Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 6A_2/22/1990 4. • - ,A Aiwis. ., VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA 0 ` �� Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive • `4=#� ,�� F Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 • (407) 575-6200 ti E `•• FAX: (407) 575-6203 • hi - C• I. VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA SPECIAL VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 3 1 , 1 9 9 0 I . The Tequesta Village Council held a special meeting at the Village Hall , 357 Tequesta Drive , Tequesta, Florida, on Wednesday, January 31 , 1990 . The meeting was called to order at 5 : 30 P .M. by Mayor Joseph N. Capretta. A roll call was taken by the Recording Secretary. Councilmembers present were : Mayor Joseph N . Capretta, William E . Burckart, Ron T. Mackail , Earl L . Collings , and Vice- Mayor Edward Howell . Village Officials present were : Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager; Wendy K. Harrison, Administrative Assistant to the Village 'Manager ; Bill. C . Kascavelis , Finance Director , and Department Heads . Village Attorney, John C . Randolph was also present . II . INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Capretta gave the Invocation and led those in attendance to the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag . III . APPROVAL OF AGENDA A) Village Manager Bradford requested that the Traffic Analysis Report under Item IV. ( D ) be brought up before Item IV (A ) . Councilmember Collings moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Councilmember Burckart seconded that motion . The vote on the motion was : • Mayor Capretta - for Vice Mayor Howell - for . Earl Collings' - for . Ron' Mackail • - for William Burckart - for the motion was therefore passed and the Agenda was approved as amended. r Special Village Council Meeting Minutes January 31 , 1990 • Page 2 • IV . REVIEW OF TEQUESTA TOWN CENTER MASTER PLAN ' IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS D ) TRAFFIC ANALYSIS OF MASTER PLAN • Village Manager Bradford explained that the Village Staff had been working since December 14 , 1989 (when Council adopted. the Master Plan in concept and declared Zoning In Progress ) on the necessary steps needed in order to implement the Master Plan in some form or fashion . One of the important elements of those steps is the traffic analysis and traffic impact of the Master Plan land uses in and around this area, and the impact it may have by virtue of the Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards that will be applicable to County roadways within Tequesta that are impacted by this development . A traffic analysis , based upon the initiated Traffic Engineering Study worked on by Gee 8 Jenson, was now prepared for presentation to Council . Richard Staudinger of Gee & Jenson gave Council an overview of that traffic analysis and presented some of the ramifications and changes that may be needed by virtue of traffic impacts . Mr . Staudinger presented an overhead presentation ( see copy attached ) of the pros and cons of traffic impact and phasing in the new development and re-development areas of downtown Tequesta. The roads focused on were existing roadways : Tequesta Drive ; Old Dixie Highway; U. S . Highway One'; and Village Boulevard. For the purposes of assigning traffic trips , the study involved the "spine" roadways which run . through the center of the Master Plan development area from north of the Post Office tying into U. S . 1 , and the "spine" road running north-south from Tequesta Drive to Village Boulevard, and Tequesta Drive , through the re-developed area , and again on up to Village Boulevard . • Gee & Jenson studied the land use data supplied by Mark Schimmenti (New Development) , and the trip generations those land uses would cause , then factored out of that trip generation deletions for pass-by trips that are picked up by these uses , for internal trips in the mixed-use development area, and came up with a total trip generation . A DRI Aggregation Calculation was then done, since certain amounts of residential and commercial land usage would trigger a Development of Regional Impact which would involve a 12-18 month approval process from the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council . The rules for DRI are set by the State; and since Tequesta is within two miles of Martin County, DRI thresholds for Martin County must be used, as opposed to the DRI thresholds for Palm Beach County. • Special Village Council Meeting Minutes January 31 , 1990 Page 3 If Tequesta builds more than 750 residential units it would • be considered a DRI ; if more than 400 , 000 square feet of commercial space is built, that would also trigger a DRI . Mr . Staudinger stated the land usage figures could be adjusted to prohibit a DRI , thereby causing a more timely development. However, if there is a mixed-use development with two land uses , a DRI is not necessary unless there is 80% ( or 116% of the threshold ) of 145% of combined uses . Residential is presently 63 . 2% of the threshold ; commercial is presently 57 . 