Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 7A_1/16/1992 _Wig *I f.,,, �• VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA �� ,•• ' r;� Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive • . p , <' Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 • (407) 575-6200 3r1 ..fr;• FAX: (407) 575-6203 MEMORANDUM : TO: Village Council FROM: Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager -7:igi.e DATE: January 10, 1992 SUBJECT: Section 28 ( fka Northfork Development) ; Agenda Item On December 2 the Village received a letter from Harry King, Acting Growth Management Director for Martin County, requesting the Village to review the request for a zoning district change to PUD(r) Master Plan Approval and the associated Land Use Amendment for Section 28 of Southern Martin County. This is the development generally referred to as Northfork. Our review and focus for impacts to Tequesta is primarily in the area of traffic. In this regard the Village secured the services of Fred Schwartz to undertake the following: 0 Review and report on the findings of the developments' traffic engineering study, focusing on accuracy and methodology. 0 Ascertain what impact, if any, would the Connector Road construction have in diverting traffic from County Club Drive. The report of Mr. Schwartz is attached hereto for your review and he will be present at the meeting to review the findings and to answer any questions that the Village Council may have. It is recommended that the Village Council authorize the Village Manager to transmit the findings of Mr. Schwartz in a letter to Martin County so that Tequesta' s formal response to traffic concerns will be transmitted properly. • TGB/krb Attachments • BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 240I S.F. '\.1untcrc`\ Ruud • Stuart, Florida $4()O O OF Ai , COUNTY OF MARTIN -' STATE , RI DA k q 41\ it OF1 �; rFPufut sr4 GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ; DFo Q 3 9 Phone (407) 288-5495 r fr/4/ J : 997 December 2, 1991 3 , MpFFG4S 0 Mr. Thomas Bradford Town Manager Village of Tequesta P.O. Box 3273 Tequesta, FL 33469-0273 RE: Section 28 (fka Northfork Development), Request for Zoning District Change to PUD(r) Master Plan Approval ; Execution of PUD Agreement-in Conjunction with Land Use Amendment #91-6 Dear Mr. Bradford: Martin County is currently in the process of reviewing the above application in accordance with applicable State and local land development regulations. This application is being provided early to facilitate your review. The County Local Planning Agency (LPA) is to address this application in March, 1992. Your comments in January, 1992 will facilitate our evaluation. As an adjacent municipality/county to this proposed project, please review the enclosed application submittal materials and provide a written response on any issues that may potentially affect your area or services. You may be aware that the Loxahatchee Council of Governments (COG) has a study committee evaluating the planned roadways and infrastructure services to Section 28 where this proposal is located. The final draft of that study will be presented to the COG in December, 1991 . You may obtain a copy of that report from Mr. Pete Pimentel . If you should have any questions or comments please do not hesitate to call me at the above number. Sincerely, Harry W. King Acting Growth anagement Director HWK/GK/gg: (3372h] Enclosure cc: Board of County Commissioners Sue B. Whittle, County Administrator David Collier, Assistant County Administrator Pete Pimentel , Northern Palm Beach County Water Control District •v. Traffic Engineering, Inc. Frederick W. Schwartz, P.E. President January 1 • ~. ' 992 i • Mr. Scott LaddpG 'p�, Village of Tequesta Z'� Gi b r' F Building Department4440 rZ Post Office Box 3273 , ,�' Tequesta, FL 33469 ',� Dear Mr. Ladd: -� This is a summary of the traffic analysis which Traffic Engineering, Inc. , (TEI) performed at your request assessing the traffic impacts of the Northfork Development in extreme southern Martin County, Florida. Since the location is within-two miles of the Village of ,Tequesta limits, our analysis focus on the potential traffic impacts'. in the Village. Northfork Impact Analysis The Northfork project makes up the entire Land Section 28. The development plan iricludes a buildout year 1998 with the following general land o Residential units-:which include 450 single family dwellin`;:units and` 40.0. multi family units, o 50,00k0 square feet 'retail and office space, and o Recreation space -dedicated toennis .:courts .and a go]fy our�se T inclu in k :a 60,000 square foot • clubhouse S S w � # r R Since Northfork 'i ocated,'ih Martin County, a traffic imp ct� yyyA (` analysis was performed according to the. Martin .County guidelines � ?_: and submitted .i :'part of�=the developmen . application. the guidelines differ slightly =from:::What 'would ie requiredrs r rlthe ` Village of Teq uesta oar by ,;Palm Beach ;County,`.: the traffic impact-1 analysis prepared by David >Plummer and _Associates =was useful in quantifying tlier.actnal -traffic :impacts,;.especially. in the Pillage : = - of Tequesta. One Clearlake Centie Suite 50� € = , µ 250 Australian Aveh e, South West`Palm Be ►F.ach L 33401 407.