HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Miscellaneous_Tab 5_10/11/1995 . �
Memorandum
To: Country Club Drive Task Force Members
From: Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager
Date: 10/06/1995
Subject: Report/Recommendations to Village Council; Arbitration/Mediation
At your meeting held on September 26, 1995, you requested that the Village Manager submit
some draft language for your consideration relative to the Grace Klimas suggestion that an
arbitrator be asked by all parties to solve the ongoing dispute over roadways. That is the purpose
of this memorandum.
Arbitration is the reference of a dispute to an impartial (third ) person chosen by the parties to the
dispute who agree in advance to abide by the arbitrator's award issued after a hearing at which all
parties have an opportunity to be heard. A major body offering arbitration services is the
American Arbitration Association. Mediation is the act of a third person in intermediating
between contending parties with a view to persuading them to adjust or settle their dispute. A
provider of such services is Mediation Inc. in Ft. Lauderdale. Also, The Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council provides a Dispute Resolution Process per the Florida Adminisrative Code
Rule 29-k-4, copy attached, which is also mediation .
Simply put, arbitration is binding, mediation is not. You would have to weigh the two to
determine which might be best. A case can be made for either option. Per your request, the
language that I would submit for your consideration for adding at the end of Section V of the
Report to the Village Council is as follows:
" The Task Force recommends that the Village Council give serious consideration to having all
the applicable local governments participate in a mediation process with the hope of appropriate
governmental response to the findings/report of the mediator pertaining to recommended actions
to address regional roadway/traffic concerns."
OCT-06-1995 13:15 TCRPC 407 221 4067 P.02
(R 10/94)
( V. 12, p. 1100-1 REGIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS 29K-4..010
CHAPTER 29K-4 251E-4.007 Stenographic Record.
TREASURE COAST REGIONAL DISPUTE Specifir Authority 120.53f1)(a). 196.505(12) FS. Law
RESOLUTION PROCESS Lmpleneented 186.509 FS History-New 4-27-86.
Repealed 6-26-94.
29K-4,001 Definition.(Repealed) 291E-4.003 Termination of Mediatioo-
Z9K-4.00Z Initiation of the Mediation Specific Authority 120.53(I)(a). 196.505(12) FS. Law
Process. (Repealed) Implemented 186.509 FS History-New 4-27-86,
29K-4.003 Selection of Mediator.(Repealed) Repealed 6-26-94.
29K-4.004 Time and Place of Mediation.
(Repealed) 29Y-4.009 Fee Seed■
29K-4.005 Identification of Matters in Specific Authority 120.53( (a). 196.505(12) FS_ Law
Dispute.(Repealed) Implemented 186.509 FS. History-New 4-27-86.
29K-4.006 Authority of Mediation. Repealed 6-26-94. I
(Repealed) 29S-4.010 Purpose. ;
29K-4.007 Stenographic Record.(Repealed) (1) The purpose of 's rule is to establish a
29K-4.008 Termination of Mediation. voluntary regional din tc resolution process
(Repealed) (RDRP) to reconcile ifferenccs on planning,
29K-4.009 Fee Schedule.(Repealed) growth management and her issues among local
29K-4.010 Purpose. governments, regional agencies and private
29K-4.011 Definitions. interests. The process consists of two basic
29K-4.012 Participation. components:
29K-4.013 Costs. (a) process initiation initiation and response
29K-4.014 Time Frames. letters).
29K-4.015 Administrative Protocols. (b) settlement mee ' gs, and five optional
29K-4.016 Public Notice,Records,and components:
Confidentiality. 1. pre;initiation mecti
291(-4.017 Pre-Initiation Meeting. 2. situation assessments,
291C-4.018 Situation Assessment- 3. mediation,
29K-4.019 Initiation of the Process by 4. advisory decision-making,and
Jurisdictions. 5. reference to other di}pute resolution processor
29K-4.020 Requests to Initiate Submitted by (judicial, administrative or arbitration
Others. pings).
29K-4.021 Settlement Meetings. (2) The intent of the RDRP is to provide a
29K-4.022 Mediation. flexible process to reconci differences on planning
29K-4.023 Advisory Decision-Making. and growth managcmcn issues that will: dearly
29K-4.024 Settlement Agreements and identify and resolve probiememss as early as possible
Reports, utilize the procedures in a low-to-high cost
sequence;allow flexibility in the order in which the
29K-4-001 Definition. procedures arc used; idc for the appropriate
Specific Authority 120.53(I)(a). 196.505(12) FS. Law involvement of affected responsible parties;and
Implemented 186.509 FS. History-New 4-27-86, provide as much process 'nty as possible.
Repealed 6-26-94. (3) The RDRP may used to resolve disputes
29K-4.002 initiation of the Men anon involving: extrajurisdict impacts as provided
for in the intergoveramen 1 coordination elements
Specific Authority 120.53(1)(a), 196.505(12) FS. Law of local comprehensive plans, as required by
Implemented 186.509 FS. History-New 4-27-86. 163.3177, F.S.; inconsistencies between port
Repealed 6-26-94. master plans and local comprehensive plans, as
required by 163.3178. F.S.; the siting of
29K-4.003 Selection of Mediator. community residential ome s, as required by
Specific Authority 120.53(11(a). 196-505(12) FS. Law 419.001(5),F.S.;and any other matters covered by
Implemented 186.509 FS. History-New 4-27-86. statutes which reference the RDRP.
Repealed 6-26-94. (4) The RDRP shall ;not be used to address
29K-4.004 Time and Place of Mediation. disputes involving environmental permits or other
Specific Authority 120.53(1)(a), 196.505(12) FS. Law regulatory matters unless all of the parties involved
Implemented 186.509 FS. History-New 4-27-86. agree to initiate use of thq RDRP.