8% of that threshold, making it 121% of the threshold. If the development is done as proposed, a Binding Letter would have to be done to determine whether or not this qualifies as a DRI . It would be more simple if Tequesta • backed ' down to the 116% level , causing the development to be below the DRI in order to move ahead progressively through local permitting . It was Mr . Staudinger ' s suggestion that in order to do that , residential units must be dropped to 436 units to avoid a DRI . Mayor Capretta asked why commercial •:as not cut , as opposed to residential . Mr. Staudinger answered that commercial generates more traffic than the residential , and dropping the residential total was the most conservative route to take . • The key to Scenario B-1 (Redevelopment ) is : If new trips are a net increase of less than 500 over the old trips , the Village is okay under the new Performance Standards . The Village meets that test , and this scenario poses no problems . This hypothesis includes the assumption of Step- Saver, Hart Office Building , and Alex Webster ' s to be redeveloped into some mixed usage . Councilmember Collings stated that is a "big" hypothesis . • Mr . ' Staudinger stated the bottom line is : there is no problem • in redevelopment . The problem in the new area is the 38 residential units which are over the DPI threshold which would cause a DRI . If Council adopts land uses that are below the DRI threshold, Gee & Jenson can finalize the traffic study and move forward with permitting, zoning changes , and any other changes necessary. Mayor Capretta stated he would not mind seeing the commercial reduced 100% in the new development area, since more • commercial is not economically feasible, and that existing commercial in Tequesta is more than enough . Mr. Bradford reminded Council that the proposed Library on the Master Plan was not in the redevelopment area. Special Village Council Meeting Minutes January 31 , 1990 Page 4 Councilmember Collings moved to direct Village Manager Bradford to make the reduction of up to 50% of commercial , if necessary, relative to the A-2 Net: Development scenario presented , with no reduction in the residential . Councilmember Mackail seconded that motion . The vote on the motion was : Mayor Capretta - for Vice Mayor Howell - for Earl Collings - for Ron Mackail - for William Burckart - for the motion was therefore passed and adopted. yr . Bradford reminded Council that if there is a commercial factor in the trip generation rate , residential uses could later be increased, assuming a commercial reduction . Councilmember Collings moved to direct the Village Staff to move forward and complete the Traffic Analysis Study for the Master Plan area based upon tonight ' s Council input . Vice- Mayor Howell seconded the motion . The vote on the motion was : Mayor Capretta - for • Vice Mayor Howell - for Earl Collings - for Ron Mackail - for William Burckart - for the motion was therefore passed and adopted . A) RIGHT OF WAY PROTECTION ORDINANCE • Village Manager Bradford gave Council an overview of the Staff Meeting held regarding the provision of a Right-of-Way Protection Ordinance relative to the Master Plan. The key component of the Master Plan is the street network . There has been much debate as well as internal concerns regarding this network. It is necessary for Council to concern themselves with guaranteeing that these streets go where they are intended to go . The only way to do that is to do a Right- Of-Way Protection Ordinance which spells out the location of all the streets , their sizes , etc . This would actually be a public statement to all property owners who have an interest. Special Village Council Meeting Minutes January 31 , 1990 Page 5 Mayor Capretta stated he understood that the main thoroughfare to Village Boulevard and the street coming across , south of Village Boulevard ( the "spine" ) were the only streets which were undoubtful . Mr . Bradford agreed it was important to protect those streets , but other streets involved should be considered as well . Councilmember Collings felt the most logical move would be to pass an ordinance which protects the main thoroughfares , leaving other structures for a later ordinance , or revision of the existing ordinance . Jim Pilz asked if this would remove some flexibility from the Plan , since it, was his understanding the it was hoped to bring in a few big developers to help write the Ordinances and Codes to go along with this development . Mr . Bradford explained that on December 14 , 1989 , Council did Zoning in Progress , which states that zoning is in the process of being changed, and nothing in contravention of that which is anticipated can occur. By virture of that Delcaration , Village Staff has to be working and studying on ways and means to implement zoning , ordinances , etc . that would make this happen . Therefore , this is merely a status report showing it is being worked on . Mayor Capretta asked Mr. Bradford what was needed in the way of direction . Mr . Bradford answered that if some of the minor streets are left out of the Right-Of-Way Protection Ordinance , then the type of impact that would have would have to be ascertained. If the