-659►8328 fir . ;t = • • Mr. Scott D. Ladd -2- January 10th, 1992 Northfork Development Review of Traffic Impact Analysis Several issues were presented in the Plummer' s •analysis which do not serve to adequately address the traffic impacts in the Village of Tequesta. For example: • o Peak season traffic counts were under estimated. o Traffic generation estimates, especially with respect to the level of pass by capture, were under estimated. o Distribution and assignment of project traffic to the surrounding roadway network drastically under estimated the potential impacts on Country Club Drive and Tequesta Drive. o Impact area analyzed was too small to include all roadways which will absorb significant amount of project related traffic, especially in' the Village of Tequesta. • Sensitivity of the Analysis • Assumptions and methodologies related to each of four areas' ': identified above were readdressed by TEI. Specifically: o Applicable seasonal rates were applied to existing counts ;to reflect peak season conditions .in Martin and:'Palm Beach counties. • o A° more_= reasonable and technically supportable.: estiaate of `trraffic generation was calculated• • o ;Arreassessment of project traffic distribution and ,� ; as�`si �' rent was undertaken sus ing a ;gravity model and `� 0 �Y~r ,r. tYd � �,.j�"�cr'� �,'}- .. f if'-tip, p!"s L N t �. . mar t{ research of both' the residential and ' 3 • commercial elements of the Northfork Site.-r - �TT7 � �� x��k�°`.�i•��.1'"�,6r i���i« ter..= s�.�..z .. � .. - }. 1 r '.,Zk�f -F t s r ` ``. a- '``ti n,;lr 4 o :mict ,ar'ea, .as determned: .by the ,provisions o'fT�=` ` ` - the Palm Beach :Traffic Performance Standard-was us ' ' ' : ,..''era, ...:, } : In sonme cases,r0justing these input assumptions and methodologies resulted .in significantly..different conclusions:• x _ ,1` .r n - r Ry 3:;" �. g,rN tti ..G r... Mr. Scott D. Ladd -3- January 10th, 1992 Northfork Development Recommended Roadway Improvements Certain roadway improvements will be necessary to mitigate the impacts from the Northfork project. In fact, both the Plummer and TEI analyses concluded that the following roadway improvements are necessary: o Extension of Central Boulevard from its current terminus just north of Washington Street north to Island Way. o Extension of Iongshore Drive from its current terminus north and to a point intersecting the proposed alignment of the Central Boulevard extension. o Construction of a four lane divided Central Boulevard from the existing four lane terminus just south of the C-18 Canal to Church Street, including the necessary bridge widening over the C-18 Canal. o Signalization at the intersection of Central Boulevard and Church Street. Additionally, the TEI analysis identified the need for the following improvement: o An expansion of Tequesta Drive between Country Club Drive and the existing four lane section west of Dixie Highway. Alternatively, relief in the Tequesta Drive corridor can be achieved by considering: o Connecting existing_.County,: Line`;,Rtoa . between_:the existing alignment and Country Club Drive." Each of these; six" improvements are ` illustrated on : the :attached graphic which shows the project location and the roadways which will absorb the :project traffic impacts._ Mr. Scott D. Ladd - -4- January 10th, 1992 Northfork Development Concurrency Considerations Besides the potential traffic impacts from the Northfork project, a very important traffic consideration in this area of the Village of Tequesta is related to concurrency and the ability for future development to be approved in the Village. The Plummer and TEI analyses do not focus adequately on the future traffic conditions on Tequesta Drive such that an accurate concurrency determination can be made. However, it is clear that any additional traffic carried on Tequesta Drive from outside the Village will minimize the traffic which can be allocated to future development within the Village. The concurrency considerations on Tequesta Drive the Village of Tequesta need to be addressed in a more focused analysis. I would be glad to discuss this with you and others at the Village at your direction. Conclusion This letter and the preliminary review and analysis of the Northfork traffic impact study indicates that the potential traffic impacts of the project have been underestimated especially on Country Club Drive and Tequesta Drive. The mitigation required by Martin County for the Northfork project must include techniques which address these problems. My conversations with Martin County staff indi,cate that they will be very attentive to the needs of the Village of Tequesta and Palm Beach County. I look forward to the opportunity to personally present these findings and be available for discussion of the Northfork project at the January .-16th Village Council meeting. In the meantime, please feel free to call to discuss these or other related issues.- SINCERELY, FREDERICK W. SCHWARTZ, P.E. PRESIDENT cc: Thomas Bradford J Village Council Members .• . 00,- ..,.% ( LEGEND ). Coun line Rd. (Ifigal = Recommended link improvements IT per David Plummer and TEI analyses 'I • . 0 = Proposed signalization per David D Plummer and TEl analyses E c R , riUl = Recommended improvement per TEl analysts, .. . Island o - Nil A or 1 In lieu of County Line Road improvement way un • • L Gois . Recommended Improvement per TEl analysis, • ' . t • t r h in lieu of Tequesta Drive Improvement 2 ... .i .:::- •. GI b Dr. CountyLine Road H I I I . i • •'• •• . .:••i 0 - . .. ... •h N.rs , at G (NORTNFORK,,.). :% I . • H W % . F . A L .••••• •.• • ..:-. . . I A. • . Y 0 -•:' : - .-..-- .-......:.• .• .. . , 'Sir . 1":•ueste Drive R ... .... . .. . ...... . . . , Air:PI County _L. D • • Co D r vi A, ( ? ..\..,L e . • S, • / •ci sh Roebuck Road ca or T 'S b e ' R - • Church Street Center Street i ... P I i -1 K .: . a fl a) : ... , .• . INDIANTOWN ROAD co a ..4 -4.• .•. a) ..•-• ... Iris iii ' i •••• .•••• C. E ...-- a) .. cr• 0 < ir, 1 ( 'N .-7TE:<..} . I] [ NORTHFORK ... Recommended Roadway Improvements 744WAb &spinier/as, AhM 4a7-659-8326 Prepared for VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA S' .}1 .. , 1 , .