Repealed 6-26-94. (5) Use of the RDRP shall not alter a
jurisdiction's, organiz ition's, group's or
29K-4.005 Identification of Matters in Dispute. individual's right to a judicial or administrative
Specific Authority 120.53(1)(a). 196.505(12) FS. Law determination of any issue if that entity is entitled
Implen,rnted 186.509 FS. History-New 4-27-86, to such a determination under statutory or common
Repealed 6-26-94. law.
29K-4.006 Authority of Mediation. (6) Participation in the RDRP as a maned party
Specific Authority 120.53(1)(a), 196.505(12) FS. Law or in any other capacity does not convey or limit
Implemented 186.509 FS. History--New 4-27-86_ intervenor status or Cling in any judicial Of
Repealed 6-26-94. administrative
OCT-06-1995 13:16 TCRPC 407 221 4067 P.03
(R. 10/91)
I 29K-4.012 REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL V 12. p. 800-2
Specific Authority 186.509 FS. L - Implemented minimum, attend at least one settl ent meeting.
186.509 FS.History—New 6-26-94. Rule 29K-4.019(3)specifies what must be included
29K-4.O11 PeWtitioos. in a response letter.
(11) "Settlement agreements" may be
(I) 'Situation assessment" is a procedure of voluntarily approved by the individual or governing
information collection that may involve review of -y authorized to bind the named party.
documents, interviews and an assessment meeting Agreements may take the form of memoranda of
leading to a written or verbal report identifying:the understanding, contracts, interlocal agreements or
issues in dispute; the stakeholders; information other forms mutually agreed to by the signatory
needed before a decision can be made; and a parties or as required by law. A settlement may be
recommendation for appropriate dispute resolution agreed to by some or all of the named parties.
procedures. Specific Authority 186.509 FS. Law Implemented
(2) "Pre-initiation meetings" are opportunities 186.309 FS.History—New 6-26-9I-
for a party to discuss the suitability of the RDRP
with the RPC staff for resolving their dispute 29K-4.012 Participation. i
before formally initiating the RDRP. (1) Named parties shall aut matically be
(3) "Facilitation" is a procedure in which the allowed to participate- Other juri ictions, public
facilitator helps the parties design and follow a or private organizations, groups, 6r individuals,
meeting agenda and assists parties to communicate suggested by named parties in responnse letters or
more effectively throughout the process. The during RDRP meetings or submitting a petition to
facilitator has no authority to make or recommend participate, shall be allowed to become named
a decision. parties if agreed to by a two-thirds majority of the
(4) "Mediation" is a procedure in which a participating named parties,except provided for
neutral party assists disputing parties in a in Rule 29K-4.012(2). Fee allocation agreements
negotiation process to explore their interests, will be amended as appropriate.
develop and evaluate options,and reach a mutually (2) All initiation and response letters made in
acceptable agreement without prescribing a accordance with intergovcrnmcntaa coordination
resolution. A mediator may take more control of elements(ICE)of local government comprehensive
the process than a facilitator and usually works in plans shall only list affected iocal government
more complex cases where a dispute is more clearly jurisdictions as named parties. The amcd parties
defined. may at the initial settlement or t subsequent
(5) "Advisory decision-making" is a procedure RDRP meetings add public or rivate named
aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of parties by mutual agreement of a I the current
negotiations and helping parties more realistically named parties.
evaluate their negotiation positions.This procedure (3) Other jurisdictions, publi or private
may include neutral evaluation, or advisory organizations, groups or individualls seeking to
arbitration in which a neutral party or panel listens become named parties shall submit to the regional
to the facts and arguments presented by the parties planning council staff. a written petition- to
and render a non-binding advisory decision. participate, including reasons for the request and
(6) "Jurisdiction" is any local government or information required in Rule 29K- .019(2). Such
regional agency, including: special districts, jurisdictions, public or private rganizations,
authorities or school boards. groups,or individuals shall become arced parties
(7) "Named party" shall be any jurisdiction, if agreed to by a two-thirds majorit of the named
public or private organization,group or individual parties,prior to or during RDRP meetings;except
who is named in an initiation letter, including the as pursuant to Rule 29K-4.012(2). famed parties
initiating jurisdiction,or is admitted by the named who do not respond within 21 days o the initiation
parties to participate in settlement of a dispute letter may not participate in the RDIIP unless they
pursuant to Rule 29K-4.012(1),(2),and(3).Being submit a petition for participation.
a"named party" in the RDRP does not convey or (4) Each of the jurisdictions, prganizations,
limit standing in any judicial or administrative groups, or individuals participate g as named
proceeding. parties in this process shall I designate a
(8) "Representative" is an individual who is representative,in writing,or be rcprFsented by the
given guidance and authority to act, to the extent chief executive officer.Such a repressentative shall
possible, by a named party in a RDRP case. Rule have authority to act, to the maximum extent .
29K-4.012(3)sets forth the designation process. possible, and shall have responsibility for
(9) "Initiation letter" is a letter from a representing that party's interest in this process and
jurisdiction formally identifying a dispute and maintaining communications with that party
asking named parties to engage in this process to throughout the process. Jurisdictions arc
resolve the dispute,and,at a minimum,attend the encouraged to designate a representative to
initial settlement meeting. Rule 29K-4.019(2) participate in the RDRP in advance Of initiating or
specifies what must be included in an initiation receiving a request.
letter. (5) Any named party may invite Individuals or
(10) "Response letter" formally notifies the organizations to attend meetings under this process
initiator and other named parties that a party is who can provide information �ynd technical
willing to participate in the RDRP and, at a assistance useful in the resolution c#f the dispute.
OCT-06-1995 13:16 TCRPC 407 221 4067 P.04
t I (R. 10/94)
j V, 12, p. 1100-3 REGIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS 29K-4.019
The parties,by agreement,or the presiding neutral Specific Authority 186.509 FS. Law Implemented
shall determine when and under what 186.309 FS.History—New 6-i26-94.
circumstances such invited parties may provide 29Y-4.016 Public N lice. Records, sad
input.
