Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Pension Public Safety_12/7/2006 ( 1 � VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA PLANNING AND ZONING ADVISORY BOARD MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Village of Tequesta Planning and Zoning Advisory Board held a regularly scheduled meeting at the Tequesta Recreation Center, 399 Seabrook Road, Tequesta, Florida, on Thursday, December 7, 2006. The meeting was called to order at 6:35 P.M. by Chair Elizabeth Schauer. A roll call was taken by Recording Secretary Betty Laur. Board members present were: Chair Elizabeth Schauer, Vice Chair Steve Okun, and Alternate Russell Von Frank. Board Member Royce Hood. Absent from the meeting were Board Member Royce Hood and Board Member Leslie Cook. Also in attendance were Clerk of the Board and Community Development Director Catherine Harding, and Recording Secretary Betty Laur. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Board member Von Frank moved approval of the agenda with the addition of letters of resignation from Carl Blasé and Charles Reinwald under Any Other Matters. Vice Chair Okun seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 3-0 vote. The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the Agenda was approved as amended. M. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES MOTION: Vice Chair Okun made a motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of November 2, 2006 as submitted. Board member Von Frank seconded the motion,which carried by unanimous 3-0 vote. IV. NEW BUSINESS—None V. A) An Application by the Good Shepherd Episcopal Church located at 402 Seabrook Road, Tequesta, for Three (3) temporary Modular Classroom Units, 24 ft. x 36 ft. to provide Pre-K through 8th Grade in addition to the Pre-K through 5th Grade now being offered. Community Development Director Catherine Harding reported the Village Attorney had advised that Mr. Von Frank could vote on this application, and that Planning and Zoning Advisory Board December 7,2006 Meeting Minutes Page 2 although Mr. Von Frank was a member of the Good Shepherd church, there was no conflict. Mr. Von Frank had not been needed to sit on the board during the first presentation of this application, since there had been a quorum; however, tonight he was needed in order to have a quorum, so he would be sitting on the board and voting. Ms. Harding advised the attorney had cleared Mr. Von Frank as having no conflict, and he had been present and had observed the prior meeting, and he had received a packet. Mary Hinton, 12 Oakland Court, spoke on behalf of the applicant since the person who had planned to represent the applicant was in the hospital. Ms. Hinton commented that the conclusion in the traffic study summed it up and the study had been provided by Kimley-Horn and had been signed and sealed by a registered Florida engineer, Christopher Hagen, P.E. Ms. Hinton read the conclusion from the traffic study into the record: Traffic conditions on the site at the Good Shepherd Episcopal School were observed to evaluate existing conditions and determine whether or not the site can accommodate an expansion of 45 middle school students without adversely impacting traffic operations. To undertake this evaluation of the vehicular queuing demand on the site, observations were conducted on site in October 2006. According to observed data, there were no existing queuing problems during either the a.m. arrival or p.m. dismissal periods. The addition of 45 middle school students arriving around the same time as the existing student body is not expected to cause queuing problems during the a.m. drop-off period. However, during the p.m. pickup period, the additional students would cause vehicular queues to extend into Seabrook Road during the peak period if dismissal occurred at the same time as one of the existing sessions. Therefore, in order to alleviate the conflicting situation, the proposed dismissal period for middle school students should be separated from the existing dismissal periods by a minimum of 30 minutes. This staggered pattern would not interfere with existing operations and is expected to allow the queue to be accommodated within the area provided. Ms. Hinton reported the school had met with the Police department, as requested at the last meeting, to determine the number of accidents on Seabrook Road according to the records of this community. It was found there had been one minor accident which occurred in front of the Good Shepherd School, but it did not involve any time that a parent would be picking up or dropping off a child, and there were no other existing problems, according to the Police Chief. Vice Chair Okun commented the new Police..Chief would not be aware of anything, so hopefully they had contacted other members of the police force. Ms. Hinton advised they had done so, and they had provided a list for the packets of all police incidents that had occurred on that street according to the police records. Vice Chair Okun noted the board had copies of incident reports, which were just calls for service; however, he had wanted to go further than those reports and get observations from officers on duty who were aware of that area. Chair Schauer commented that was a little above and beyond the jurisdiction of an advisory Planning and Zoning Advisory Board December 7,2006 