,
;�e&- "�Z
Rhett Keene, E.I.
Project Engineer
RK/gt
GACorrespondence\Newell 3-28-02 Itr.doc
59
W
No Text
Yacht Club Estates
4 Lot Configuration
nee Calculations
Maximum
Lot #
Area S.F.
Allowable 51dg Area (37%)
1
13602
5054.94
2
12593
4659.41
3
15075
5577.75
4
12435
4-600.95
Storage Shed
13.1' x 11.1'
145.5
20038.55
Existing property impervious area includes house, walks, driveway and portion of road way,
all of which have been removed = 12655.36 S.F.
Additional impervious area that new development will realize
% Ir pal Vs iou
Impervloag,-grea
3YR - 24 HR Precipitation
Depth to water table
Storage (4' w.t.)
0 37% impervious
20036.55
12855.36
7163.19 0.165 Ac
37%
0.105 acres
5.5 inches
4 feet (1.3' NGVD)
8.18 inches
5.15 inches
Runoff (Q) _ (5.9 -.2 (5.15))� 2.08 inches
5.5 =.8 (5.15)
Sq. Ft of Runoff = (2.08)(0.165 Ac)(1/12) = 0.029 Ac = 1245.09 Cubic feet of Runoff
Roadside Swale 10' Drainage Easement
=2.5 5F / LF
6"
'olume Available = 2.5 SF / LF 570.3 LF
1425.75 Cubic feet
TOTAL SWALE RETENTION TO BE PROVIDED
TOTAL RETENTION REQUIRED = 1425.75 Cubic feet
1245.09 Cubic feet
59
59
a
Topic # 625-000-015
Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards May - 2001
for Design, Construction and Maintenance
for Streets and Highways
TABLE 3-12
MINIMUM WIDTH OF CLEAR ZONE
Design Speed
Type
DESIGN SPEED (MPH)
of
Facility
25 AND 30 35 40 45 50
55
BELOW J E: I
60 AND
ABOVE
MINIMUM CLEAR ZONE (FEET)
Rural •
6 6 Local 6 Local 10 Collectors 14 Arterials 14 Artenals 10 Collectors 10 Collectors 14 Arterals 18 Arterials
and Collectors and Collectors
18 Arterials
14 Artenals 14 Arterals and Collectors
ADT < 1500 ADT < 1500 ADT < 1500
and CDllrrd
Ws
ADT c 1500
18 Arterials 18 Artenals 24 Arterials
and Collectors and Collectors and Collectors
30 Artedele
and Collectors
ADT _1500 ADT - 1500 ADT > 1500
ADT � 1500
Urban *
1 V2
N/A ..
'
From face of curb
On projects where the 4 foot minimum offset cannot be reasonably obtained and other
alternatives are deemed impractical, the minimum may be reduced to 1 %'.
Use rural for urban facilities when no curb and gutter is present. Measured from the
edge of through travel lane on rural section.
Curb and gutter not to be used on facilities with design speed > 45mph.
NOTE: ADT in Table 3 - 12 refers to Design Year ADT.
Geometric Design
Ch. 3 Pg. 60
U-'W&N CHITER/A RELATED TO HIGHWAY SAFETY
• Seplemeer l9pl
RURAL b URBAN fREEWAYS ANO RDEsec,URAL SPED 0, b C-, OR ''; RURA[ WLLECTORS: DESIGN URBA,Y ARTERIALS b WLLECrC
r vPf OF PUAaf ARTER/ALS i COLLECTORS: JEAT SPEED ClF 15 uPN OR SPEED Dr p NPN OR LESS DESIGN SPEEDS Of JO 50 YPn
fAd(l fir WAIN $PEED OF e5 yPry OR GRfArER AND PRO, A01 4N0 AURA( (OCq($.A(( SPEED lW17ryW7 CUAB dN0 GUTTER!
CREATE. AND PROJECTED A, l2p YRr LAND THAN ,5� I. vRI M I. OR GREATER
FiII NI.
Flll Nl.
EUBAAAYENT $(OPE
3''ro' 6:l Io etlp. of CZ i ell
RI''z0• 6.l to rope v/ CZ i Ja
> 20' 2rltt/I.,A
D•-5' 6:l frcePi wMre R/W ft
lnsu//kic l m.n 6rl
taps oI CI i Je Wlri
M Permi Ilea.
garer°UJ
A/W +I M tens%.!fee a
urlan w.a. •n w;np mere loopu,
5•-20. 61 le Gape e/ CI b JA
I—, R/w h
CLEAR WIDTHS
FOR MXfs
BACA$LOPES
Free are. aivleed wlrrivla b hovel loner ",,, oppro«n
rrrwel tin 1pNs N•FI qp 6• aroyalr wlwM.
p'Ll. Ia 6 w more !ones. ll
TI—I Merl merle b rollMrorf:
iwel poet PNS xtgre«n rMularr
;can.
CLEAR ZONE Lmet/
ICI I 60,yO M,
0/ r'��O® 55 JO'
URBAN ARTERIA(5 b
coafcTOR6r
ORSIIS SPEED CUAi ANAND W>/ER
O'-5. 6/l ercepl wnere R/W /f 0'-5. 6J egepl
,`�,
ln,uf/i<lenl Ine. 6e to
MpPermil/edb J./ w;N
wnere Rew i
//kfenl men fid to r
eepr M CZ i J:I will
oe w ro w;r wo«wry owncts
I /tiller rron 6:1. p/W r
5'-M' 6:1
ee PMmmee.
mp,l M cmrroMee ear nlpn rm
oD�
tpoo • A.r o/ CZ
bur of CZ b Jr I
e+�nna
°I °nt n wron wens.
nAll7rertnl Mien 2rl wilh
pw/wail will be urmrH.dJ/Icle
ro yl A/W is
Men 2:l cairn
rw<I bnv pat appaWr
p1O'"aro;I will M oermrle0.
Mulder wrwN.
D-id-dr TrwelA»sa pWr
vpprc'OYJ, rMvae/ Warn Al
fvrlarcliw ll¢e
6•LI. Yrl"3 full meMw ,relive
tY'tll Phu +Iarwoll. Wnen
it etxr;ta «less /Kroll,
l
tea— comer Woll ;s pI¢ed
UM/vrOUJ T/welf p Wa
of
el — rf 11 o minimJm
aRorOacA slbyaer dint.
.5.
awaenMe 1v r ehM,
vela
ame lone w ek k
All wMre R/W P.rmil. w Id. Ae wMre R/W perm!, It, I:l wMre R/W rM rof or Mr eerriar wv
Dermrry w J:l. 2e w re, to/l wwlry ow
Slmlbrd rol /Mlle rron 5.1 nee,
rrrpn AWIII. •edelwofbot ro'Mnlrrurn /roe Slwrpnra
Peep Trove/ Lone) i sOpe or epin Irwel and arlllwy OMipt !'Iron /¢e o/ alrae ar6 0
ipq Late) Mft. $Pero Troy./. Autll. 1�
. n .., Ro•1?J ,pry [on1, vane! b 6•/rpm rcpe I mealu Irp//k
na-H tW /I' IS-30 ZO' 11' 45 21'� I1, 0/1tlpe. Pien Mrrrolly wallM
'rop 40ro•0 Itteffrom rep! al lrovM
skuafr leer. "W Plc /«e o/ SMuaer 18 , .Ia M tleelrow. SI.41 /16'mnln JYq ee deAl�vOl $M/aer r1tlM PWl 2'to /cat or Nv emtlly /Nm w;ln I«e o/
WARORu( LOCArpN pRrwalll al trouper lane wAen plmrwa/I/B'min. r,
Y.eraer to, rs 12•1. Yoy ps b b«fe M /ronkbp I ate k Mooed' ell /Teelrha : pmrtlroilfCmin. I.
de,ir"M ro btMf on 1-110 er Do' A, IMer IM..w. Delon A. e1 ar
er Q.."
.. A, Mae, xv. Z deer M. pp. J
Wlt/d! m.o � e me nor Wn;a. caeca Ims. All l
penerely fin :vn. Al/ supparl+ In el A/pDor s Wrtae clew tone. All aUvpons WlI;d. led, Jwe. AN w Wlln;n ,MrIM t :teJ /rwrplele of [eve rmr fM/10e /ronpiwe M new lone troll or 0«rl, pmm. from r«e or ewe to
SIS',S LwyJei eq weoA unless w wesYJMay OJea a ey weoraray unl.0 tnreaeo ey a bevearo !' D1e ripe °'v°Y `caner IMI is %wrlllee Ica 1Mrr pprrirr Iror IJ Y tmleu s�reaa Dy •epl o/ f;pn pall. Sry
,-epee Dy eM,r IMI rs rewpnr. W.,heo0 rrpn slrKlwer Nali/iM far .1M1 rorH., IMI !s /w l;IieO /w plMr Pbcemenl droll Ml Mau
'wli/irc far amer rrafws. looplee fin me clew l.s still0e reotwe, d"ACro/Ilenj r J. WI/"e^v s!9" To,
We.,
r:eewvu.