(6) All communications by a named party called (ICoL ') Named parties sh uld consider providing
for in this process shall be submitted to all other
named parties and the RPC staff in writing. appropriate opportunities'for public input at each
(7) All named parties who agree to participate step in this process, such submitting written or
in this process commit to a good faith effort to ver
m comments on issu alternative solutions
resolve problems or disputes. and impacts of proposed a cuts.
(8) Any named party may withdraw from (2) Applicable public rice and public records
participation in the RDRP upon written notice to requirements shall be observed as required by
Chapters 119 and 120,F. .
all other named parties and the RPC staff. (3) Participant in these procedures agree by
Specific Authority 186.509 FS. Law implemented
186.509 FS_History—New 6-26-94, their participation that no comments, meeting
records, or written or verbal offers of settlement
29K-4-013 Costs. shall be offered by them as evidence in a subsequent
(1) There shall be no charge for processing a judicial or administrative action.
RDRP initiation request and facilitation at the (4) To the extent pc tttcd by law, mediation
initial settlement meeting. The RPC shall be under this process will be governed by the
compensated for situation assessments,facilitation confidentiality provisions of Chapter 44, ES_, and
of additional settlement meetings, mediation, other applicable law.
advisory decision-making,technical assistance and Specific Authority 186.509 PS. Law implemented
other staff services at a rate based on reasonable 186.309 FS.History—New 6-76-94.
actual costs plus any additional out-of-pocket
expenses. Outside professional neutrals shall be 29K-4,017 Pre-irtitiatleti Meeting. A
compensated at their standard rate or as negotiated jurisdiction, organization` group, or individual
by the parties. contemplating initiation J of this process may
(2) The costs of administration, settlement request an informal pre-in tiation meeting with the
meetings, mediation or advisory decision-making RPC staff in order to ascertain whether the
shall be split equally between the parties or potential dispute would appropriate for this
according to another agreed upon allocation. The pro -
agreed upon cost allocation shall be documented in Spec& Authority 186.5091 FS. Law Implemented
a written fee agreement. 186.509 FS.History—New 6- 6-94.
Specific Authority 186.509 FS. Law Implemented 29K-4.018 Situation Assessment.
186.509 FS.History—New 6-16-94. (1) A jurisdiction, o11��anization, group, or
29K-4.014 Time Frames. individual may request th the RPC staff or other
(I) The initial settlement meeting shall be neutral perform a situatio assessment at any time.
scheduled and held within 30 days of the date of before or after initiation o the process.
receipt of the initiation letter at a time and place (2) The situation ac sment may involve
convenient to the named parties. examination of documents, interviews and
(2) Additional settlement meetings, mediation assessment meetings, and shall recommend issues
or advisory decision-making shall be completed to be addressed, parties that may participate,
within forty-five (45) days of the date of the appropriate resolution procedures, and a proposed
conclusion of the initial settlement meeting. schedule.
(3) All time frames specified in this rule may be specific Authority 186.3091 FS. Law Implemented
shortened or extended by mutual agreement of the 186.509 FS.History—New 6 ?6 91.
named parties_ 29R-4.019 Initiation I f the Process by
(4) The parties may, by mutual agreement. 3arisdtetioas. i
utilize procedures in the RDRP in any order. (I) This process is initiated by an initiation
(5) Where necessary to allow this process to be letter from the representativve of the governing body
effectively can led out, named parties should of a jurisdiction, other than a regional planning
address deferring or seeking stays of judicial or council, to the named parties as provided for in
administrative proceedings. Rule 29K-4.012(1) and (2) and to the RPC staff. .
Specific Authority 186.509 FS. Law implemented The initiation letter mua� be accompanied by a
is6.so9 FS-History—New 6 z6-94. resolution of the governing body authorizing
29K-4.01S Administrative Protocols. The initiation or by a copy of a Ilwritten authorization of
regional planning council is authorized to write and a representative to initiate requests to use the
I
adopt such administrative procedures as arc RDRP.
necessary to implement this rule. These may (2) Such an initiation letter shall identify: the
address staff and council roles, procedures for issues to be discussed.named parties to be involved
situation assessment, selection of neutrals, in the dispute resolution'process, the initiating
consumer guides or other matters.Where required party's representative and others who will attend,
pursuant to Chapter 120.52, ES. policies and and a brief history of the dispute indicating why it
guidelines should be adopted as rules. is appropriate for this process.
OCT-06-1995 13:17 TCRPC 407 221 4067 P.05
/ (R. 10/94)
29K-4.024 REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL VI 12, p. 800-4
(3) Named parties shall send a response letter to acceptable to the parties and shall held at a time
the RPC staff, and ail other named parties and place acceptable to the parties.
confirming their willingness to participate in a (3) At the settlement meeting,t parties shall:
settlement meeting within twenty-one(21)days of consider adding named parties,consider guidelines
the receipt of initiation letter. This response letter for participation, identify the ssues to be
shall include any additional issues and potential addressed, present their concerns a d constraints,
named parties the respondent wishes considered,as explore options for in a soluti i n, and seek
well as. a brief history of the dispute and a agreement.
description of the situation from the respondent's (4) The parties shall submit 'a settlement
point of view. meeting report in accordance with Rule
(4) Upon receipt of a request, the RPC staff 29K-4.024(4)of this process. ,
shall assess its interest in the cast. If the RPC is a (5) If an agreed-upon settlement!meeting is not
named party or sees itself as a potential party, it held or a settlement meeting I produces no
shall notify the named parties of the nature of its agreement to proceed to additioial settlement
interest and ascertain whether the parties desire an meetings, mediation or advisory deptsion-making,
outside facilitator for the initial settlement any party who has agreed to participate in this
meeting. procedure may withdraw from the RDRP or
(5) The RPC may not initiate the RDRP but proceed to: a joint meeting of goierning bodies
may recommend that a potential dispute is suitable pursuant to Chapter 164, F.S., !litigation, an
for this process and transmit its recommendation to administrative bearing or arbitration, as
potential parties, who may, at their discretion, appropriate.
initiate the RDRP. Specific Authority 186..509 FS. Lei Implemnued
(6) The RPC staff shall schedule a meeting at 186.509 FS.History—New 6-26-94. 1
the most convenient time within thirty(30)days of !
tio di 022 Me
diation.ea n.
the date of receipt of the initiation request 2911- ,.