Meeting Minutes Page 3 board—that would fall under the powers of the Village Council to make that decision, and what Mr. Okun had asked for in the last meeting was an incident report to be provided by the Police Department, and that had been provided. Chair Schauer commented that the material provided showed eight incidents which occurred on Seabrook Road and only one minor non-injury accident which occurred at the entrance to the church during the school period, which was due to driver error. Vice Chair Okun clarified if there were a bothersome area, everyone knew about it, and it became a pain in the neck. He had wanted to go beyond that because individuals were claiming they could not get by. Ms. Hinton advised there had been a police officer on site. Principal Christine Vanderwestheizen, 113B Lighthouse Circle, reported she had spoken with Chief McCollom and he and Officer Kline had come to the school and stayed through three drop-offs, and had asked how drop-offs and pick-ups were scheduled. Ms. Vanderwestheizen had explained there were seven drop-offs and pick-ups for 137 students, beginning at 7 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. Pick-ups were scheduled at 11:30 a.m., 2:00 p.m.,2:10,2:50, 3 p.m.,4,and 6 p.m. The Police had come back that day and had been observing. Chair Schauer stated for the record that the report stated there was just one accident, due to driver error,that occurred in front of the church,and the rest of the incidents were not in front of the church but they did occur on Seabrook Road over a period from 2004 through April 18, 2006. Ms. Hinton commented there were presently 137 students enrolled,.but the school was approved for 169. Average enrollment per class was 13.7. They were trying to keep class sizes small. They hoped to have sixth grade students. In terms of safety the Police Department came and helped them with what they were doing. Regarding the school bus proposal by Mr. Hood, to use another site for pickup, they had done an analysis and found it would be cost prohibitive about$85,000 for the bus, $20,000 per year in fuel, and about $8,500 per year for insurance. Ms. Hinton reported the school had agreed to stagger pickup in the afternoon to mitigate stacking. Ms. Hinton advised they were present tonight to ask to be able to do the whole infrastructure. If they did a phasing program the artificial turf they used for a play surface would have to be removed each time. That turf was used because it was the safest thing for the children to play on,and playgrounds were the biggest areas of injury in schools. They were asking for the whole infrastructure to be approved tonight because of the expense of pulling up the artificial turf--$20,000 just to pull up the turf. To accommodate only one module, they would have to redo the drainage. These were going to be self-contained units and they now were asking for two slightly larger units instead of three. Ms. Hinton noted they were asking for two buildings to help mitigate some of the residents' issues. Ms. Hinton reminded the board that the school was licensed by the Palm Beach County Health Department and was fully accredited. Regarding comments about rats in modules at the last meeting, Ms.Hinton stated if there was ever a rat in one of the modules the school would be out of business within an hour: The units Planning and Zoning Advisory Board • December 7,2006 Meeting Minutes Page 4 were self-contained, with classes and bathrooms right there together. They had submitted a landscape plan which contained descriptions of the vegetation as recommended by a landscape architect. Ms. Hinton distributed a statement from South Florida Water Management • District which she read into the record: Our site engineer, Steve Oenbrink P.E. with Kimley-Horn of West Palm Beach, personally visited the regulatory staff at the South Florida Water Management District. SFWMD staff advised Mr. Oenbrink that the combined church/school site qualifies under Chapter 40E-400 of the Florida Administrative Code (FAC) for a "No Notice General Environmental Resource Permit". Therefore, there was no regulatory requirement to construct the existing onsite retention area, and the retention area site is available for use. The criteria for a SFWMD "No Notice"permit includes: (1) the subject site must be less than 10 acres and have,less than two acres of impervious surfaces; and(2) the work cannot impact existing wetlands or surface waters of the State. This site meets all criteria even with the proposed modular classrooms in place. Vice Chair Okun commented one thing was missing that he had previously raised, that someone from the school explore a fresh look at the existing site and site plan for a way to have cars stack on the property and off the street. Ms. Hinton responded she thought the whole secret would come from staggering when people picked up or dropped off their children. Chair Schauer noted most of the parents came in on the south side of the parking lot, causing stacking problems, and suggested the parking area just to the north become a staging area. If the school anticipated a stacking problem for a certain pickup time they could tell that group to come in on the north end, and they could get out of their cars to get their children. This was something to definitely look at. Vice • Chair Okun requested the school go beyond just looking at this to develop a plan, so that when the topic came up they would have a workable plan. Vice Chair Okun asked if there was a facilitator for pickups. Principal Vanderwestheizen advised there were five. Ms. Hinton reported she had picked her grandson up and he had been placed in the car so fast it was like a drive-by pickup. Chair Schauer thanked the applicant for the landscape plan and pictures, which would help the Village Council, and verified with the applicant that they were •willing to stagger the later students. Board member Von Frank commented he hoped they would learn to walk before they ran. Ms. Hinton responded the parents really cared about what was being provided by the school, and were very involved, and there were children who wanted to continue there. Vice Chair Okun commented the school was an asset. • Vice Chair Okun requested when the school developed their stacking plan that they assure that one of the facilitators be diligent about problems at street side. Ms.Hinton responded they would,and that they wished to provide a good service. Planning and Zoning Advisory Board December 7,2006 Meeting Minutes Page 5 Chair Schauer called for any public comments. Pauline Hutchinson, Camelia Circle, commented she was concerned for the neighbors and she thought it was unfair that the school infringe on their privacy. The applicant had a new plan for two units and she wanted to know what had happened to the smaller units, and how long they would be on the site since the application was for temporary units. Ms. Hutchinson suggested they could use part of the parish hall or close the meditation garden and meditate in church. Chair Schauer advised the application was for five years temporary use. Ms. Hutchinson stated she did not call five years temporary, if they used the parish hall they would save money and it wouldn't take them five years to build a bigger school, and she felt bad for the neighbors directly behind the school. Ms. Hutchinson felt there was a mistake by listing a detention area instead of a retention area. Vice Chair Okun explained they were very different things—a retention area held water and a detention area detained water. Ms. Hutchinson commented she had seen standing water there and asked what they would do about mosquitoes, and was assured the school would take care of any mosquitoes. Ms. Hutchinson suggested they buy the corner lot at Tequesta Drive and Fiesta Drive to build a school, or that one of the parents put a trailer in their back yard. Tom Brinkman, 81 Camelia Circle, expressed his opinion not much planning had gone into this and suggested they use the road they had built and pick up the kids in back of the school instead of using Seabrook Drive. Chair Schauer noted that looked like one way only and it was not paved. Mr. Brinkman pointed out the area on the revised plan for the board. Mr. Brinkman commented it could be paved and that would alleviate all the traffic problems. Chair Schauer commented she had suggested they use the north parking lot, and they were willing to do that, which would be more cost effective.. Chair Schauer asked Ms. Hinton and Principal Vanderwestheizen to look at the plans. It was noted that the area Mr. Brinkman was talking about contained artificial turf, and there wasn't enough area for a car to make a loop to go around. Ms. Schauer stated she didn't want to cause anyone additional expense. Mr. Brinkman stated he understood; and he was just talking about alternatives, and asked what they were doing with the space behind the trailers, and requested that the units be placed against the church building. Chair Schauer explained that could not be done because of fire codes and health and safety regulations. Discussion ensued. Mr. Brinkman commented there was a 20' pad in back of the church that could be used. Ms. Harding explained this met setback requirements; if the Planning Board wanted to change that, and make the requirements more stringent,they could do so. Also,the Fire Department needed access, and she explained the measurements on the plan. Mr. Brinkman commented this was getting closer and closer to the residents and it was noisy, and there was room on the other end of the property. Chair Schauer commented the playground area had been placed where it was because residents on the north and east had wanted the playground farther away from them to have less noise. Mr. Brinkman questioned what would happen after five years—Chair Planning and Zoning Advisory Board December 7,2006 Meeting Minutes Page 6 • Schauer explained the units would have to be removed. Mr. Brinkman asked why two buildings were needed for 14 students. Chair Schauer gave the school enrollment projects: actual enrollment for 2006/2007 was 137, projected for 2009/2010 was up to 142 for pre-K to 5th, and 45 from 6th to 8th grades—still under capacity. Mr. Brinkman asked how many children would be in the two new buildings, to which Vice Chair Okun responded that would vary, but if the opportunity arose for them to grow to their capacity the more financially feasible it would be, so they wanted the whole infrastructure in the beginning. Mr. Brinkman expressed hope that the board realized some of the residents were living right on the property line. Vice Chair Okun commented abutting property owners were impacted most and the board was sensitive to that, and if the board were prone to be empathetic it was on the side of the residents with the detrimental impact. Mr. Brinkman commented with a little more planning they could find a different way to do it—possibly placing two classrooms into one modular unit so there could be more buffer. Vice Chair Okun advised that could be addressed at a different meeting—this board was only addressing zoning. Mr. Brinkman again asked to re-think the plan, and not to be so close to the property line. Vice Chair Okun advised, those were planning issues, and during the planning component that board would be sensitive to negative impacts or perceived negative impacts to surrounding residents, because the residents were there first. Mr. Brinkman commented even if they would just increase the buffer by increasing plantings. Vice Chair Okun commented that could be addressed by the planning board. Mr. Brinkman indicated he understood the school's problem, but it was going to be only possibly 5'-8' from his property line, and he thought it could be re-thought. Vice Chair Okun clarified this board was only dealing with zoning and all criteria had been met for that; and the planning board would meet at a different time. John Hays, 123 Magnolia Way, explained one of his children had attended this school, and this school was incredible and did a great job. Regarding the traffic issue, he had been taking his child to the school and with the staggered pickup times he had never seen a stacking issue. Also,there were a lot of young families moving into Tequesta as evidenced by attendance at Constitution Park and at a recent event where there were hundreds of children. Mr. Hays indicated he hoped the school could be accommodated within their legal rights and capacity. Pauline Hutchinson, Camelia Circle, asked how close the detention pond was from her neighbor's property line. Ms. Harding responded that a retention pond was to keep water in, this was a detention area that would detaining water and very often no water would be collected, but if it were it would drain off quickly. If water were to collect, the area would have to be re-graded so the water would run off. Ms. Harding explained that the area would have a park-like appearance when the detention area was finished. Ms. Hutchinson commented that during the rainy season she had seen water in the big hole they had. Ms. Hutchinson asked if it bothered the board the applicant had already changed from three units Planning and Zoning Advisory Board December 7,2006 Meeting Minutes Page 7 to two larger ones, and recalled when they originally came in front of the Village Council, the then Mayor, Ron Mackail, told them not to come back for anything else. Chair Schauer commented that she had mentioned that last time, and the school had stated they were looking for another site, and this board could approve this and have it go forward to the Village Council, who would decide-what they wanted to do. The school had met all the zoning criteria, they had enhanced their landscaping, they had changed the area of their units, and were trying to be good neighbors. Vice Chair Okun commented the issue of zoning was the intensity of use and how it affected surrounding property. Other issues were not being dealt with tonight. The church needed to know first if they could pursue expansion, and how they proceeded to expand was a staff issue and a planning issue. They had presented a footprint of what they were recommending to happen. When the board voted it would not be voting on the plans, but on the.increase in the intensity of use and if the church met the criteria of the Village. When it came back as a planning issue, how to manage the impact on the community was a planning issue. So it might be residents were riled about things not really on this board's plate tonight, and it was good the board was hearing them. He thought there were misconceptions, one of which was the difference in detention and retention areas. That was a whole water management issue, a State issue which was law, and this board could not change how much water was to be retained/detained. Ms. Hutchinson asked what would happen if a lot of people came here and asked to put buildings over 30%of their property and if the Village would like that. Vice Chair Okun advised the board had to address the application that was presented. Betty Nagy, 26 Shay Place, commented because of the gentleman who had never seen a stacking problem,that when they moved into their house 20 years ago they knew the church was there. Stacking problems started four years ago. She wanted her husband to live, and the only way he could live was to have dialysis three days a week. He was taken by van to and from the hospital, and came home telling her they had been stopped because of the stacking and had to wait. The parents just stopped and did not care that they blocked the road. Mrs. Nagy commented other residents had seen the stacking, and he could ask the owner of the store across from the church. She did not feel her husband should have to go out of his way to Old Dixie after 4 or 5 hours in dialysis, and she did not think it was fair to existing residents to add more traffic. Heather Vaughn, 178 River Drive, Director of Marketing for the school and a parent of three children who attended the school, commented the school was great . for Tequesta and for everybody here and their property values, it was not exclusive,it served a wide representation of Tequesta,and 90% of their operating budget was set aside for children who would not otherwise be able to attend. Ms. Vaughn requested a positive vote from the board. • Planning and Zoning Advisory Board December 7,2006 Meeting Minutes Page 8 Mary Hinton advised there were 170,500 square feet in the entire site and even with the existing building and the expansion there would still be 108,608 square feet of open area,which would help with drainage. Ms.Harding advised she had taken notes from comments from the audience and if this application were approved tonight and went forward to the planning board those comments would be incorporated into the presentation to that board. Board member Von Frank asked for clarification of what the board would be voting on tonight. Ms. Harding explained the application was for two modular units, one 60' x 24' and one 60' x 20', to be placed on the side of the building with a 20' separation from the building and 47' feet from the property line. Vice Chair Okun clarified one structure had been eliminated and there were two structures increased in size. Vice Chair Okun asked if"temporary" had been defined or if it was within this board's purview to define "temporary". Ms. Harding responded that "temporary" had no specific limit, it specifically meant temporary as determined by the board. This applicant was asking for five years and whether the planning board thought five years was temporary was up to them. It was not this board's decision, and temporary could be defined according to the type of structure and the use. Vice Chair Okun commented that depending on the impact to the community the Village Council could determine their version of temporary and take action to mitigate any adverse impact on the surrounding community. Ms. Harding advised what the board could do would be to authorize three year temporary use with two years to be granted later. Chair Schauer clarified for Board member Von Frank that Ms. Harding had only used three years as an example—the applicant was stating their temporary structures would be five years. The concept was that the planning board, which is the Village Council,might look at five years and say they thought three years was temporary and if the applicant wished, they could come back to readdress the board, meaning the Village Council, for an extension of two years. Vice Chair Okun commented that conversely, if there were a negative impact, the Council could take swift action to change things to mitigate the adverse impacts on the surrounding community; so what that would do would serve both sides because it would say to the school they had to be very good neighbors with regard to the impacts to the surrounding community; at the same time the surrounding residents would realize this is an asset. All they had to do was to Iook at the public school system to see the problems and they would find themselves embracing a lot of private schools very quickly. Vice Chair Okun stated with that in mind, he thought the board needed to move forward with a recommendation. MOTION: Vice Chair Okun made a motion to recommend approval of the zoning requirement that allowed the Church of the Good Shepherd to move forward with expansion of the school with the conditions and the proviso of temporary being just that, and • + Planning and Zoning Advisory Board December 7,2006 Meeting Minutes Page 9 advising the Village Council that it is this board's feeling, to be for three years and have it roll over. Three years would be a good test and allow the school to put financials into position so they could plan more effectively. Vice Chair Okun stated he was hearing from residents that is acceptable to them, and was assuming a rollover would accommodate the church. He did not think the church had intention of doing anything that had a negative impact. As far as the situation concerned with a backup of traffic, the gentleman who spoke clearly said this is what he observed. When this came before the Village Council, the Council could instruct the Police Department if for any reason whatsoever if there were a backup or congestion, that officers clear that area, which is why he had stated to the church that rather than having the Village police it, they should police it as good neighbors. If all that worked, it would be a good situation. If it did not work, the Village had the ability to make it work with the Police Department. Vice Chair Okun stated that was his motion. Board member Von Frank seconded the motion, which carried 'by unanimous 3-0 vote. VI. COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS There was no communication from citizens. VII. ANY OTHER MATTERS Chair Schauer reported two letters of resignation had been received. Alternate board member Carl Blase had sent a letter dated November 2, 2006, and Board member.Reinwald had sent a letter dated November 6,2006,both submitting their resignations from the board. Ms. Harding indicated she would bring this matter to the attention of the Village Council. VII. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Vice Chair Okun, seconded by Board member Von Frank, and unanimously carried,the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, ofcc,(AA__,/ Betty L Recording Secretary