0,-l-ed Aipn ,IruelureJ Melee AAMMeO. eMoMd in IM 01,ro1/ M b[olfd ;n In! kw tone M/I pe
I. M Clew tone A." ee 1CA1t0' AM'eaed.
mllJOeQ
x I peneroly !n merlon erupt Wkar clew tone /pr Mln Wuide I w O.n;M
Wnen mieloed pourer. J/wgfple onnon-IronplMe pulp «Weaver<ewriernfro tA'rt%Oct [ w bnlne /rwpiele Irk Mr ,e ZO'o; ,eL. Duiraply %wli/ied Ica olMr nvronr. — a pwrlternlMl If <wNl 'Me Affe p'/rme rOp! °/ Travel of rep a Ary MI. Met Jut ire /or rMr recaonr,
L.GHT FOLfS W1,1 p11d N'mrns; Iron eepe o7 N'han <tlp. M aullary /end w fronpie/< pores Mett 01 Pkeep el 6'mrn. Tram rape 0I me0ion
ew.y Ica[ MA;nd vpprova0 eI=IM apwev.! pIMr 11 it ZO'/rM tine M N' from
:w rro1 r. iwrrn.e /w a le, carol, ...Jens wore Y tine Mr crew lane! rwrrc ane.
I. IeO.fD'IS, FrprplU/f peter eDy De PI¢ta dl Iron m'.
fO•Iraw /NV Mne oM H'7/om
awrrlwY ever /or New ranee
p/t0/!I Iron 20'.
Noe in mbian, Nor w/min R/W yr Wlsife Clew lOnt.
U IILITY Me mein Irovel waY yr brew,!. Nwmoly 6.5' lnfae R/W worn IN smvly 6.5'.,fee R/Wn wMnion. W/t)ee c/wr lone. xol in meErw. Noe ;n
PolES. Fw cIAM la;/llle, -lid. Me ee NJrwvlry fi.3' ("Nl a R/W w H
TIRE HYDRANTS. clew Iwr. Mrmely 6.5';"ar YoerM cl w ,one wMnvisr oeyeM clew terse alMrwlJ< bJmrre clear lane IAlrwin / _l p,
ETC. A/W .nentte.,d c� m line. e w �`Ikal fo R/w r cbs wwNcal /o R/W " uue
6lMrwire br1 l •' 0 w Ilne. °r _Ikel 1° R/W
to we, r e. 0
NPI pn Irreways. ro'min. from liar v/ Travel tins yMfmum p'n; �. ^ran rep a/ revere Zone w M /ran tOpr o/ arlllwy /1p^ ere M Irwel lent YinlAvmr from e0pe of I—, tine RAILROAD CRO$$Ix6 ape M arll;pry yor b n. aJbe e7 a 0": It nror egpr e/ Mvinr 2.5'nin.I¢e o1 tore to eNe/;Im".tae o/ Berke. NO 0/ devr[.. I00nr., Iron 15 rJDI:'ro' OrrwM npn es w rep. DEVICES py pUvroroll. eye JS-e5 oven -6' man-ro' e e rerlce
30 IWM w INS .6. ]5-.5 AaN .p•
Ylnlmum re, W.rlrw, We, 30 Awh
AM .uwerell O Y mmieelm to, ouNlrwY
freewoq w. pr.we r O A
60'min.-6p ddWIda Merrp'm;n. 22Y 15-50 moo
loco ro—1,w fin me0ipn/ 'S.5'm/n.- p 9.5'm;n. 5 mpn
xED/Ax wlOrHS p'min. �unwrW mpn w<o/er warn °r lev /S.3'min,- pfmPlr w lee MA;rpp/e I Oat/rrrMe� I
pn.r alvierp n; /wearer .leln
!0'mrn, 55 For retaud AMI Pro%KM Ina !er r•conrlrtcrlan
etM oM wN n. ppinled mrtlian .MIA won rnl.e mrcion roam wim
._ 2P'mfn.-Der 55 MN prwir;M /w Tell Iwo ;r p' min. Pp
TREES 141 c erne. 0011; clew ever. I _M, wrwM elJ;/aple / pror;sian to, wl luro rs ro'
Crirl;np W frPrcrea $randwa C/i/N;o reWirea WklOe new lane. Wlfa! clew tans. I /earn WillM dt,iraMe I );a. <I' Yeeswr0 Ica fr.rwayf. + n. /rem /«.
Arorr rM GICVM
p 6'n;n. Irpm epee ar mle- er,pn ,Pace b O! elroplitnw Wrly real;rl;< anllct«led opero/np speed. %i /°^•
P.ererree avNn eras! recrlws ¢. fna.n w popes 3-9 wa 3.p of Me 'Roo"!ee Oer/pn WlOe'. HBB.
Cwr;eerol;an ,Mud ee pile. M mvinlv;ninp I ... I 'rMn the actor. —ieed cl.wv¢er ane/w /tiller flapes wM/e I<°,iel< oM w¢I;m!
VOWe,ttA^M aeere troll M wee on all ne Ir¢lion and w resin hKfi , , Do, IO IM eAIMI IMI e[mnomk one enviranm M, cwtierrallur era R/w l
ne Iron one rru s/rKliu afe 'ywuml Ol Unilwm Y/niMpn $lanpmll fw Oa,ign, Co." Ion M Drrrinq Ions It ay Iro/Yknbne. hovel or ar;liery, d MOinleno«e Fw Slrer/s AM NipAwyA'. me voNu,AMrnS q,l near rMMI For eel%cat%e[ o/
y to ARR
a/I;c lmovemenl. I me .1'.. o/ M. rpw,ray lo;nr:rp Met Irwrlee wy for pwnlnp, speed Monroe, Iwnl/p, Jrorcpe rw Wrnllp, wewrnp, I —A cl;mpi Jr.
T--d — I IMne, r ;, Me,^9 w /w clMr Aw«re, fMtpltminlary to IMtupn
pvrlian oI M. o/ raoavey Ica Me maremml of rMicleS, M<Naire —Me"pod owilipry hoes.
B 0' I—IM,A wnere IM < rwl minlepn ar/ter unMl M ruswmpy velalnee anti NMr Olrerrolivet we OaereM imw«Icar, /ne m mur my M wMre ra 2. s'.
* At I«pUo^f w/rerr imme0;a`ey odl«enl titre bpmenl fwA" griaflpA. lk. Iwevitll lees Clfo/wwe, b/tlp1 pier! cu M pbcee ro wwie! Clrwaner IetA row M'. Adeaote siMl eislwtt /w rr",inp
Mnew./f pr ;nrerrrclwr rove ee wariaee.
p , de we Ica et;,ritpK tr nrwy obnledemeet U rrirr;np tree, w. e,Mn It pvl len rMn Au mrn;mµn ofreer ;MYtplee. [mrr /«Ip-a sMule M c
.. Dr. rorr/p AP.ea: ;amr Mnwy; . epe ate yP. w heel wol¢rion
acre«, eitlwrt[ Iron the e¢. o/ Co«r... pwr;lr3, Walk, a0vlmenla or al ripply oOfl Klli fe l Io cal newt ere mry er place Mn;nd Dwrie/s Irol ob`red to Oelermine add IM,;v o/ offs.,
o/ Ine °° for ^rely pbnrtp bur. Offer!! Arow aP0/y Iv fmM M,Ide aM merle. /w eivield Ai <SJ Y panted Ireel. Fw W e[om puwOrOil me -Iola re, .,A., nofonf. IM ler,¢I;ont. Wrravls vra me0iw openlnpf. elt. SMII D! mvMMMep, ,Awy, w pinfrWiar MW. WMn Ire" o ' �R
❑ veun re pM[<a in Ine ledrw W_,. MN eMl.nce I
lw
for [hare I¢ilif<A won wrMe me0%and one —111,v /«llillu call%tl Sdwdf Mdu xa. D862. M [word tepwwlM, el crau:rps, 2s' from /¢a a/ wee to new e e o/ s + WMn aI/Ael lslaeRJMa. ewe ,roll D[ ro eP /pnpl eerlce in vcTArdo«'t won h°f//C Delp.
den re oro;e en,cA;,y trgnr e;np«. to —M.r;pnr.
e Nor rest Ilat Z. rope !I any AMub.r
0 Pwrm.nl.
rn 0 A. enero«MMnI M M/ae ill wirole wope/ly, TM 5.5•e/fir is lv a/iminvfe venal encro«nnen/, r'I (n Clew lane FeolMlefr
5/anOwtl roNet we to M wee;w c//nrW una 'nr wOjrclA. These WIJ mpY N reMeo Only wnere ;MivamllY jwrif;ed )v m;U
tJ = 9 aM eErpmnfnrpl rapt[IS w It .tarn erressive ripAl °/ waY ua1f. SM,we" roMrf ore oleo la b we.' /or rrlanrhKriw • TO mrnin caw •rY M M .n /re iMN;MIy Rulir;e0 tiv'e to crilkol racial, eca.mmic Jnq .nvirvnmenlol inW¢IA an gore er; v;rol J«iol. IQanom;e.
iQ 1 '� S rovdar0e oetl¢Ies we " unar0ered Mtardmu w rvide«ee by field I"ie. e/vr . °r f/.c ,: Mwevter r Wn tlaW�
® wnere isenr n: elary IMiWles .resit w uMrf sootllic tfl! rnvefllDoliM rM.r ar/'. aenln«lenli,tw00/,Irw<,p/or rruvialra-iu /wY ro,ls
ly or
fna/a ee wlwrrtl w fin anise w ror;!«ror cwver in worn
a• 5: acarovnce W;M TOele / I stl. t a1�2 L roil Ia-'::;;v wuMvl are
rile we M car/re,s o/ doer softy rep-.. n:•rl I,( ro M _,lord VacMl ;I Nrer Yone rra;/lme,r: a< oar p,a,,;°m.
I D 3 A Q
i(5) M, ee lea erc ro la ,peer —;'I. JO-p —1 1/
cn cr;lrrie ! cvnabionr mvn n n !role Tor law spree.
i . ° ®6 tear w ova«
v:F " aWe of ;.fide /rMrc lane we va;rm wro wrc. all
1 r non11-1 Veep., I/qn 4:1 elKroaner into fin°
V y D 7 m e^.R«dAMol 01141 Wa. •, MO. tleJ1 e°n4 e e .a/ ruMul one i N D< wovipre of m1 r9la, sir me s tarppnel won f;p. J,Z ° See "Srrvcru•e, 0";pn WidelIne!'. CM'aler Z. rnr fur/I er aeM:rs, rye fin ¢ /
ra
x
= U W
w0 0
x a � .i z m
�~ 3z00>
w�m
J W
0toN44�
ag0tia0a0
w>0f-yWmwwz0
J Q Z O
zyj00 v0a
Ow1-Ix
0 00rn
w��azmo}}v
�0ui U) �'
Z I-- mu) w
��<00
JF-�oca?rn
• a IL
F
x
c_7
~ W
W d
z �a y
9 3a o W
r)
01
LLJ Y
U
O
-
p W
O
W
J
N
_I
U W
Z
>
p
p�
Q
W o
Noa
m
I
I I
0
w
o
p
�
. a
mo
z Q
�p
�
�
LLJ
o N
•cl
Q
af
U Z
LLJ
D
U
Z Qf
cn j
^r`1L
cn
Oa
W
o 1
co :41,
-x \
UW
�A
ion
n
F-
J cc
w •0��^�
U_
p ZO
�U fl .
H OiVh )
IIVHdSd
U
w
w
p
0
m
0.9
N
W
zD
af _Z —ON.--
Iw- ~
Z
O
Z =
� U
a
W W
O
Oz
ZLU
H F-
N
v� a Q
Z
O(n¢
11)W0
Z�N=Z cr
yc 0 W
ma
O
_Z p
�FC H
J OW U
o=:D
U Of
W N
LAJ Z~O
W O Z U
a V) 0
0 W Q
W
ga �
o �
<'�
� U W
W J m
} O J
Ln U Q
= N
jOY
J
z 3
Li Q N
� O Ct
�—OfU
J
a
W
N
Z
W
Q
� 3
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: JEFF NEWELL, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FROM: RUSSELL K. WHITE, PUBLIC SERVICES SUPERVISOR
SUBJECT: DRAINAGE YACHT CLUB ESTATES
DATE: 4/4/02
After review of the attached, I have the following comments:
• We will not accept ADS drain basins.
• We should have a maintenance bond if the Village decides to accept the paver
bricks in the roadway.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns.
UJ!ZZ/UZ fKl 1Z:IU rA.i D01 140 It!! USYJ
QUUi
Vincent B. Jacobetti
Manager
LitsY7'E"O.ST 1%,t e-
March 22, 2002
Re: "turning Radius of Postal Vehicles
To: Jim Burl;
As requested by you the turning radius of the vehicles that service the Tequesta area are as
follows:
LLV Vehicle - 38 feet
FFV Vehicle — 40 feet 4 inches
Sincerely,
Vincent Jaco'ett
Manager
1095 Military Trail
Jut)iter FL 13458-9998
Voice 1-561-744-2799
Fax 56i-746-7177
AIL
Memorandum
°i7EOF ._
TO: Jeffery Newell, Director, Department of Community Development
FROM: Stephen J. Allison, Chief of Police APA - 2 2002
F
DE:... l OF
Subject: Patrol Car Turning Radius COMMUNITY UEVELOPMP-41'
Date: April 1, 2002
The turning radius for the 2002 Ford Crown Victoria police cars is 20.2 feet. This
should be the same for the older Crown Victorias in our fleet.
W
W
Memorandum
TO: JEFF NEWELL, DIRECTOR OF COFES
D ELOPMENT
FROM: JAMES M. WEINAND, FIRE CHIEF
SUBJECT: FIRE APPARATUS TURNING
DATE: 04/01 /2002
Pursuant to your request, below are the minimum turning radiuses of the fire department vehicles.
Current ambulances have a minimum turning radius of 52 feet.
2. Current structural pumper truck has a minimum turning radius of 61 feet.
3. Aerial truck has a turning radius of 88 feet.
If you need anything else, please do not hesitate to ask.
a --I
O
a
~
W
Cn Q
m Q O
z
W I
N
_
Q
W cli
LL
>
O
O
CD W F—
Ri
CD z
z z z
W
aQCD
Q C—)
w
=
_ _
CIDN = u
U)
I— Q
z O W
o010
U)
U O
—1
�t Q
LU
� a
a
Cfl Q
V J
z cn
O 3 W
_J O z
{ CD
N
O
LU
L I—
O
N
LO
� M 11
_
CD
zrs z
O W
rr
w
0
Q
57
C-) J
O
W J
z Cn
z
J
O w
Q Q
J CL
a
tri
F- O N
C)Y
-J H O
Q O
m
CL
LL ~¢
O ,J
Q C3-
rL
LLJ
Q
M.
¢
Z w
w
C)
0
— w o
Rl
t ) w fV
o w
Q ¢
W J CO d CL
¢ �i
� W N
2 C:,
y
a
_ ¢ o
CL CC
U L, ~
O ¢
J
¢ � d
6
> _J
d
LLJ
w
J
r-
H1N00 n �LL
a.
a^
Iz
ILD
w
r7
Lie
gn.
-
�I~ L
NxR
--jIQ ,
C, Y
_
I'- C,o 0
=ice m
U ¢ F
Q
Q C3- J
LL
•.'9EI
.BP,??.L9•Vo S o'i•B
.JIO
H
\IJ \
U�w
6
w¢ \
nm s
\
r L2239N1 Bolan,
rs3gp31 92 n lON
c
'o voo
tb7 9lb d
d
;
3 a00 ,00 r00s of
\
oo lybd
<',7by�
.00 'oc 3 00.00.00s
,mo'oe ':
1
N�„ .
3b I
_�ooroz
as
I
M, 0,
I
a �
m
v
�or,rLgpg '0
mmm
- _
RE
W 90.00'
m¢-o= xsW=a
N07' 25' 53'
cn a-
- --
w _
�'LL =RE
M
�
O N CDW
F=ijj
8 3 A
1 8 3 3 H 3 1 V H V X 0 1 mr m
Q� -- -
d p
¢
cn _
r rm ,-n aqua
{
Donna D. MVers
23 River Drive
Tequesta, Florida 33469 April 11, 2002 Re: Plat D Subdivision
Viiiage Council Members and To Whom It May Concern,
Survey marks on Plot D have been changed. They were moved
WOLMUMd from marks established more than 40 years ago.
The extra square footage resulting from such a change
has up to approximately 800 square feet added to the bo added
total square footage newly added to the propertybottom line of
surveys) - seemingly allowing the applicant to (hOin prior
square footage for a FOURTH building lot at One Yach minimum
(Before and After surveys are available for proof.)t Club Place.
survey marks ore on the very, very Some of the new
are over water -water deemed Qedge of the seawall cap - they
deemed on Aquatic Preserve b the
lands' in waters
y he State of Florida.
To ovoid a dispute with the State of Florida r
lands a certain methodologyhas egarding submerged
been laid out where, when a
survey abutting or encroaching Florida submerged I goes back to the state with a request for determ • ands is done, i t
Mean High Water mark is established. Ther inOtion and a
disputes in the matter are resolved, ems' any questions or
The Florida Dept of Environmental Protection
and at the state level in Tallahassee have bothn Palm Beach County
Procedure was not followed for One Yacht Club paffirmed that this
Place.
Attach is on E-mail from Sim Smith, Dept. of Environmental
PrOltedion, Division of State lands regarding this issue.
11mnk you for addressing this issue.
From: Sim A. Smith — Page 1 of 1
From: "Smith, Sim A." <Sim.A.Smith@dep.state.fl.us>
To: <donna.d.myers aratt.net>
Cc: "heeds, Carol" <Carol.Meeds*,dep.state.fl.us>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 200216:31:36 -0400
Mrs. Myers, I have searched my files and I do not have on file a Mean High
Water Procedure Approval letter from the Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Surveying and Mapping for a land surveyor named Richard
Mixon to establish the mean high water line for a parcel of land named
Property 1, Yacht Club Place (Plat B), in Tequesta, Florida, Palm Beach
County. Because of this, I have no means of knowing if correct or incorrect
field procedures were followed to establish the mean high water elevation.
In addition I have no way of knowing how it was located on the ground.
Private land owners are not required to seek procedure approvaql from us
unless they want their procedures to be defendable in a court of law.
Sim Smith
Department of Environmental Protection
Division of State Lands
Bureau of Surveying and Mapping
[Get E-mail I Message List I Compose I Address Book I Mailboxes I Options 1 Original View
Help I Feedback I Lo out I AT&T World Net Home j
http://webmail.att.net/wmc/v/wm?cmd=Print&no=16&sid=cO 4/11/2002
W
April 10, 2002
Mr. Michael R. COUZZo, Jr.
Village Manager
Village of Tequesta
250 Tequesta Drive, Suite 300
Tequesta, Florida 33469
770O s.F. Brt ,re Ro-
ad
1 l.,be S�,un�i. F- 3 555
(561) 546-7700
(561)540-199C Fax
RE: Refuse, Multi -Material Recycling and Vegetative Waste Collection from the Yacht
Club Place development
Dear Mr. Couzzo:
In response to discussions with you, review of the proposed site plan and on -site
meetings with the developer (Mr. James A. Burg) of the Yacht Club Place project, I find
the property to be accessible to our collection vehicles.
The turning radius provided by the expanded Cul-de-sac design will accommodate a
standard three-point turn for most of our residential service vehicles. The proposed
development can be serviced in a safe and efficient manner based on the information
we have received and representations made by the developer.
Nichols Sanitation — Waste Management, will not be responsible for the possible
repairing or replacing of special paving surfaces, i.e.; paver stones, that may react
adversely to the weight and routine turning of our vehicles over a long period of time.
There is no evidence to substantiate the likelihood of such a result, but it is on the
record for your consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the review and approval process relative
to solid waste and recyclable material collection.
We look forward to a continued public/private partnership and remain prepared to
respond to any issues or concerns you may have.
Respectfully,
s°
r ��
J ey Lff` abir
j Governmental Affairs Manager
I,� per? 0 '• a Et..��
{{Wyye v l 9 C�J
tv
pt r � e► ry � r� � iP.
rr W I
< � i ..
r
IL
ir
06
• a
. t .
RMA
Reese, Macon and Associs tes, Inc.
Date:
To: Jeff New 11
From: Thomas 0. Jens MK
Re: Yacht C b Estates
As requested, the follow
regarding the above.
1. Depending upon
to place the asph
home is construe
are my comments to the March 27, 2002 submittal made by Captec
; schedule of construction for the adjacent homes, it may be advisable
in two (2) 3/4-inch lifts, with the final lift occurring after the last
2. The extension of Yacht Club Place will be a Village owned/maintained roadway. The
Developer is plai ding on placing paver bricks in the road at the entrance and the cul-de-
sac. This is typi ally done on private roads. The Village may want a maintenance bond
from the Develo r/Association for the brick pavers.
3. The cul-de-sac, w shown, has only a 20-ft. radius which is exceptionally tight.
Typically, a sma 1 cul-de-sac has a minimum 38-1 radius, which will allow service
trucks the ability to turn around and exit I do not believe that the cul-de-sac as shown
now, will aeco fish what the Council w trying to achieve in preventing vehicles froln
backing out of thp subdivision.
4. The revised draiiige plan is acceptable:. They should outline why they plan to use plastic
drainage structur s as opposed to concrete.
Should you have questi4s or wish to discuss this further, please call.
Encl.
cc: Russell Whitc
tcj02 065/02-106
6415
ke Worth Road • Suite 307 • Lake Worth, F1. 33463-1907
['dephonc (_561) 433-3226 • Facsimile (561) 433-8011
Topic #625-000-007 January 2000
Plans Preparation Manual, Volume I - English Revised 1/01
Minimum Standards for Canal Hazards
(Curb and Gutter)
50 mph or Less
40 ft. Min.
O ft.
Min.
50 mph or Less
Less Than 40 ft. Min.
20 ft.
Min.
5 ft.
* Posted speeds not to be greater than 45 mph.
Exhibit 4-B
Roadside Safety 4-6
APPENDIX A COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE*
APPENDIX B SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS"
ARTICLE_V. IMPROVEMENTS PREREQUISITE
Section_ 13_Engineering-expenses.
A -Section 13. Engineering expenses.
The subdivider shall reimburse the village for engineering expenses incurred by the village, directly related
to the subdivision. Where the benefits derived from engineering studies and designs are general in scope
and encompass an area greater than that being platted, the costs shall be proportioned according to the
benefits derived. The amounts or portions of the costs to be bome by each area will be in accordance with
a formula provided by the village.
Section 14. Undesignated roads.
The subdivider shall provide those roads not designated in the village's five-year schedule of improvements
plan or other jurisdictions plans which will facilitate additional development and remain consistent with
desired growth.
Section 15. Sale of nonplatted lots not permitted.
No owner of a tract of real property shall sell lots from said tract without first having said tract surveyed and
recorded in accordance with these regulations.
ARTICLE VI. VARIANCES, SEVERABILITY, PENALTY
Section 1. Hardship.
Where the council finds that extraordinary hardships may result from strict compliance with these
regulations, it may recommend the variance of the regulations so that substantial justice may be done and
the public interest secured; provided that such variation will not have the effect of nullifying the intent and
purpose of a comprehensive development plan, the zoning ordinance or these regulations, and such
variance is issued by the village council.
Section 2. Conditions.
In granting variances and modifications, the council may require such conditions as will, in its judgment,
secure substantially the objectives of the standards or requirements so varied or modified.
Section 3. Penalties.
Violation of the provisions of this ordinance or failure to comply with any of its requirements (including
violation of conditions and safeguards established in connection with grants of variances or special
exceptions), after notice by a village official, shall constitute a misdemeanor. Any person upon conviction of
such misdemeanor shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00) or imprisoned for not more
than six (6) months or both, and in addition, shall pay all costs and expenses involved in the case. Each
day such violation continues shall be considered a separate offense.
Section 4. Severability.
If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the
other provisions or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provisions or
applications, and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared severable.
http://fws.municode.comlCGI-BINIom isapi.dll?advquery=expenses&aquery=expenses&... 4/11/2002
APPEND -VA COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE*
SECTION Xlil. APPEALS AND VARIANCES. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND VILLAGE COUNCIL
(b) To authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variance from the terms of the ordinance as
will not be contrary to the public interest, where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement
of the provisions of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship. The power to grant any such
variance shall be limited by and contingent upon a finding by the board or council:
1. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land,
structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or
buildings in the same zoning district;
7. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant;
3. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special
privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, buildings or structures in the same
zoning district;
4. That literal interpretation of the provisions of the ordinance would deprive the
applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under
the terms of the ordinance and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the
applicant;
That the #Fa r° ce granted is the minimum van;anre that will make possible the
reasonable use of the land, building or structure;
6. That the grant of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose
of the ordinance and that such ._ =arc will not be injurious to the area involved or
otherwise detrimental to the pubic welfare.
(c) In granting any variance, the board of adjustment or village council may prescribe
appropriate conditions and safeguards in conforrnity with this section and any ordinance enacted
by the vi8age council. Violation of such conditions and safeguards, when made a part of the terms
under which the variance is granted, shall be deemed a violation of this ordinance.
(d) In reviewing matters brought before it pursuant to the provisions of this section, neither the
board of adjustment nor the village council shall exercise authority or jurisdiction over matters
which are specifically reserved to other officers, boards or agencies of the village. Where site plan
review is necessitated pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance, no decision of the board of
----adjustment or the village council with respect to a variance, or other matter, pertaining to the
property in questions shall obviate the necessity for such site plan review. Where a requested
building pemvt has been withheld by the building official for want of compliance with applicable
laws and ordinances beyond the jurisdiction of the board of adjustment or the village council, no
building permit shall be issued regardless of any decision of the board or council until the
requirements of said laws and ordinances have been met.
(e) Under no circumstances shall the board of adjustment or the village council grant a variance
to permit a use not generally or by special exception permitted in the zoning district involved or any
use expressly or by implication prohibited by the terms of this ordinance in the zoning district. No
nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district and no
permitted use of lands, structures or buildings in other zoning districts shall be considered grounds
for the authorization of a variance.