(7) In the event that a dispute involves (1) If two or more named pa tes submit a
jurisdictions under two or more regional planning request for mediation to the RPC, he RPC shall
councils, the process adopted by the region of the assist them to select and retain a mediator or the
initiating jurisdiction shall govern, unless the named parties may request that th RPC select a
named parties agree otherwise. mediator. i
Specific Authority 186.509 FS. Law Implemented (2) All disputes shall he mediated by a mediator
186.509 FS.History—New 6-16-94. who understands Florida growth management
issues, has mediation experience and is acceptable
29K-4.020 Requests to Initiate Submitted by to the parties. Parties may considermediators who
Others. arc on the Florida Growth Manag ment Conflict
(1) Private interest may ask any jurisdiction to Resolution Consortium rosters dr any other
initiate the process. mutually acceptable mediator- Mediators shall be
(2) Any public or private organization,group,or guided by the Standards of Professional Conduct,
individual may request that the RPC recommend Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.Rule 10,Part II.
use of this process to address a potential dispute in Section 020-150.
accordance with Rule 29K-4.019(5). Such a (3) The parties shall submit a mediation report
request shall be submitted in writing and shall in accordance with Rule 29K-4.0124(4) of this
include the information required for in an initiation process.
letter in Rule 29K-4.019(2). Specific Authority 186.509 FS. La1+ Implemented
(3) After reviewing the rationale submitted by, 186.509FS.History—New6-26-94.
and consulting with, the requesting organization, '
group, or individual, the RPC staff will conduct a 29K-4.023 Advisory Decision-Making.
situation assessment and respond in writing. (1) If two or more of the named p rties submit a
(4) If the RPC determines that the potential request for advisory decision-makin to the RPC,
dispute is suitable for the process, it shall transmit the RPC shall assist the parties to select and retain
that determination in writing to the potential an appropriate neutral or the partie may request
parties, as agreed upon by the RPC and the that the RPC make the selection.
requester. The determination may include a (2) All disputes shall be handled by a neutral
recommendation that one or more of the who understands Florida growth; management
jurisdictions among the potential panics initiate issues,has appropriate experience and is acceptable
the procedure. The RPC may also suggest that to the parties. .
other resolution processes be considered. (3) The parties shall submit an advisory
Specific Authority 186.509 FS. Low Implemented decision-making report in accatdat#ce with Rule
186.509 FS.History—New 6-26-94. 29K-4.024(4) at the conclusion! of advisory
decision-making.
29K-4.021 Settlement Meetings. Specific Authority 186.509 FS. Law Implemented
(1) Settlement meetings shall,at a minimum,be 186.509 FS.History—New 6-26-94.
attended by the named parties' representatives j
designated pursuant to Rule 29K-4.012(4). 29K-4.024 Settlement Agreetuents and Reports.
(2) Settlement meetings may be facilitated by (1) The form of all settlements reached through
an RPC staff member or other neutral facilitator this process shall be determined lily the named
UC.I-{7b-1'J'Jo 13;lid I LKYL, vei r CC/ `SEA DI r .w
l 1 (R. 10/94)
t V. 12, p. 801 REGIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS 291C-4.024
parties, and may include interlocal agreements, (b) a list of potential y affected or involved
concurrent resolutions. memoranda of jurisdictions. organizations, groups,or individuals
understanding, plan amendments, deed (including those which may not be named parties):
restrictions,or other forms as appropriate. (c) a time frame for starting and ending agreed
(2) Agreements signed by designated to informal negotiations additional settlement
representatives may be in the form of meetings, mediation, ad isory decision-making,
recommendations to formal bodies and subject to joint meetings of elect bodies, administrative
their formal approval. hearings or litigation:
(3) Agreements may be reached by two or more (d) any additional R assistance requested;
parties even if all of the named parties do not agree (e) a written fee alloca ion agreement to cover
or do not sign a formal agreement. the costs of agreed upon R RP procedures;and
(4) After settlement meetings, mediation, or (f) a description o responsibilities and
advisory decision-making under this process, the schedules for implem nting and enforcing
named parties shall submit a joint report to the agreements reached. The cport shall include any
RPC staff which shall,at a minimum include: statements that any nam party wishes to include.
(a) identification of the issues discussed and Specific Authority 186.50 FS. Law implemented
copies of any agreements reached; 186.509 FS.History—New ,26-94.
TOTAL P.O6
i
To: Tequesta Traffic Task Force Members
From: Gary Collins
Date: October 3, 1995
Attached is a final draft for your review prior to the Wednesday, October 11, 7:30 P.M.
meeting. I have tried to incorporate everyone's suggestions from the last meeting.
Please attend the next meeting if at all possible; we must arrive at our final
recommendations at that meeting.
There is a new paragraph under Paragraph VII (Options available for consideration)
concerning the suggestion to consider making Country Club Drive a one-way street.
Please read carefully the plan I have outlined; it may have some real merit if we can
get Turtle Creek to open the electronic gate just north of Tequesta village limits.
I also added the possibility of a full time police officer being utilized and paid for under
the auspices of the Safe Neighborhood District to patrol Country Club Drive and enforce
its speed limit and the "no through truck" ordinance.
If you have any additions or deletions, please write them out and bring them to the
meeting so that they can be discussed and voted on.
Thanks,
Gary Collins
3
TEQUESTA COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE
TASK FORCE CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
I. The Task Force Resolutions states "Even though the estimated trip increases on
Country Club Drive remain under the Tequesta Comprehensive Plan figure of 10,900
trips per day, the estimated increase in trips is unacceptable and action must be
initiated to reduce traffic trips on Country Club Drive, Tequesta Drive and throughout
Tequesta."
If plans are not initiated to force a reduction of traffic on Country Club Drive and
throughout Tequesta, even with major changes in the surrounding road
infrastructure, daily traffic trips will continue to increase at a rate of 48% to 63% over
the next 5 - 7 years, rising to approximately 10,000 trips per day on Country Club Drive.
Sections of Tequesta Drive will increase to over 16,000 daily trips, which could lead to
four lanes on sections of Tequesta Drive. The task force recommends that the Village
Council, after reviewing all the information, officially accept or reject the task force
resolution. This will set the tone for future action.
II. A sampling of Tequesta businesses and a few in Jupiter yielded the following facts
regarding the traffic situation:
10% had no knowledge of the situation;
45% had knowledge but little interest;
34% had knowledge and showed some concern but did not consider it a major factor;
10% had knowledge but no interest at all.
The conclusion was that most felt their customers would find them no matter what,
and did not seem very concerned.
III. Heavy truck traffic over the Tequesta Loxahatchee bridge is taking its toll on the life
span of the bridge and based on DOT statistics, it will have to be replaced in the next
10 - 20 years at a cost of well over $7 million, much of this borne by the Tequesta
taxpayers.
IV. Waiting for support and assistance from Martin County, Jupiter and Palm Beach
County to help alleviate Tequesta's traffic problem has not been a viable option, based
on past history. Developments already on the planning boards will impact Tequesta,
regardless of what our neighbors do! With or without the Western Connector, either
the Church Street or Longshore Connector, the Martin County Connector Road or a
second entrance above the county line for Turtle Creek, the traffic still increases
through Tequesta at a rate of 40 - 50% over the next 5 - 7 years.
1
•
V. The Task Force recommends that a concerted effort still be made to encourage the
following infrastructure road changes with our neighbors to help minimize traffic trip
increases:
• A Western Connector Road from Northfork south, via Church Street, Longshore
Drive or any other connection to Indiantown Road that can be agreed upon. The
Western Connector Road will help reduce the traffic out of Northfork traveling
through Tequesta, but, on the downside, it will also offer a shortcut from I - 95 to
U.S. 1.
• The establishment of County Line Road as an alternative east/west road link from
U.S. 1 to Island Way, especially for truck traffic. Support from Martin County is
essential to the success of this point. Four-laning of County Line Road should be
studied for implementation as traffic increases. County Line Road is the "path of
least resistance" and has far fewer frontage homes than Country Club Drive and
Tequesta Drive.
• The Martin County Connector Road will eliminate two 90° turns through The Little
Club residential area and allow a smoother, safer flow of truck traffic to Country
Club Drive north and reduce traffic on Country Club Drive south. Special Note:
While Country Club Drive was closed for repairs, traffic on County Line Road
increased 51.8% (2138 trips). Of those 2138 trips, 1104(51.6%) went all the way to
U.S. 1.
• Martin County must post the correct legal weight limits on the County Line Road
and Island Way bridges and simplify their permit process so trucks will be
encouraged to use County Line Road.
• Martin County must continue to appeal the Sec. 28 decision on housing density and
arrive at an agreement with the developer closer to the 128 single family home
development rather than the 640 homes now planned. A north and south entrance
into the development must be negotiated.
• A second Turtle Creek electronically controlled gate entrance on Country Club Drive
just north of the Tequesta village limits in Martin County. This would reduce the
traffic on Country Club Drive by 100 - 300 daily trips and provide an entrance/exit to
Turtle Creek that will be very important if Country Club Drive becomes a one-way
street north or is closed at the Martin County line.
• A third Turtle Creek gate entrance to County Line Road, while difficult and
expensive to implement, should be explored. This could be a "one way out"
electronic gate that opens automatically to let residents out. This would also be
important to Turtle Creek residents if Country Club Drive becomes one-way.
The Task Force recommends that the Council initiate another series of meetings as
soon as possible, with Martin County, Jupiter and Palm Beach County officials and
again explain our situation and ask for their decision on the above recommendations.
A simple yes or no will be fine. Similar meetings should be held with the
representative of the Turtle Creek Association concerning the addition of two gate
entrances.
2
,,
Special Note:
The task force insists that there be no "strings" attached to implementation of any of
the above recommendations in point V, i.e., the Tequesta Village Council must not
agree to "never close Country Club Drive or any other Tequesta street." Our options
must remain open.
It is recommended that the possibility be explored by the Village Council that
independent arbitrators from Tequesta, Martin County, Jupiter and Palm Beach
County be hired to possibly negotiate and recommend non-binding proposals to
alleviate traffic problems facing all parties.
January 31, 1996 is the recommended deadline date for their decisions, so that
Tequesta can move ahead with their own plans to reduce and minimize the traffic
through our community.
V I. It is the consensus of the task force after studying all the information available that
initiating action to form one or more Safe Neighborhood Improvement Districts in
Tequesta is a viable and legal option and should be pursued. The first step would be the
creation of a planning ordinance by the Village Council authorizing the formation of
Safe Neighborhood Improvement Districts in Tequesta. Incorporated into the
construct of this ordinance should be the requirement that the Village Council employ
the services of a recognized professional Urban Planner to make recommendations to
the Council on matters related to the construct of Safe Neighborhood Districts, and to
review and make recommendations appropriate to the items delineated in Section
VIII, Category 2.
The task force recommends that the Council also consult a lawyer with expertise and
success in implementing the Safe Neighborhood Districts and options such as closing
and/or gating roads under the Safe Neighborhood Act.
This ordinance does not authorize specific action to be taken, i.e., the closing of
Country Club Drive, but does pave the way for numerous options to be implemented.
The task force recommends that the planning ordinance be in place by January 31,
1996.
VII. The task force recommends the traffic reduction and management options listed in
this report be studied by the Council Committee on Public Works. An implementation
plan for each option should be studied and outlined on paper for the Council to review,
prioritize and vote to implement or reject by February 1, 1996. Legal and fiscal
implications must be considered for each option; task force representatives should
participate in these discussions.