Ordinance would include every street that is in the Master Plan , it is possible to change any aspect of it at any later time . The Ordinance is merely a public statement showing Village preferences . Councilmember Collings stated the main street , which starts at Tequesta Drive and runs to the intersection of the Library property, plus the boundary along the eco-zone , the "T" , as stated by Mayor Capretta were the only ones he felt were necessary for the ordinance . Mr. Burckart asked if Council was prepared to condemn existing structures that would happen to be in the way of these proposed roadways . Mayor Capretta explained the Ordinance would not serve to condemn anything , but was merely the first step in a process to move ahead with the street network plan, and that changes could take place as the plans progressed. i Special Village Council Meeting Minutes January 31 , 1990 Page 6 Vice-Mayor Howell was concerned that the discussions taking place might "lock in" the Master Plan , when it was his understanding that it was approved in "concept" only. Mr . Bradford reiterated that Zoning In Progress had already taken place and the present discussion would give the Staff direction as to how to implement the Zoning In Progress . Councilmember Collings moved to instruct Village Staff to draw up the Right-Of-Way Protection Ordinance to reflect the main "T" as discussed . Councilmember Mackail seconded the motion . The vote on the motion was : Mayor Capretta - for Vice Mayor Howell - for Earl Collings - for Ron Mackail - for William Burckart - abstained the motion was therefore passed and adopted . • B) SPECIAL PCD ZONING DISTRICT Mr . Bradford explained that at the last Staff Meeting , ways in which to adopt the Master Plan were discussed . There were three options : o Adopt as is and put in Ordinance format ; o Create a special overlay zoning district . o Modify the PCD or PRD Ordinance , or both , with the PCD option being most viable . Staff did not recall that any commercial at all was allowed in PRD areas . Special Village Council Meeting Minutes January 31 , 1990 Page 7 Mayor Capretta asked if, in fact , a long meeting had taken place in Attorney Randolph ' s Office regarding this subject , which resulted in a recommendation from him and staff. Attorney Randolph explained the meeting took place because the Zoning In Progress and the conceptual Master Plan had already been approved . Those at this meeting discussed implementation which included the Right-Of-Way Protection Ordinance , and the various methods by which the Plan could be implemented . At that meeting it was determined that perhaps the best way to approach this would be to look at PCD or. PRD provisions to try to make some amendments which would allow this to come in under either one or both of those plans . Now it is necessary to decide whether or not this is a good approach , and if so , then Staff would continue to look at the Plan in that manner. Attorney Randolph stated the Village needed to have the flexibility to look at both of these concepts . Councilmember Collings felt the resolution of the DRI problem and the Right-Of-Way Protection Ordinance , as handled in tonight' s meeting , and the giving of flexibility to the Staff to research both PCD' s and PRD ' s , should be reported to the interested parties and that is as far as it should go at this time , in order to get a feeling for the feedback. Jim Pilz inquired as to the status of the marketing plan for the Master Plan and asked if any feedback had been receieved from the marketing effort so far . Mr . Bradford responded that there had been two "blue chip" developers who have contacted the Village Administrative Office , both of whom are local , very visible , and of high recognition . At least two meetings have taken place with these interested parties who have expressed an interest in the Master Plan 100%, as is , and would like to do the entire thing . They have recommended to Village Staff to "stick to their guns" and implement the Master Plan . These potential developers have indicated a desire to meet with the Mayor or Council , one-on-one , to receive feedback from them, as the need may arise . They wanted to do some further research and stated they would get back to the Village Staff. Specie = Village Council Meeting Minutes January 31 , 1990 Page 8 • C ) DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT ( DRI ) ISSUES These issues were discussed during review of the Traffic Analysis . V. CONSIDERATION OF MASTER PLAN ADOPTION OR APPROPRIATE PORTIONS THEREOF Action was taken previously during the meeting . , • VI . ANY OTHER MATTERS There were no other matters . VII . ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Collings moved to adjourn the meeting . Councilmember Mackail seconded that motion . The vote on the motion was : Mayor Capretta - for Vice Mayor Howell - for. • Earl Collings - for Ron Mackail • - for William Burckart - for the motion was therefore passed and the meeting was adjoured at 6 : 30 P.M . Respectfully submitted, j/044../ Zi;511:1 ' • Fran Bitters Recording Secretary ATTEST : Bill C. KascavElis Finance Director/VIllage Clerk DATE APPROVED: