Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Special Meeting_10/03/2005• MINUTES OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA VILLAGE COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MONDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Village of Tequesta Village Council held a Village Council Special meeting at the Tequesta Recreation Center, 399 Seabrook Road, Tequesta, Florida, on Monday, October 3, 2005. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Humpage and opened with the pledge of allegiance. A roll call was taken by Recording Secretary Betty Laur. The following elected officials were present: Mayor Jim Humpage, Vice Mayor Pat Watkins, and Council Member Geraldine Genco. Council Member Tom Paterno arrived at 6:07 p.m. Council Member Edward D. Resnik was absent due to illness. Also in attendance were Village Attorney Scott Hawkins, Village Manager Michael R. Couzzo, Jr., Assistant Village Manager Bob Garlo, and Recording Secretary Betty Laur. II. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA MOTION: Vice Mayor Watkins moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Council Member Genco seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 3-0 vote. • III. NEW BUSINESS (1) Village Council consideration of adopting a Resolution concerning Martin County's proposed rezoning along Island Way from RE-2A to PUD and the proposed increase in density Village Manager Couzzo commented the Village Council had discussed for years the impact that may come to Tequesta as areas along the Western Corridor developed. The previous Monday he had received a call from Council Member Genco asking if he could find out about any of the developments as she had heard there might be one coming up, and asked him to keep Council advised of the information. The Village Manager reported in the mail that afternoon he had received the application for Island Way, and had intended to draft a letter to the County Commission telling them Tequesta wanted information and to be advised of any development that may take place. After thinking about this, Village Manager Couzzo decided it would be better to have the letter come from the Village Attorney on his firm's stationery. After conversations with the Village Attorney the conclusion was that it would have greater impact and the Commission would have a truer sense of the Village Council's philosophy of development in that area and how it may impact the residents of Tequesta if a Resolution was sent instead of just a letter. Village Manager Couzzo noted they • did not know about the Commission meeting on October 6 in time, which MINUTES -VILLAGE COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING October 3, 2005 PAGE 2 • necessitated this special meeting. The Village Manager expressed his opinion that it was important to submit a formal resolution because of concerns expressed in the past regarding impacts to traffic from this area through the Village. Village Manager Couzzo advised this project represented roughly an 80-acre tract located on the southern portion of the Western Corridor, and although it was only a small section of the Western Corridor, he believed it was important for the Village Council to consider. Mayor Humpage indicated he knew from past council meetings that Council Member Resnik had concerns regarding the Western Corridor and its effects on the Village, and Assistant Manager Garlo had spoken with him that day and would report Council Member Resnik's view on this issue. Mayor Humpage announced the Council was here to consider a legislative resolution to let Martin County know how the Village feels and how developing this area this will impact the Village. Vice Mayor Watkins commented all of the Council were sensitive to development around here, and there were at least three projects going in-Bridgewater, Lennar, and Old Plantation, and on our side of the bridge was Old Cypress Point in Martin County. Although she believed this was not a serious density issue, any message the Council could send that they want to keep it as low as possible should be sent. • Council Member Paterno arrived at this point in the meeting, at 6:07 p.m. Village Manager Couzzo commented this application was suggesting to change the zoning from RE-2A to PUD, which would also a requested change density, and his quick math for this particular application calculated approximately a 15% increase in the density. Council Member Genco commented that the original RE-2A zoning allowed one dwelling unit per two acres, which would be a total of 39 dwelling units, which was what was being proposed. However, with zoning changed to PUD, the maximum density allowed was one unit per half acre. When she did her calculations on what was proposed it appeared they were proposing to do the 39 dwelling units on one-acre lots, but they had not fully addressed what would be done with the rest of the open space. That was a concern because if they were going to a PUD with a maximum of one unit per half acre, then the remaining area could possibly be coming back for a higher density development. Council Member Genco referred to the staff report where on page 2 of 16 the first paragraph talked about establishing lot sizes smaller than two acres, which was what was acceptable with the current RE-2A zoning. Council Member Genco noted on page 7 of 16 that Old Plantation was planned for 39 lots on 79 acres. Also, on page 7 of 16 she read the following: the proposal is seeking one acre net lot sizes with PUD master plan proposal outside the PUSA. The gross density remains with the Rural density land use designation at 0.49 units per acre. MINUTES -VILLAGE COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING October 3, 2005 PAGE 3 • Council Member Genco commented she thought what could possibly happen was they could come back at a future time and request an increase in the density in the open area that had not been allocated. Page 9 of 16 under item 4 also stated this. Council Member Genco quoted from page 8 of 16, item 2, 39 generally net 1 acre lots in this area designated for Rural Density Residential with net 2 acre lots, and in item #2 (c), all common areas, whether lakes (12.21 acres) and right-of--way and the temporary construction office (3.519), and stated she was not finding where this addressed roughly 20 acres of this area, and was very concerned that if they were changing this to a PUD with dwelling units of one unit per half acre that the other 20 acres could end up having a higher density. Council Member Genco commented she thought that was what the Council needed to make a statement on--that if the entire site was developed as a PUD the total area should never exceed more than one dwelling unit per 2 acres. Council Member Genco stated she did not like the language of one unit per .49 acre. Mayor Humpage commented on another report received that day from Harvey Winking on page 6 of 8 under new business at the bottom of the page item 4, first sentence below the bold type stated, the property is designated for rural density, residential has an RE-2A zoning which requires a minimum lot size of 2 acres. Mayor Humpage said he had then looked at page 7 of 16 of the report referred to by Council Member Genco and found that it said the proposal is seeking one acre • net lot sizes with PUD master plan proposal outside the PUSA. Village Attorney Hawkins advised that PUSA stood for Primary Urban Services Area. Mayor Humpage commented also on page 7 of 16 it read: the gross density remains with the rural land use designation at 0.49 units per acre, which was half a house. Mayor Humpage commented he did not know if some of the common area was plugged into the calculations. Council Member Genco commented the most she could come up with was 12.21 acres, and they were talking about 3 acres for a temporary trailer. Vice Mayor Watkins commented the next sentence stated the sales or construction center would be used as open space. Council Member Genco commented if they were doing 39 units at 1 acre each, what was going to happen to the rest of it. Mayor Humpage commented the Council would like the Village densities to remain as they were, and would like the same considerations made for areas at Village boundaries. In all the literature he had read, he noticed in the traffic study backup that the traffic study had been done primarily on the property itself and the outlet of that property; he did not see a traffic study that would show the effect on portions of the new Western Corridor and the Village of Tequesta. They had looked at the impact of traffic on an interior basis, but the Mayor did not know if they had looked at the impact of traffic on the Village, which was another concern. As he continued to read, he noticed they said the property was in the secondary urban service district where they were proposing well and septic and • well irrigation; and expressed concern that Tequesta had been in a situation with South Florida Water Management District and ENCON of protecting their MINUTES -VILLAGE COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING October 3, 2005 PAGE 4 • waterways and now there would be more subdivisions that would be on septic and wells. Mayor Humpage stated his primary concerns for this project that he would like Martin County to be aware of were (1) density, (2) traffic, and (3) well and septic issues, which would eventually trickle down to areas of Jupiter, Palm Beach County and Tequesta. Council Member Genco stated she agreed, and if they were wanting to put all the homes on one little piece and leave the rest open that was wonderful, but with homes close together septic tanks would have more of an impact, and it was very important that they go onto the wastewater treatment plant like everyone else. She was amazed that Martin County would allow septic tanks in as little as one unit per half acre. Mayor Humpage also noted there were deposits required for sidewalks and the entryway maintenance by the developer, and he wondered if this would be an opportunity for Martin County to approach the developers with an impact fee for traffic and the completion of the Western Corridor. Right now there were four parcels being developed and there were still more available, and he wanted Martin County to take a longer view; and his issues were density, sewers, and traffic. • Vice Mayor Watkins commented they were talking about a proposed 39 lot project; the 79 acres with 2-acre lots would have allowed 36, and asked Village Attorney Hawkins if just by saying this if they were held to no more that 39. Village Attorney Hawkins responded, absent further approvals. Council Member Paterno commented they might take the open area and later on come back to add more townhouses, like a phase 2. Mayor Humpage commented it did say this was to be done in phases. Council Member Paterno commented he had just gotten off a plane, listened to his messages and learned about this meeting, so had not seen this material previously. He referred to page 2 of one of the reports from Mr. King, regarding adequate public facility compliance, that they were asking for an exemption from that, which probably was the sidewalks, sewers, the whole nine yards. Mayor Humpage noted they did not understand all the verbiage because it was from a different county, but his position was that the Council needed to express their areas of concern. Density was number one, and density would also be reflected in traffic. If density were held to the 2-acre minimum, there would still be additional traffic issues when people wanted to go to U.S. One that would affect the Village. Vice Mayor Watkins commented maybe the Village could open the door for discussions. Mayor Humpage responded he would be happy to do that; the Village was making those inroads with Commissioner Marcus. Village Attorney Hawkins commented the Council was talking about four new areas to be developed, and it struck him that if their primary concern was how this development might open the door to potential adverse impacts from this and three MINUTES -VILLAGE COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING October 3, 2005 PAGE 5 • additional developments, the Council should say that; and the Council might want to consider requesting under their comprehensive plan intergovernmental coordination requirement that Martin County sit with them to talk about a plan for this area, and not just express their concerns about this project, but have this be the point of departure for discussing the need to plan the area, because it was his recollection from having litigated traffic impacts in Tequesta a decade ago that the Village was the receptacle of a lot of down gradient traffic flow from Martin County because of the way the roadway network was set up, and this was discussed ten years ago, so now might be the time to discuss this. This request would go to the whole County Commission. Village Manager Couzzo advised if the Village adopted a resolution, it would go from the Village Council to that body, and suggested the resolution it go by courier from Attorney Hawkins' office to them, so there would be receipts, and a PDF version might not get opened before October 6, and he wanted to make sure the Council had the opportunity to express concerns to the Martin County Commission prior to their hearing this application. Attorney Hawkins noted that last year the Village had worked very hard to provide water service to a development in Martin County, and if the Village had to provide more water service to part of this area it should be discussed now. Council Member Paterno asked the Village Manager if there wasn't an agreement with Jupiter that they could have everything on the other side of Island Way, the other side of the bridge. The Village Manager did not • recall, but Council Member Genco advised that was correct and it had been negotiated about 18 months ago. Mayor Humpage commented he was still worried about septic tanks on the river. Village Manager Couzzo commented he thought that agreement with Jupiter was for properties in Palm Beach County, and that it had no bearing on property in Martin County. Council Member Genco disagreed, stating it was done with Martin County, ENCON, and Jupiter, the whole franchise area, and the Village agreed to formally adopt the franchise area as designated by the water management district. Attorney Hawkins commented he thought the Mayor's point about impacts to habitat resulting from septic tank flow was very valid, and if they were concerned about that, they might want to notify ENCON of this issue. Council Member Genco suggested copying them. Council Member Genco noted she had checked with the Loxahatchee River Coordinating Council, but they did not consider this in their cone of influence. Mayor Humpage recommended also copying South Florida Water Management. Council member Genco commented that South Florida Water Management district, ENCON, and Martin County would all be permitting this project. Mayor Humpage commented that Council member Resnik had to go into the hospital that day for pain management, and Assistant Manager Garlo advised he had left Council member Resnik about an hour ago. Council Member Resnik had been very clear on this issue, he supported completely the Council and Village's desire to formulate a Resolution and make a statement to Martin County, and was MINUTES -VILLAGE COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING October 3, 2005 PAGE 6 • opposed to any increase in density. Assistant Village Manager Garlo reported that Council Member Resnik believed that the existing infrastructure with respect to roadways at this point was inadequate for any new development, because of the issue of the terminus of the Western Corridor and the access to U.S. One, and the potential impact to community roads. Council Member Resnik was opposed to an increase in density and he believed that the Resolution should also include the need to improve or modify existing roadways to address that issue with any development, and had asked Mr. Garlo to express those thoughts to the Council tonight. Council Member Paterno asked if the comprehensive regional planning council had to give approval in order for Martin County to do this. Council Member Genco responded it was not large enough for the regional planning council. Mayor Humpage commented on the staff report for Island Way, page 7 of 9, under the heading, Determination of compliance with the adequate public facilities requirements-responsible departments: Item #1, the following is a summary of the review for compliance with the standards for a certificate of adequate public facilities exemption (Article 5, LDR) for development and alterations or expansions to approved developments that do not create additional impacts on public facilities. Mayor Humpage stated he thought it was a matter of • opinion whether it created an impact on public facilities, and what kind of public facilities were they talking about. If you looked at potable water facilities, it said the service provider was exempted. Mayor Humpage commented he thought the Council definitely needed to get a legislative resolution to Martin County, and agreed with Attorney Hawkins to request dialogue with the Commissioners as to whether these issues had really been looked at. Attorney Hawkins commented that pursuant to the intergovernmental element in Martin County's comprehensive plan, which he was sure was also in Tequesta's comprehensive plan, that the Council demand a meeting be held in order to set forth a planning process for looking at potential impacts to this region flowing from potential development, including the one under consideration. Council Member Genco commented concurrency issues were what would be discussed at the subsequent meeting with Martin County, but she thought that in order to not muddle this issue, the one under consideration should be discussed separately because it made it more distinct. Mayor Humpage agreed, stating it gave a specific target, a specific item that the Village was looking at, that they knew was going to move forward. Vice Mayor Watkins asked if both could be done. Village Manager Couzzo stated that was what he was suggesting-two resolutions. Council member Genco commented the Council might want to think about the second one and take their time because the meeting would not be until January or February, and when Attorney Hawkins had it drafted, a few minutes • could be devoted at a Council meeting to discuss it. But this one needed to be done now, before October 6, and asked Attorney Hawkins if he had sent them his MINUTES -VILLAGE COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING October 3, 2005 PAGE 7 • proposed draft. Attorney Hawkins responded he had not, pending outcome of tonight's meeting. Council member Genco expressed her opinion to cover in the resolution for this parcel that the PUD as a whole should have no greater than 39 dwelling units in its entirety and all of the other open areas be designated preserve area management plan and permanently dedicated and preserved for public use or wetlands. Also the other issue that had been brought up by the Mayor, that because of the nature of the sensitive wetland area that the Village highly urged that they not use septic tanks, that they use wastewater treatment. Attorney Hawkins asked if there was sanitary sewer service out there. Council Member Genco advised it ended at The Moorings. Council Member Paterno commented it would be going into the Palm Beach County area because that had been approved by Jupiter, so at some point it was coming to the county line. Council Member Genco commented Martin County needed to do their best to preserve this ecologically sensitive area. Attorney Hawkins commented he and Mr. Couzzo were not clear on something, and asked if it was the will of the Council to adopt a resolution that vocalized an objection to the proposed development, or alternatively, to express concerns about the proposed project and request that it only be approved with conditions. Mayor Humpage stated, the second was the choice. Council Member Genco stated, yes, and the language might open up that the Village would object to any greater than • 39 dwelling units in total for this entire PUD and then go ahead with the Village's recommendation. Council Member Paterno commented it was a combination of both-objecting under these conditions, it could work. Council Member Genco commented the Village was objecting to the fact they were not using sewers. Vice Mayor Watkins commented it was not the 39 units being objected to, it was any more than 39. Attorney Hawkins commented he could phrase this, that the Village was objecting to the concept of any proposed project being approved that is dependent upon utilization of septic systems. Mayor Humpage commented traffic must also be considered-there would be an additional 80 to 100 cars a day on the road; if half of those vehicles went to U.S. One they would come through Tequesta. Council Member Genco commented that was one of the reasons for being concerned-it was not only the ecological issue of the septic, but also the fact that from this area in order to access U.S. One traffic was going to come through a residential area and increase traffic. Vice Mayor Watkins commented they were back to one resolution addressing everything. Village Manager Couzzo asked for clarification whether the Council was not opposing the application to increase the density. Council Member Genco responded, no, that the application was speaking out of both sides of its mouth, saying on one hand there would only be 39 units for the entire parcel, but asking to change to one unit per .4 acres. The fear was at 39 times .4, where was the extra property going. Council Member Paterno commented lock them into 2 acres per gross land development so they could not develop it even if they set it aside. Village Manager Couzzo • commented that it was his understanding the zoning now would only permit 34 to 35 units under the residential designation, and if the applicant was allowed to go MINUTES -VILLAGE COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING October 3, 2005 PAGE 8 • to a PUD they would go up 15% to 39 units for the site. Vice Mayor Watkins commented that the 39 units had to be bigger than .4 acres a lot. Attorney Hawkins advised it was actually one-half of a unit. Village Manager Couzzo clarified it was .48 dwelling units per acre, or one unit per two acres. It was .96 dwelling units per gross acre-one house for two acres. Attorney Hawkins advised if the Council really had concerns about the septic system and really had concerns about lack of a traffic study, then they should object, and express that-tell them why you were objecting-lack of a traffic study, concerns about the impact to habitat, septic system being inappropriate, and that you were concerned about density. Council Member Paterno commented that might buy some time to get more accomplished, otherwise, they could just pass it. Mayor Humpage commented he was okay with that, and South Florida Water Management District and ENCON should be sent copies. Council Member Genco stated it was very confusing because it said the project was seeking one- acre net lots. Village Manager Couzzo commented it must be planning language because it was very confusing. Mayor Humpage commented it sounded like they were going to make one acre lots but if you bought in there you had to buy two acre lots to build a house. Council Member Genco commented they talked about deeding them that way. Vice Mayor Watkins commented on page 7 of 8 they talked about the wetlands appear to be on lots 35, 36, and 39, and then said, the • half-acre lots had to be exclusive of any wetlands, water and paved roads for developing houses, that would have to remain common property, so she thought they were back to half-acre lots. Mayor Humpage commented he thought Council should stay with the Village Attorney's recommendation that they did object to it and in the objection to say they would like the density to stay as it is, and they had concerns with reference to septic systems, and traffic issues that would impact the surrounding communities; and copy ENCON and South Florida Water Management District. Attorney Hawkins stated they would have to vote with at least 3 in favor, and if they wanted a second resolution, then that could be discussed. Mayor Humpage stated, then with regard to the first resolution, with reference to the Island Way, and did that have to be put into the form of a motion. Council Member Paterno stated he would make the motion and asked Attorney Hawkins to state the motion. MOTION: Council Member Paterno made a motion it was his understanding based on the consensual discussion that the Council wishes to express to the Martin County Commission its objection to the proposed rezoning on the basis of the Council's view that there has been a lack of adequate analysis regarding • traffic impacts that could impact the Village of Tequesta in the surrounding roadway network; that the proposed sewage treatment system is MINUTES -VILLAGE COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING October 3, 2005 PAGE 9 • inappropriate in that it is based on utilization of septic systems which Tequesta felt was a bad idea and will adversely impact the habitat; and lastly, the VOT is concerned about the density changing and would like the density to remain the same. Council Member Genco asked if the Village Attorney could use the term "sensitive wetlands", to which the Village Attorney responded yes. Vice Mayor Watkins seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. Village Manager Couzzo confirmed with the Council that when this was sent to South Florida Water Management and to ENCON that they would like a cover memo to come from the Council, telling them what was attached and that the Council would like them to generate a staff study, taking a look at the impact. Council Member Paterno asked if in the motion the Council should request that Martin County ask for the study before they approve it. Village Manager Couzzo responded he thought Village should tell them they wanted it done; he was concerned that it might not happen because they had shown it as exempt from their regulations. Council Member Paterno commented this would be another thing, that we request that the study be done by these different organizations; at least we would tell them we want them to do that and we still send it to South Florida Water Management. Vice Mayor Watkins asked if it would serve any • purpose to copy Palm Beach County Commission so they would know what Tequesta was doing. Mayor Humpage responded that was a good idea, that Commissioner Marcus would like to know what was going on, especially with traffic. Village Attorney Hawkins advised that the motion needed to be amended to incorporate Council Member Paterno's suggestion. MOTION: Council Member Paterno made a motion to amend the motion to incorporate his suggestion to ask for a study by Martin County of issues identified. Vice Mayor Watkins seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. Mayor Humpage commented that was the first resolution, and suggested since they had until January to work on another one to wait to see what tonight's work generated, see what South Florida Water Management had to say, to see what ENCON had to say. Vice Mayor Watkins commented, so long as the Council did it in a timely fashion before the supposed meeting in January or whenever it was supposed to be. Village Manager Couzzo stated this would go out tomorrow and a copy of the package would be in Council's mail distribution. III. ADJOURNMENT r~ MINUTES -VILLAGE COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING October 3, 2005 PAGE 10 • Upon motion by Vice Mayor Watkins, seconded by Council Member Paterno, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 7:53 p.m. ,t Respectfully submitted. _ ~~ ! J Betty La~r Recording Secretary • •