3
Two questions for future consideration are:
1. Should the Village Council participate and be a partner in forming and supporting
the Safe Neighborhood Improvement Districts or should it be left up to individual
citizens to decide whether to form and support the districts?
2. All options will cost money; the question must be answered: How much and where
should the money come from - the taxpayers or individuals or a combination of both?
V I I I. Options available for consideration:
Some options will help minimize and manage the traffic problem, but will reduce the
daily traffic trips only to the degree that travelers avoid the streets due to the hassle and
inconvenience the option presents. Others, such as road closures, toll gates should
definitely reduce the traffic counts. All options must be reviewed from a legal and
fiscal point of view and specific plans committed to paper as to how they can be
implemented.
It is the opinion of the task force that, after reviewing the facts, all of the listed options
can be implemented legally if carefully crafted to fit various Village and State laws and
ordinances. I must add that some options do offer risk and possible lawsuits. The
options are broken into two categories: One, options to be implemented that keep
Country Club Drive open but tend to reduce the traffic flow and slow it down; and two,
options that close or gate Country Club Drive.
4
Category 1
1. Determine the legality and develop an implementation plan to test the feasibility of
making Country Club Drive a one-way street north from the following points:
• Country Club Drive at Turtle Creek entrance to Martin County line
• Tequesta Drive to Martin County line
• The last 100 yards of Country Club Drive to Martin County line
Special Note:
Making Country Club Drive one-way north from the Turtle Creek entrance to the
Martin County line offers the fewest disruptions to the fewest number of Tequesta and
Turtle Creek residents. Tequesta must work with Martin County and the Turtle Creek
Condos and Homeowners Associations to open a new entrance/exit just north of the
Tequesta village limits and the Martin County line. It could be a private road owned by
the Associations; it could be electronically controlled so that it opens automatically for
Turtle Creek residents to exit onto Country Club Drive. Electronic openers could be
sold or given to Turtle Creek residents so that the gate could be opened to enter Turtle
Creek before the one-way section begins.
Note: The 31 Country Club Drive residents living on the one-way section should be
allowed to purchase the electronic openers so they can come back through Turtle
Creek and go south on Country Club Drive to Tequesta. (The added out of the way
distance is 0.9 miles.)
The estimated daily traffic count reduction would be a minimum of 1800 trips from the
current daily trip count of 6205, and would drastically reduce the increase in trips
estimated due to the Section 28 and other South Martin County developments. Add to
this scenario traffic humps and strict enforcement of the "no through truck"
ordinance and there should be a major reduction of noise and traffic on Country Club
Drive and Tequesta Drive. The traffic will be redistributed down County Line Road
with over 50% of the south Martin County traffic moving east going all the way to U.S.
1.
If the option making Country Club Drive one-way from Tequesta Drive to the Martin
County line is implemented, then North Place out of the Tequesta Country Club
Community North Gate must be made one-way north and all residents on Country
Club Drive and those living in Turtle Creek would be inconvenienced by having to drive
north and go around via County Line Road to Tequesta.
2. Install as soon as possible, speed humps on Country Club Drive, possibly Riverside
Drive, and if traffic continues to speed, on Golfview Drive and River Drive.
3. Reduce right-of-way on Country Club Drive.
4. Consider an ordinance change for Country Club Drive to measure easement footage
from the beginning of the easement rather that the back edge; allowing room for
structures such as fences to be built to shield homes from traffic and noise.
Landscaping could be placed in front of the fences.
5
I
5. Post Tequesta Drive bridge at 8 tons; require bonding/permits for through trucks.
6. Increase police presence/enforcement of speed limit and the "no through truck"
ordinance.
Special Note:
If a Safe Neighborhood District is formed, money from an assessment with possibly
some help from the Village could be used to station a motorcycle policeman
permanently at Tequesta Drive and Country Club Drive to stop any through trucks
and to run a continuous radar speed check.
7. Install traffic signals or 4 - way stop signs at south end of Country Club Drive and
at the entrance to Turtle Creek.
8. Construct roundabout(s) on Country Club Drive.
9. Establish Tequesta Drive bridge as a "toll bridge."
10. Plant trees and add landscaping along Country Club Drive to create a tunnel effect.
11. Designate Country Club Drive an "historical place."
Category 2
12. Gate Country Club Drive at one or both ends.
13. Abandon Country Club Drive (privatization of road), with possible gating, guards,
etc.
14. Close Country Club Drive .
Options in Category 2 become top priority options recommended by the task force if the
requests and actions are refused by Jupiter, Martin County, Palm Beach County and
the Turtle Creek residents; and if Category 1 options implemented do not reduce the
traffic counts to an acceptable level. The process to form Safe Neighborhood Districts
should then begin; the recommended date for this decision is April 1, 1996. The task
force should stay intact throughout the entire process to monitor results and perhaps
quarterly review progress with the Village.
In closing, I would like to thank the task force members for the time and effort they contributed
to try to come up with some reasonable recommendations to a very complex problem. In reading
through the reams of data, dating back to the early 80's, it is evident that Tequesta's traffic
problems have been building for a number of years and regardless of the reasons, very little help
and understanding or offers to participate in reaching reasonable solutions have come forth
from our surrounding neighbors.
Traffic is going to increase at a considerable rate throughout Tequesta in the next five years.
Tequesta needs to accept that or make some tough decisions on action to be taken. You are not
going to be able to please everyone. The decisions must be made based on what is best for all of
Tequesta. A referendum may have to be held next March to let the citizens decide, if the Council
feels it's necessary. If we don't act now the traffic problem will continue to grow and fester.
Decision time is NOW.
6
1,,!J t. .L- •— RI — N i �5 p i°> 0 m ilrl e' ue W W D o . C: �:1%6C1„ARK„
I I Jup
�� �i 1 j `1 1 11f .., o� a • w`llr�. r OI {te}�
- ' �SSAGE ,s' "1 �`t^•' -t ': r.. il;t Z¢ Z 462 T � t`tl•
\ 11'
I ,? M P.1TT .' s���.9MEAL: 4'3 E>F�JPP�J 9 �t�.� �Q`,.9 PO _ TER �j ,V JJ ��� \Ciirt-1
I- l \
�f1 p� 1
O a'�•^\ '.. �'an. ) '• `1 iSU oN�3�99/ `li��0' I n 4l�SE.1�1 ., -r=-c 24 ' �'4�� F wA.. - a 4 O 2_ NOI E re, �rJ OI"���p��, i ELL'S �L e'v \\iM�\\ WAY r(�A TORTLISf TURTLE CF�EEK .R ; ; n; cT 4 .-tN ,,: )':1� b 1 ^7.
-\ t dww ���ChY -� , RrvERTER`. l�F ¢ O a v' o I y'�,-.\ `R iTD / i1;./- f�l/ .?i 'fly E 0 t ` `r Q W TEOl1CSTA TER t,t.lf „-
> �`� eZ9• POINT 04, wa•,•�• G /� ttt , . ; ---W '� I i J cy� O>''. % �4 5T �� ��� q�i E\Q Q�e aa ¢ app�ERTr �T £ �� of SoUM'� .J .9 �. •siNT' , '� •+• \G ( �_ j O N�RART ST W O ¢ Q ¢ Q ¢IC % Z ,• �_— \�itit..�l. � TER ' 1 1 1 -1'-,-1 PEG �"',' U'LINDEN ST acac 0NOOOOOOOz.. \ _ _1 . _ 'i;.` ` 9�Q' 9r,. \ \ �r'.'tver • Ii I. ' .i t: �EE.,.i r�gp• c,. 1._•-' ' R„.,.rr Z ; ¢ 03 j Oio O \ �1i W0/111 ; _1ir 0 4 \\ \ '\ \"t► y ��+: • •• Oq EP! fEPNAP o td,,• Ju . z t a cc w ,. >w1 tIA S ,•Re f(Qt1047 �O," y r•�ti p� mt i�d, r E a -, o < o a a tIRp -
O \4 �) �J° �' g /\ • eP Anitia wcn o C m o w =_ _ . m n -- - -
• cv fy Os � WO ark ( • ntv Orin Rd .h.
PIrJETR -�.r :�S .we ��••1,lIMEZOP`. CL1/8 Ro l A►
Al
wAr M B E A al,c.A N fartwaV � ,�~, 0.9 L f ZE r•c.•� CIo i` p �w 111A w `� 'KrO Jryxryr ::c:
;OO \ +tO,r'1•! '•:, b_Cirunad.w 9 YCOq� `�.h it; S
z a 1 W k�r \ c,`Q\ I. ./� �+� House' reward \ F�,ro�j�ir+iGigF+. Q a, `O
9 en In,y s` , Fox Run C.\ Pvt` o+ Pita }, 7 rClUb..,. J: Cu—) C�"'°i�-Pt Plat, G 10121
akCva' S •(\c
y —{ I + �O 'eS., O s- it c •1 1 —A _ Rlver!Plfl�t Cs�-r, m �Rd9e la t 1
O O c *0 C•• O ` u IV�i Z�•;'��*v... wr \.tit �'►..��r Q
rsa 9 ,- i �.. ►•rthDr{' s�• W illow PO
i * F2= Run Clr + x �' _ cF , ,r 9'S g 30
F It ��
r (a Ut.E SAs�. Rel _ 25 :a -�RlPrrttrtt�C+
�c c 27 0007 y d . o
_ •.i ; GolOPl 2.. t _I 6 J S Ridgewood IAc.I I♦ ;
-� T.� J• s r\; I s < .� tt c - E t1 , West v�ood Gsr 1 I G" ralb .
N, c•d � \Nr ♦ p s�� Y. yYr::�s `z ^4 - yyay ` a.Ct _ Ave &me w, �.• I Mall
�'!•�` h'O \J RO • c AArr o 9n„. \ •••�, .t t P� a c _ n is r {, 1p nyII ution �I�rao�� '744 '
0 1, \ �'``�, - 'I, ' >�a'-a' Rd -E (rillM'w,IL..• ,o te4E.O
v `O AK ,f.0 f (,`ir SSG' s Wndwir ?1C, • �/ o7EOUESTA � - star •�
f� o os �� •T l` ) , a _ \T�Tet C,rgen D� 11 f1�
g •„>�rs r End rver U .,re • _ vs>,,, t
¢o, TEOUESTA R 8 � ��'� 4� ;r:IY:::::Rdd
�� 3 CI b Cir 1�, • Z Q > CNIJR FW 1:, i. kit" p 1 4 " A6
'I V R E , r 1
• RO u .tr-der——• Rd fRA k6 1N - �9 -
* b v. � Talon ` RI" RR p e(
- c S �Y •f A .'Aa v AQ r� Y • 11P•..:• S .`•. >_ �r of cal yyindirr Yl r o' R .
�20400 I WY w F7TF 3 • -L ,' ' itch; IT." r a tverly 4Rd� at Q 41 : ¢ _
1 ..: I Il
o > Basalt Yacht
•• •ba 2 u 21 ..u` e yJZoY ; "'K.. Club ��� od Rd Q 4LI y BeviHY Rd i cI
d" T o of Y all
�,7J c o= QR t tArvlcw TE11 •O N O : �� Q� ' I Li_
Y •� >� s _ > 2■ArvlEw rT Fra+Ier 0_, V 1
SNOT RE t. I ko
= F �w o r a; a anrvaw w 9a 9,o r LmcrEIr``- I r
Z TJ` o . TUCKER RD PENNOCK a0/ �' a • • 77,Q a,2R��,Qd ;
a = s �o KEITH RQ. SHIRLEY OR Zr 9 ``N • s t �`�t)T P„rl �O OgRs�O
O w 4 SULLIVAN RD O
9 w 2 afk IrINd R4f• ptp C
• E 7 s taat,or UROEA RD xi
E P'OIHT lA •". "}Z'a� �.•• /
0. otocrf 1 Lbeaho c . I .a•..,r; s.;,a.."4:. y fir
rche .