(F) Decisions of the Board ofAdjustment or the Village Council. In exercising the above mentioned powers,
the board or the council may, in conformity with the provisions of this section, reverse or affirm, wholly or
partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision or determination appealed from and may make such
order, requirement, decision or determination as ought to be made, and to that end shall have all the
powers of the officer from whom the appeal is taken. The concurring vote of three (3) members of the
board or the council shall be necessary to reverse any order, requirement, decision or determination of any
http://fws.municode.com/CGI-BIN/om isapi.dll?advquery=variance&aquery=variance&h... 4/11/2002
04/11/2002 12:58
&0)
954-792-7126
The Spear Group
April 11, 2002
Mr. Jeff Newell
Director of Community Development
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
250 Tequesta Drive, Suite 305
Tequesta, Florida 33469
Dear Mr. Newell;
3791 &w. 47m Avame
&ft 307
FL Laudwdala. ftrift
33314-815
%4 • M-aoo
FAX M4.7M-7128
PAGE 82
APR 112002
MU
FYI
You have requested that we respond to the comment from, Fire Chief Weinard that "the 23'
Witty and Emergency Access Easement be reconfigured to a dead end street stub, permitting
future roadway expansion to county line road". We have the following comments.
1. This would necessitate losing at least one lot which would be a major hardship. It would
change all the dynamics of our financing arrangements and potentially delay us longer than
our ability to complete this transaction.
2. We have spent a tit of money processing these plans and to make this change at this date
would add financial hardship. There may be an additional time delay to reconfigure and
get rye -approved on the site plan, which would only further the problem of timing which is
so critical right now.
3. We have previously received DRC (staff) comments (which included the fire chiefs
comments), sketch plan approval and site plan approval. This issue was never raised and
the plans were approved in the current configuration. The preliminary plat approval is
generally only for technical comments and usually presumes that the site plan layout is
acceptable.
4. The need for future roadway expansion is unnecessary in that recent conversations with
the Rood Nursery, they have indicated that the property is not for sale, and that their
business is doing well. Also, we should point out that it is poor design to have an access
roadway through the commercial property to a residential property.
5. The Rood Nursery is not in the Village and these are legal complications to having it
annexed into the Village. It is unlikely therefore that the commercial portion could ever be
included as an extension of this community
04/11/2002 12:58 954-792-7126 SPEAR GROUP PAGE 03
Mr. Jeff Neweli
Director of Community Development
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
Page Two
We hope this answers your question. Please call if we can be of further assistance. Thank
you for your cooperation in this process.
Sincerely,
THE SPEAR GROUP
1WA�-�--
J y N. Spear
JNS/gs
Apr-11-02 08:38A Reese,Macon&Assoc_ P-01
IMA 0z
Reese, Macon and Associates, inc.
MEMORANDUM
Date: Apri I 11, 2002
To: Jcli' Newell
From: 'rom Jensen
Re: Yacht Club Estates
As we discussed, Mr. Burg's attorney (Joseph Grosso) has responded to my memo of April 1,
2002 regarding the above project. Mr. Grosso's letter and my memo are attached. The main
issue at hand is the proposed cul-de-sac that Mr. Burg is proposing, which will have a 21-ft.
radius (42-11. diameter)_ This deviation from the 80-ft. diameter cul-de-sac as called for in the
Village Code, will require Council approval. Based upon the already approved 3-lot subdivision
with the dead end street, the proposed 42-ft. diameter cul-de-sac Ibr the 4-lot configuration is an
improvement. Note that the proposed cul-de-sac will not allow all vehicles to turn around (180°)
and exit without backing up within the cul-de-sac,( i.e.) a 3-point turn_ The backing up motion
for turn-arounds within a cul-de-sac is not an uncommon practice This is what I eluded to in my
4/1/02 memo concerning the hacking up of vehicles.
Concerning where I acquired the data to make these statements, i referred to the American
Association of Statc Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Manual for Geometric
Design of Highways and Streets. This manual outlines turning radius' for different vehicles and
required pavement widths.
1 trust this clarifies the situation and if you should require any additional information please call.
Enc1.
t0J02 068/02- I06
PoSt-it" Fax Noto 7671 Dal
TO 1
�J O Fro
Co.lgttpt. Co.
J.
6415 Lake Worth Road - Suite 307 - Lake Worth, Fi. 33463.2907
Telephone (561) 433-3226 • Facsimile (561) 433-8011
Apr-11-o2 O8:38A Reese,Macon&Assoc_
P_O2
/IMA C r
Meese, Macon And Associates, Inc.
Date: April I, 2002
To: Jeff Newell
From: Thomas C. Jen19
sc
Re. Yacht Club Estates
As requested, the following are my comments to the March 27, 2002 submittal made by Captec
regarding the above_
1. Depending upon the schedule of construction for the adjacent homes, it may be advisable
to place the asphalt in two (2) 3/4-inch lifts, with the final lift occurring after the last
home is constructed.
2. The extension of Yacht Club Place will be a Village owned/maintained roadway. The
Developer is planning on placing paver bricks in the road at the entrance and the cul-de-
sac- This is typically done on private roads. The Village may want a maintenance bond
from the Developer/Association for the brick pavers.
3. The cul-de-sac, now shown, has only a 2041. radius which is exceptionally tight.
Typically, a small cul-de-sac has a minimum 38-ft. radius, which will allow service
trucks the ability to turn around and exit. I do not believe that the cul-de-sac as shown
now, will accomplish what the Council was trying to achieve in preventing vehicles from
backing out of the subdivision.
4. The revised drainage plan is acceptable. They should outline why they plan to use plastic
drainage structures as opposed to concrete.
Should you have questions or wish to discuss this further, please call.
Friel,
cc: Russell White
tcj02 065/02-106
6415 Lake Worth Road - Suite 307 • Lake Worth, Ff. 31463-2907
'relephone (56 0 411-3226 • Facjimilc (561) 413•-801 1
Apr-11-02 08:39A Reese,Macon&Assoc. P-03
THE LAW OFFICE OF
JOSEPH D. GROSSO, JR., PA. ' -
ATTORNEY AT LAW gpR�I�
789 South Federal Highway ,_
'I'cl: (772) 220-3496 Suite 310 �''+
Fax: (772) 220-2744
Stuart, Florida 34994
April. 9, 2002
VIA FACSIMILE AND
REGULAR MAIL
Mr. Tom Jensen
Reese, Macon and Associates, Inc.
6415 Lake Worth Road, Suite 307
Lake Worth, Florida 33463-2907
RF.: Yacht Club Estates
Dear Mr. Jensen:
Yesterday I received a copy of your memorandum to Mr. Jeff Newell dated April 1, 2002
concerning the proposed roadway modifications to Yacht Club Place. Since your comments and
recommendations will likely be considered by the Village Council when evaluating this
application,1 felt it necessary to respond to several matters.
First, please note that Yacht Club Place is an existing platted road, dedicated and
accepted by the Village of'I'equesta at the time of the approval and recording of the plat of Yacht
Club Point. Since the road already exists and the proposed replat merely adds an additional lot
along the existing dedicated road, the road should not even be considered by the Village Council
in making its decision. Nevertheless, the applicant has offered to present a modified road design
for the Village Council's consideration as an alternative to the existing road, in order to address
safety concerns raised by the Village Council.
With respect to items 1, 2, and 4 of your memorandum, please note as follows: a) The
proposed asphalt schedule is acceptable to the applicant; b) The Yacht Club Point Homeowners
Association is responsible for maintaining the road. This responsibility is not affected by the
addition of brick pavers; c) A concrete catch basin will he used with a 12" hdpe pipe connection
to the existing outfall_
In item three of your memorandum you conclude that the proposed cul-de-sac is too, small
Apr-11-02 08:39A Reese,Macon&Assoc_
P_04
for vehicles to turn around. Please provide the with the data or evidence you have examined in
order to reach this conclusion. If none, please provide at least the basis for your conclusion. 1
am especially interested in your response because the evidence examined by the applicant
indicates that most vehicles will be able to turn around. Attached please find documentation
provided to the applicant by the U.S. Postal Service, Federal Express, and the Village of
Tequesta Fire Department, along with the vehicle specifications for a Suburban. A letter from
Waste Management will be provided shortly. All of the foregoing, demonstrate that many of the
service vehicles of particular concern to the Village Council will be able to make a u-turn at the
cul-de-sac and those that cannot, including sanitation trucks, will be able to conduct a three point
turn- In your memorandum to Mr. Newell dated October 25, 2001, which contained comments
regarding the road without the cul-de-sac, you suggested that the Village Council should require
"some sort of travel return". In view of the foregoing; I presume that you would find the ability to
conduct a three point turn to be satisfactory, and further, that you failed to consider a three point
turn in reaching your conclusion that vehicles would still be forced to back out of the road even
with the proposed cul-de-sac.
Finally, a review of your memorandum leads me to conclude that you were not fully
aware of the circumstances surrounding this application and the context in which the proposed
modifications should be reviewed. As 1 stated earlier the road already exists. Therefore, the
primary issue to be addressed is whether the proposed modification makes the road safer. In our
view, clearly it does.
After reviewing the evidence provided to you I urge you to re-examine your conclusion. l
would also request that you include in your memorandum a specific finding as to whether the
proposal provides a safer roadway than that which exists presently. Please provide your response
in writing as soon as possible as the application goes before the Village Council for approval on
April 11, 2002. It would certainly be unfortunate for all parties involved it, in light of the
information provided herein, you were to modify your conclusions only to then discover that the
Village Council had already made decisions in reliance on your earlier memorandum.
Sincerely,
-'� Grosso, Jr.
CC: Mr. Jeff Newell
memo
®ate: 4/10/02
To: Village Council
From: Michael Couzzo, Jr., Village Manager,by Mary Wolcott, Village Clerk'
RE: AGENDA ITEM X.F. BACKUP
Priority: [Urgent]
Attached is the backup for Agenda Item X.F. regarding the maximum expenditure for the Village
Manager. As you may recall, the new Village Charter requires this amount be set by Ordinance.
This is on the Agenda for the purpose of discussing the amount you would like the manager to
Approve, and we will bring the Ordinance back at a later meeting.
Ccontact me should you have any questions regarding this matter.
DATE: APRIL 10, 2002
TO: MICHAEL COUZZO, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: JOANN FORSY'17IE, FINANCE DIRECTOR
RE: Policy regarding making contracts on behalf of the Village
• Issue: According to the new Charter of the Village of Tequesta, the Village Manager can
make contracts on behalf of the Village provided that "no such contract shall obligate the
Village for a sum greater than allowed by ordinance..."
• Problem: At this time the Village does not have an ordinance regarding this matter.
• History In the past, the Village Manager executed contracts for items less than $5,000.00
and presented them to Council after execution. Contracts greater than $5,000.00 were
brought to Council for approval prior to execution.
• Information: We discussed this matter with our auditors, Rachlin, Cohen & Holtz, and
asked them for the average range their clients used for allowing the Village Manager to
execute contracts phor to getting Council approval. I was informed that $5,000.00 to
$7.500.00 was an average range used by other municipalities.
• Recommendation: This item be brought before Council to determine to what dollar
amount the Village Manager can execute contracts prior to getting Council approval and
that an ordinance setting that level be brought before Council for approval.
4/10/024:18 PM
Date: 4/lOiO2
To: Village Council
From. Nfichael Couzzo, Jr,, Village NlawivU,by Mary Wolcott, Village Clerk'
RE: R'v Tequesta Flopei-fies
Priority: [Urgent]
At the direction of the Villag--. Manager, 1 have arnended Thursday's Agenda to include an item
regarding g JMZ Properties (See E. under Uafimshed Business). The backup for this item is attached..
it hesitate to contact me should Nou hae any questions regarding this matter.
NO 42 `-
FOS
JOHNSTON
S
TUM, PA
Atxora9ys and Cennselors
Jahn C. Randolph, Esquire
Direct Dial: 561-650-0458
Direct Fax: 567-650-0435
E-Mail- jrandolph@jones kster,com
April 9, 2002
Mr. Michael R. Couzzo, ,fir.
Village Manager
Village of Tequesta
Post Office Box 3273
Tequesta, Florida 334$9
Haaier Center Tower, Suite 1100 Mailing Address
503 South Flagier Drive Post Office Box 3475
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 West P41M Beach. Florida 3-UM-3475
Telephone (56l) 659-3000 Facsimile (561) 832-1454
VIA FAX: 57&6203
Re: JMZ Tequesta Properties, Inc. Offer for Repurchase of Parcel 1
The Bridge Road Property
Our File No. 13153.63
Dear Mike:
As directed, I have prepared a draft letter to William A. Fleck, attorney for JMZ Tequesta
Properties, Inc., accepting JMZ's offer to repurchase Parcel 1, the Bridge Road
Property. for $477,000.00,
I would appreciate your review and the review and consideration of the Village Council
Of this letter. Further, in order for the letter to be approved and finalized, you may wish
to agenda this matter for consideration at the Village Council meeting on Thursday, April
11, 2002.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any comments or questions in regard
to this matter.
Sincerely,
JONES, FOSTER, JOHNSTON & STUBBS, P.A.
John C. Randolph
JCRIssm e _
Enclosure
SIGNED IN THE
ABSENCE OF JOHN C.
RANDOLPH TO
EXPEDITE DELIVERY
NS
FOSTER
T.tNMN
STLBBS, P.�.
Attorneys add codeselars
John C. Randolph, Esquire
Direct Dial: 561-550-0458
Direct Fax 561-650-0435
E-Mail: jrandolph@tones-foster.com
April 9, 2002
Ftagler Center Tower, Suite 1100
505 South Flagler Drive
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Telephone (561) 659-3000
William A. Fleck, Esquire
Kramer, Ali, Fleck, Carothers, Hughes, Gelb
& Bornstein
6650 West Indiantown Road
Jupiter, Florida 33458
fQj'fing Add,Z.—
Post Office Box 3475
West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3475
Facsimile (561) 832-1454
VIA FAX: 748-9000 ,
Re: JMZ Tequesta Properties, Inc, Offer for Repurchase of Parcel 1
The Bridge Road Property
Our File No. 13153.63
Dear Bill:
The Village Council has directed that I advise your client, JMZ Te,
Inc„ through you, of its acceptance of your client's offer in your Lett,
2001, to repurchase Parcel 1, the Bridge Road property referenced in
amount of $477,000.00 tendered by your client.
Although we have in our possession a check made payable to the dill
from John M. Zuccarelli, III, dated November 6, 2001, we propose that
on this matter in accordance with the existing agreement between th
within thirty (30) days, at which time a cashier's check will be made
Village from JMZ Tequesta Properties, Inc, in exchange for a deed froi
your client does not deem thirty (30) days a sufficient period of time
close, the Village would entertain closing within a period of time not to e
days from the date of this letter.
esta Properties,
of November 6,
)ur letter, for the
Ige of Tequesta
a formal closing
parties be set
payable to the
i the Village. If
within which to
cceed sixty (60)
The closing on this property will, as a matter of course, resolvAspe aCtion of your client in the case JMZ T uesta Pro ernes In
Case No. CA 01�-11262 AJ, as well as the 111age's performance with respect to the Village's right to swap Parcel .
Performance
for specific
William A. Fleck, Esquire
April 9, 2002
Page 2
i
Please let me hear from you or your client within five (5) days of the date of this letter as
to a convenient closing date.
Thank you for your consideration,
Sincerely,
JONES, FOSTER, JOHNSTON & STUBBS, P.A.
John C. Randolph
JCR:ssm
Enclosure
cc: Michael R. COuzzo, Village Manager
John M. Zuemrelli, Ill
s
T F t 4 1 . i! :1
P. 0. Box 3448, TequesW, FL 33469
April 9, 2002
Mr. Michael R. Couzzo, Jr.
Village Manager
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
250 Tequesta Drive, Suite 300
Tequesta, FL 33469
PH:561-748-BW3 PAX:561-748-1$3o
SUBJECT: Outstanding Issues at Tequesta Village Center
Dear Mr. Couzzo:
After our conversation on Monday and in an effort to try to settle the outstanding
issues between 3MZ TEQiUESTA PROPERTIES, INC. (JMZ) and the Village of
Tequesta (VOT) relative to the Tequesta Village Center, I would like to take this
opportunity to offer the following for consideration by the VOT:
Repurchase of Parcel No. 1 Southwest Parcel -
JMZ will repurchase Parcel No. 1 from the VOT per the terms of the previously
executed agreement between JMZ and the VOT at a time not more than one (1)
year from the execution of a settlement agreement between JMZ and the VOT
relative to the current outstanding issues. The VOT will continue to maintain as
well as be responsible for payment of the real estate taxes associated with this
parcel through the tax year 2003/2004.
Reimbursement for 2002 Real Estate Taxes -
The VOT will reimburse JMZ in the amount of approximately $15,000.00 for the
2002 real estate taxes.
Main Street Lights -
The VOT will install the required number of street lights within the Main Street
right-of-way as per the approved Tequesta Village Center Master Plan.
Main Street Landsca in The VOT will install all of the required landscaping within the Main Street right-of-
way as per the approved Tequesta Village Center Master Plan.
Page 2
Mr. Michael R. Couzzo, Jr.
April 9, 2002
Bridge Road Streetsca e -
The VOT will install all of the necessary improvements including cartway, lighting
and landscaping, associated with the planned streetscape.
Reimbursement for Plat Preparation and Recording -
The VOT will reimburse JMZ for the cost to prepare and record the plat for the
Tequesta Village Center.
Plat Modification -
The VOT will be responsible for paying the necessary flees for preparation and
recording of a plat modification to accurately reflect the parcel and right-of-way
boundaries of the Tequesta Village Center.
Purchase of Ri ht-of-Wa Arcs -
The VOT will purchase the Main Street right-of-way arcs from JMZ that currently
encroach on Parcel No. 2 (northwest parcel) and Parcel No. 3 (east parcel) of the
Tequesta Village Center that are currently owned by JMZ.
Resolution of Reciprocal Parking Easement Agreement Issues -
The VOT will be the lead agency for the removal of the "Tow Away" signs on the
adjacent Bank of America property owned by Mr. Allan Welles, and achieving
final resolution of this agreement with Mr. Welles.
Repair of the East Ri ht-of-Wa /Utili Easement -
The VOT will restore/repair the existing cartway located within the utility
easement located on the east side of Tequesta Village Center,
Clean-up of Southeast Parcel -
The VOT will cleanup and vegetate the southeast portion of Parcel No. 3_
JMZ welcomes the resolution of these issues with the VOT as soon as possible
so both entities can "rnove on" and conduct future business in a continued
professional manner. Upon your review of the above, should there be any
Page 3
Mr. Michael R. Couzzo, Jr.
April 9, 2002
questions or need of clarification, please don't hesitate to contact this office at
your earliest convenience.
Sincererly,
JMZ TEQ(jE, T R9PE1 TIES, INC.
Lm
Apr-11-02 08:38A Reese,Macon&Assoc_
P_01
RMA
Reese, Macon and Associates, inc.
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 11, 2002
. `-fl t I (G Z
To: JefTNewell
From; Tom Jensen
Re: Yacht Club Estates
As we discussed, Mr. Burgs attorney (Joseph Grosso) has responded to my rricino of April 1,
2002 regarding the above project. Mr. Grosso's letter and my memo are attached. The main
issue at hand is the proposed cul-de-sac that Mr. Burg is proposing, which will have a 2N.
radius (42-11. diameter). This deviatioll from the 80-ft. diameter cul-de-sac as called for in the
Village Code, will require Council approval. Based upon the already approved 3-lot subdivision
with the dead end street, the proposed 42-ft. diameter cul-de-sac; for the 4-lot configuration is an
improvement. Note that the proposed cul-de-sac will not allow all vehicles to turn around (180°)
and exit without backing up within the cul-de-sac,( i.e.) a 3-point lum_ The backing up motion
for turn -grounds within a cul-de-sac is not an uncommon practice This is what I eluded to in my
4/l/02 memo concerning the backing up of vehicles.
Concerning where 1 acquired the data to make these statements, i referred to the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Manual for Geometric
Design of Highways and Streets. This manual outlines turning radius' for different vehicles and
required pavement widths.
1 trust (his clarifies the situation and if you should require any additional information please call.
Enc1.
tcj02 068/02-106
Post -it" Fax Noto 7671
: ik
6415 Lake Worth Road • Suite 307 - Lake Worth, F1, 33463-2907
Telephune (561) 433-3226 - Facsimile (-561) 433-8011
Apr-11-02 08:38A Reese,Macan&Assoc. P_02
/RMA
Meese, Macon and Associates, Inc.
MEMORANDUM
Date. April 1, 2002
To: Jeff Newel I
From: Thomas C. Jense
Re: Yacht Club Estates
As requested, the following are my comments to the March 27, 2002 submittal made by Captec
regarding the above_
Depending upon the schedule of construction for the adjacent homes, it may be advisable
to place the asphalt in two (2) 3/4-inch lifts, with the final lift occurring after the last
home is constructed.
2. The extension of Yacht Club Place will be a Village owned/maintained roadway. The
Developer is planning on placing paver bricks in the road at the entrance and the cul-de-
sac- This is typically done on private roads. The Village may want a maintenance bond
from the Developer/Association for the brick pavers.
3. The cul-de-sac, now shown, has only a 2041. radius which is exceptionally tight.
Typically, a small cul-de-sac has a minimum 38-ft. radius, which will allow service
trucks the ability to turn around and exit. I do not believe that the cul-de-sac as shown
now, will accomplish what the Council was trying to achieve in preventing vehicles from
backing out of the subdivision_
4. The revised drainage plan is acceptable. 17iey should outline why they plan to use plastic
drainage structures as opposed to concrete.
Should you have questions or wish to discuss this further, please call.
Friel,
CC. Russell Wllitc
tcj02 06.5/02-106
6415 Lake Worth Raad • Suite 307 • Lake worn, FL 3.1461-2907
T'elcphone (561) 433-3226 9 t .,tc�imilc (5(i l) 41.1.•80l I
Apr-11-02 08:39A Reese,Macon&Assoc.
P_03
THE LAW OFFICE OF
JOSEPH D. GROSSO, JR., PA.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
T& (772) 220-3496
VIA FACSIMILEAND
REGULAR MAIL
Mr, Tom Jensen
Reese, Macon and Associates, Inc.
6415 Lake Worth Road, Suite 307
Lake Worth, Florida 33463-2907
RE: Yacht Club Estates
Dear Mr. Jensen:
789 South Federal Highway
Suite 310
Stuart, Florida 34994
April 9, 2002
APR 1 -, v �
oZ,1 0 l002
a �X0
Fax:(772)22Q-2744
Yesterday I received a copy of your memorandum to Mr. Jeff Newell dated April 1, 2002
concerning the Proposed roadway modifications to Yacht Cluh Place. Since your comments and
recommendations will likely be considered by the Village Council when evaluating this
application, I fell it necessary to respond to several matters.
First, please note that Yacht Club Place is an cxistirue platted road, dedicated and
accepted by the Village of'1'equesta at the time of the approval and recording of the plat of Yacht
Club Point. Since the road already exists and the proposed replat merely adds an additional lot
along the existing dedicated road, the road should not even be considered by the Village Council
in making its decision. Nevertheless, the applicant has offered to present a modified road design
for the Village Council's consideration as an alternative to the existing road, in order to address
safety concerns raised by the Village Council.
With respect to items 1, 2, and 4 of your memorandum, please note as follows: a) The
proposed asphalt schedule is acceptable to the applicant; b) The Yacht Club Point Homeowners
Association is responsible for maintaining the road. This responsibility is not affected by the
addition ol'brick pavers; c) A concrete catch basin will he used with a 12" hdpe pipe connection
to the existing outfall.
In item three of your memorandum you conclude that the proposed cul-de-sac is too small
Apr-11-02 08:39A Reese,Macon&Assoc.
P - 04
for vehicles to turn around. Please provide me with the data or evidence you have examined in
order to reach this conclusion. If none, please provide at least the basis for your conclusion. l
am especially interested in your response because the evidence examined by the applicant
indicates that most vehicles will be able to turn around. Attached please find documentation
provided to the applicant by the U.S. Postal Service, Federal Express, and the Village of
Tequesta Fire Department, along with the vehicle specifications for a Suburban. A letter from
Waste Management will be provided shortly. All of the foregoing, demonstrate that many of the
service vehicles of particular concern to the Village Council will be able to make a u-turn at the
cul-de-sac and those that cannot, including sanitation trucks, will be able to conduct a three point
turn_ In your memorandum to Mr. Newell dated October 25, 2001, which contained comments
regarding the road without the cul-de-sac, you suggested that the Village Council should require
"some sort of travel return". In view of the foregoing I presume that you would find the ability to
conduct a three paint tun, to be satisfactory, and further, that you failed to consider a three point
turn in reaching your conclusion that vehicles would still be forced to back out of the road even
with the proposed cul-de-sac.
Finally, a review of your memorandum leads me to conclude that you were not fully
aware of the circumstances surrounding this application and the context in which the proposed
modifications should be reviewed. As I stated earlier the road already exists. Therefore, the
primary issue to be addressed is whether the proposed modification males the road safer. In our
view, clearly it does.
After reviewing the evidence provided to you 1 urge you to re-examine your conclusion. ] would also request that you uiclude in your memorandum a specific finding as to whether the
proposal provides a safer roadway than that which exists presently. Please provide your response
in writing as soon as possible as the application goes before the Vil lags Council for approval on
April 11, 2UU2. [t would certainly be unfortunate for all parties involved if, in light of the
information provided herein, YOU were to modify your conclusions only to then discover that the
Village Council had already made decisions in reliance on your earlier memorandum.
Sincerely,
--"— Croso,sJr.
CC: Mr. Jeff Newell
TEKWA NAIVE
NI%M MVE
rACNi aul rucE
PLAT
LOCATION MAP
AW m WAAO
OEDICATION:
m ALL =11-LEAN a7NBI'llilift Nwim a" JtMIiNfn OXFOR m A t mim
K1�6fl' IA4IEFL �� Aa gUq�aA Q EA�I�T� rILL1E 47
IF
INt�arA Itll1 r5io1 roFxr PLOFIM�L EDw NNi txunw7.r EEnat�p r
RAFN iw fi t E B71i AiY�!# w 1''VI EMI Ed�Yn.
�etIIANCM LAOS ou IEEE M tm
PoLLJilli ®I"yp��Ta �AAIIYN9A AwTIM m F IMENT MINE 71E
ON,",
H7Faf�y�U 7fVONl♦�!t! FAC �RE
F
ft
■ NAMa N.t2 FACILIma
At >I11111110
Epl 1/ LIE T
ll 1 I 1 t I TI
F
L AIE 1�� 1���� � I OIrTtAgE YA Em
�CIIBN '9tMtli WIN E a�N�i"nIE aEs tnralM �
AK'}i �'.'"IN E�iw�ixE�Ea o°�`m1iniAo��ieE= Alo
STATE F ROFAIGh
cam F PALM FAA
'CIIl7nTKE Rlf ff IF '11 EIAFFIr I E4 R.NIIBA OIINMTIOa. IM
8N Imo'ITI a 1LAl ING
VITIM
"IR ue m
PIHIIENr�
IITM
POINT Kut--
STATE OF RIAIM
CHATTY F PALE Ma
AEIN A171N�f ,yN�� LTV. A FLINIOA L1111. PMTI6INIIP WW4
CII� iN E lIM OT JAM L WK A IrEi1NF7FF F
OF ING. A R�ONIM L4fOFIAi1OL ITI tODML Phrrm% nll
A*lX Ln, A FLI1104 LINITEN FAM10U IP
IT AAIWIE AWAI IET. INC.. A WIN O�Tlft
IITES m
POINT NNC EIjjLHL(f�
rlTGX_
AIIrr NAIL
VACHT CLUB ESTATE2
BEING A REPLAT OF ALL OF THE PLAT OF -
YACHT CLUB, POINT, PLAT BOOK 88, PAGES 139 AND 140.
LYING IN GOVERNMENT LOT 6e SECTION 26, AND GOVERNMENT LOT i,
SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 40 SOUTH, RANGE 42 EAST,
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
MARCH 2O02 SHEET t OF 2
ACKNOMLEDONENT:
FAIE F RAM
t>D M F ALIII�FJ�o
la F AEtm ¢ �JIr�d100e NNA3 eG_ A an NysmllLLpA��a
�O�IMYIOI 7IaA��i7� �7qy 1�I1f�Ra1H[ � IFFI0Ei1 F lAle
� X IC
Y t�IFIgT1OFL
NI'AM Er ONO ENN OFFICIAL ATAL OIIO ___ EAT OF ;XL
.UMMMENr
,J F*
dYaT F FALIS sm
It
AN NOLM
ANN
M.AI�TQAy7r,,rjftX&l
AA
RItOFWt� I�Nf TO F OII ItTw
IGITIiL
NITtFtt tM "M AM OFFICIAL 1Et. INII _ Mr IF Sa6
PIRtt .�_
TITLE CERTIFICATION:
FIAT
IM'EJam
nmx SINCE; p�T I FpMHE If Irutt SAN
I1H. AFLOM9A !,F1g11�
dllE R
R M VlA& & IRE
N1 I �1a7
71� ; NINWF
vudrr. FLgIM MNN
ACCEPTANCE OF DEDICATION:
FATE F nmt m
am" FAON Illm
tF rMlr 0-0 NtOFONNIlI AflF1ArIS INC 4 PWIM MR 1i FIlIT
I IF7Es} JIH I EOI�R ri TlF B a F-jF�
Ar�nt` �i In I�o leAq�yyyp nlR��wr�1 plea' afli�sll��il�Ta���el�r l[ tT��ia
n N NS n t !® n __aA► F
rMR Cm RINr IFmmm IYCIATiNA INC,
ATIMTM or or
4
ACOUR FRaCKNO LEDAMENT:
BlIEM
IIIIIA
am, W F" WAIIIII
Jf�
MAC T�a¢� 1
g1aANIN71'rt li 1, If[ rN� x �qF
PALL{' Ntrl ME Y s Y IF7ClTlCll
NITIRlt W NAND Alt OFFICIAL FAL TNIt ahr F MIL
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE:
UTEa
E10
a . F R.NFA aE woo
MORT@ASEE'S CONSENT:
ail,
RTl f.l.. lFI9 (7 L TE IIre1�Wgl N.Tl6#iN FI[ !w t l7E 1 �ir M AAO
1l! Ar la
Q
11IC14 IC o
n in ll er Aft
Ia'W1EN�{i7r AIN E
To1i tlg ff! W NO Nln� 1>� wrmT1 F lit mm
F um 91F
V1716a OF WAR A N OFFICIAL FAL WIN -r OF =L-
PtIAtT ,*
L MM _ NFL,110[ II�IE7(
ACKNOWLEOS ENT:
RATE F "Am
(UNITY F AU sum
wu Ae FIT YTAW fi7MOWLrZ.F.'rNION
GIINI WT1E�r P1AaXCIF,.�fFa AAr RE WWAAFF]IR 19Nn��UE ILoF11 FT11E l�I�ia OOIQaTIr
IOENrIFIGTIOFL
NnWll Nr WAN ANN OFFICIAL FA TNI9 _-_lAr F ML
V I LLAGE APPROVAL: m.11el� �-
1 Ia =61,11 vTrlUANT"S a F q,F �M WA ED OFFICIALLF
grIi� taYMFA
are
dY
FFFET
tA11LJiNN OFFICIAL
DATE
ASSOCIATICINi7 man I!C JAIF�E, LID C�ONAIIn I{LLAE ff
000000
Lr111E F L TIMMA PAVE=
or
WIN, IL
Ohre
Or
.Lm rLCOR
DATE
: X
1
olc
C
r 'C
aN• IV o ar a
AlRAPHIC KALE
s• � >r r�Er
&9r ffi' I?
MSS. 01'
VACNV CLUB ESVIAVE2
BEING A REPLAT OF ALL OF THE PLAT OF
YACHT CLUB POINT, PLAT BOOK B®, PAGES 193 AND 140,
LYING IN GOVERNMENT LOT 6, SECTION 26, AND GOVERNMENT LOT i,
SECTION 35. TOWNSHIP 40 SOUTH, RANGE 42 EAST.
VILLAGE OF TEGtUESTA, PALM BEACH COUNTY. FLORIDA
MARCH 2O02 SHEET 2 OF 2
Y A C H T B A 8 1 N
(PRIVATE)
REPLAT OF PART OF PLAT OF TE0lWA
PLAT 800K 25. PAGE 220
UTILITY II DRAME EAMM
sor 02.2A' N
NOW W orf IT (— "' NAO" 00' 00'E 386. 00'
L_ fs LL f ILL
rPIC OPi nor,
Nlllalr 1.11E • tm
—�'�' g19 i
zi
s
ff
W
WMW
ifs
LOTI.
_sp
FEET
LOT 2 l
�
�
' solivafE�Er
0
—1
— — �SET
A-37.Oi'W
� N�a�
J, — - - _ T
SURVEYOR' 8 NUM
u ET�onN LIN
I o=ub 0'K �'m ara. wo
ACC
can
Q
NI EIS�M NT'jDl ME AHATt1E
LJ fIR101Y1 iN If IC NT1tE W�yFI1Q�NA{LKR1 I TIa1�NL 11WT
M - q�faINII" SI A�IIa
tut T14 NLr By IAAaO A THE !fitrH1a CgiI1
L 11q &VILN1INS INIll"aw" � Mry LIN11111A owl 0 fkAm d
LI
to
T#EIIT IMA pim_ _
_ 0 A
rrfrfrf ta.r
r SIR II
i
p
mmm mu
rllo�r It10OJJr JIO'
—
& W
LOT 3
a A
p
alIAM FEET
far �
• k'
1
w�
PRopoazus
'A'
DSI0QICE
IS Y
wMtr
gar
6
" li
4 .
N78�3p•�,N
`OXAHArCNEE
p��FA
STATE W FURIDA J
COLK" OF PALM BEACH J w
mx tut IN TMfI= F61 AT
fC
ffmw—
LOT !
REPLAT OF PART OF PLAT OF TEOJESTA
PLAT BOOK 26• PAGE 220
saD•DD'oo•E
W I
A.-!S. 40a G O
fl., t-
� ft'B • t FEET pp
i A�61 �� ert
a�•t,. .t t •' g' NEW
l
s N
•
' z t
o ��
W� w
Wt
If
LOT 4'��'�
JR EIS •.. \
MR" Fir
L._
—
1lCDrDCE Sh YACHT SLUE pLCL
REPLAT OF PART OF PLAT OF 'rEQUESTA
'� �� PLAT BOOK � PA6E 220
S d
'•,, .`
v�
�`'y
s 4 ^_
at
ear
Y
1
LEGEND:
C/L
- CENTERIIE
G
- CENTRAL WILE
R
- RADIUS
A
- ARC LENGTH
CD
- CHORD BEARING
LD
- C"m LENBTN
(A]
- RADIAL
e
- SET 1PK'NAIL/018K
' P. R IL LS 333Y
SET 4' X 4'
- CONCRETE moll NT
P. R. N. L8 333G`
M
- SET 'PK'NAIL/DISK
' P. C. P. L8 333P
YACHT CLLS ESTATES I
A S <E
..`
i
_.
Y A C N T Q A 8 1
(PNt11ATTI)
NUT W Phi` OF FLAT W �
PLAT !lQpC OL
W'Lt r LE
a&*
KAr
�IIA ,
V
,16
Lt 43
/ **-.
K- 1w
vs
/
< �+
/
f
dip
40
/ Luf 4 **
*6_
b
6
m
MUT W pAM
FLAT 10
S/I.Y.Wo
PlJIT I