to , c T f OUNTAaN t wl r Q� a ...'„. 0
'' A �lCr. ``i Y b RD OLD FORT �5 JUPITER RD I 36 Ru er ^`+:,•„ ,,� ,
�' a ROEBUCKf1_ far�w
I / P W W 'trlM l • � � a
c0� �N C3 1 C W Mu Qak rI Cr - Ora R 9 �.Pd os�/ Ev t'a 0,1 % -.
s Ct 0 a• Q CC v •''•
V
( f
\r•+ cF11
it ft
¢ Y SEN UC T,u s[ ap / a0 La /L/ ��t/ T1�o J O • a��'I I C ' - vim •✓
f .) ...,.. U.. ¢ l�-{1E C.i.I ' Z _ — 4Y`.-.Ji, Cs rare- '' a..0 - ` •t t .' '"-•••gJ..av _I-.,'• �'
N
t;'i �� t''k�„— 1RR U,/ E I / ti I I , •�{ a,�...-..
t
FACTS & FIGURES RELATIVE TO TRAFFIC CONCERNS
ON COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE AND THROUGHOUT TEQUESTA
Reference Material
• Northfork Development ( Section 28 ) Traffic Impact Review Study;
February 1992
• Tequesta Drive/Country Club Drive Corridor Analysis;
February 1993
• Summary of Traffic Surveys for Village of Tequesta; March 1994
• Joint Local Government Traffic Engineering Study; March 1994
• Miscellaneous Studies and Correspondence
EXIbTI?G TRAFFIC COUNTS - PEAR SE:130 : - TI:QUE.`iTEi ;i.T.T,LII"Z JJJ V-1.:'T1fl CQif" 'Y _;'�_ 7A� P %.TION
IFEB 92 MAY 92 FEB/APR 91 MARCH 94 T % ITRIPS % •TRIPS '
CO(1N R3X CLUB DRIVE
• North of Island Way 3, 131
• Island Way to County Line 3, 608 3, 119
• County Line to Tequesta Drive 5,958 6, 107
• Country Club Drive to Tequesta Drive 6,205 63 10, 124 � 48 9, 182
• East of Country Club Drive 8, 818 63 14, 373 48 13,051
• East of Seabrook 11,355 35 15,329 20 13,626
• West of Dixie Highway 14,962 35 20, 199 20 17,954
• Dixie Highway to Riverside Drive 8,857 40 12,400 25 11,071
• Riverside Drive to Country Club Drive 11,240 63 18, 321 48 16,635
11
Data Source:Traffic Impact Study; Northfork
Development, Page 12,
Vehicle Trips per Day
Tequesta Drive/Country Club Drive
Corridor Analysis, Page 7
/ Uses current Northfork plan calling for 640 dwellings,
27 hole golf course, one exit north & 40% impact.
• Uses current Northfork plan, with Westerly exit, no
Longshore Connection & 20% impact on Tequesta -
SPECIAL NOTE: Figures do not consider development of
downtown Tequesta, Abacoa or U.S. One North (Mobil) or
take into consideration action taken to reduce traffic
through Tequesta.
1 _
IMPACT OF CLOSING COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE
TO ALTERNATE NORTH COUNTY ROADS
COMPARISON OF NORTH COUNTY ROADWAYS
DAILY TRAFFIC BEFORE AND DURING THE
CLOSURE OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE
AVG. DAILY TRAFFIC CHANGE
Before During
Closure Closure
COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE 5, 948 3, 585 2, 363 39 . 7
LOXAHATCHEE RIVER ROAD 3, 712 2, 849 863 23 . 2
+ +
RIVERSIDE DRIVE 1, 117 1 , 737 620 55 . 5
OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY 6, 183 6, 705 522 8 . 4
SEABROOK ROAD 2 , 798 2, 690 108 3 . 9
COUNTY LINE ROAD 4, 126 I 6, 264 2 , 138 51 . 8
Riverside Dr.+ Old Dixie - Seabrook 6^0 + 522 - 108 = 1 , 034 48 . 4
County Line to U.S. One 2, 138 - 1, 034 = 1, 104 51 . 6
Data Source: Kimley-Horn/Palm Beach Traffic Surveys
1�
oo..ler Una Agi • -
.1
\:„..)..con:/,,,3,/,,....-- weir
`
A -I!(1 Mrd A . o f.
t ,
w•
um fuse
comer I
� Gitf e
/..::•.:•:::kINNITIVIrOlar>. i t\ , j If L t
; W: � \ ,orue� OF nvaotioa Z.:
•
O ?:ice'' _ - _ t i Toyama QM Y
8 eMc parr
U j
I
O2,
r ••/
INDWNTO 1N ROAD
co
NORT/FORD
Location Map
-e+c- Flgure 1
s
1
0
J
U
w
cM
4 C)
U llJ �
N i
Cr
I-
I-
• i
o in
03
o n . 1
0
• co L- 11 07(41 )
1 1 I �— 1395(52)
SE. COUNTRY CLUB DR. 4 r--- 1 90(7) 5 3 8 4
•
3596 (7)130 - -s- j
4_78)1395 `"-"► ur
'
(15)273 "'�7. N. a)� q � � N -
�
� r
M:N i IIIM VA, IR S, v v
U v-
d Lo
O
2
O 'C-
Z
I.
ti
t
LEGEND
1395 DAILY TRAFFIC
(78) APPROACH PERCENTAGE "
3596 TOTAL DAILY TRAFFIC FIGURE 2
N VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA 1
4�
DAILY TRAFFIC rt
NOT TO SCALE
f Krnler-#4orn ,
1
4421102
TC 2%i•-C?DAY