Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 05F_04/28/1994 1 TOWN COtJDiCIL OF JUPITBR �� � VILIJIGE COUNCIL OF TEQtTESTA � MARTIN CODUTY BOARD OF COZJLITY COl�II88 PALM SEACH COUHTY - DISTRICT 1 COI�'QIS DISCUSSION FORUM M E E T I N G M I N U T E S H A R C H 3 0, 1 9 9 4 CHAIR: Mayor Roa T. Mackail, Tequesta PURPOSE: Discussion on the Need, Locatioa, aad Aay Iatergovernmental Actions That May Be Aecessary Relative to Arterial Roadways in tbe �orthern Palm Beach County/Soutb Martin County Area I. I�OLL CALL and APPROVAL OF AdENDA The Town Council of Jupiter, the Village Council of Tequesta, the Martin County Board of Commissioners, and the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners held a Discussion Forum at the Jupiter Beach Resort Hotel, 5 North Highway A-1-A, Jupiter, Florida, on Wednesday, March 30, 1994. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Ron T. Mackail. In attendance were: Martin County Cam�ission: Jeff Rrauskopf, Commissioner Marshal Wilcou, Commissioner , Janet Gettig, Commisaioaer Maggy Hurchalla, Commissioner Charlene Hoag, Commissioner Robert Crowder, County Sheriff Palm Heach Countv - District 1 Raren Marcus, Commissioner �piter To�ra Council: Raren Golonka, Mayor Thomas McCarthy, Vice-Mayor Barbara Henderson, Councilor Donald Daniels, Councilor Lee Bvett, Town Manaqer Discu�sion Forum Meetinq Kinutes October Z7, 1993 Page 2 Teguesta Village Council: Ron T. Mackail, Mayor William E. Burckart, Vice Mayor Joseph N. Capretta, Councilman Elizabeth Schauer, Councilwoman Earl L. Collings, Councilman Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager Joann Manganiello, Village Clerk TRAFFIC E�HIINEERS Wes Millard, Martin County Joe Pollock, Jupiter Charles Walker, Palm Beach County Fred Schwartz, Tequesta Councilmember Collings (Tequesta) moved that the public be allowed to comment/aek questions, allowing ten minutes per each jurisdiction. Commissioner Wilcox (Martin County) seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Martin Countv Jeff Rrauskopf - for Marshal Wilcox - for Janet Gettig - for Maggy Hurchalla - for Charlene Hoag - for Palm Beach Countv Raren Marcus - for Tequesta Ron T. Mackail - for William $. Burckart - for Joseph N. Capretta - for Elizabeth Schauer - for Earl L. Collings - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. Chairman Mackail reported that a previous joint meetinq which took place in October, 1993, to diecuss regional concerns of northern Palm Beach County and southern Martin County. From that meeting, the qoal was to review isaues which may have an impact on these municipalities. It was directed at that time for Village of Tequeata Manager, Tom Bradford, to prepare a traffic study. The purpose of the study vae to epecifically look at the traffic patterns crossinq the Martin County/Palm Beach County line alonq the vicinity of Jupiter/Tequeata in order to pinpoint any probleme that miqht be seen in the near future and to have data with which all jurisdictions could feel comfortable. Discussion Forum Meetiaq xinutes Mareb 30, 1994 Page 3 II. PRESENTATION OF JOINT LOCAL t�OVERNMENT TRAFFIC ENdINEERINd STUDY. Comr::issioner Wilcox, Martin County, read into the record, a letter which was agreed to by all Martin County Commissionere, and addressed to Mayor Mackail of Tequesta. The letter stated that though Martin County wae pleased to have the opportunity to meet with its neighbors to clarify and address concerns, and that professional engineers had been used to address the traffic issues, the Martin County Commission. felt it was important to recognize that the traffic patterns between the two jurisdictions are the product of past development decisions. Since other municipalities live with interjurisdictional traffic patterns, Martin County felt Tequesta could do the same, and suggested that if Tequesta Village felt the upkeep costs for Country Club Drive were too much of a burden to bear, perhaps the road ought to be dedicated as a Palm Beach County road. Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager, Village of Tequesta, reported that work has been done regularly since October 27, 1993, on a Joiat Local Traffic Engineerinq Study, which was requested by the elected officials to provide information to be used jointly in making policy decisions reqardinq traffic and roadway issues in the southern Martin County and northern Palm Beach County area. Some of the people who were part of the work ef fort were : Curt Cooper, Consultinq Engineer for the Town of Jupiter; Jim Davis, Director of Public Services for the Town of Jupiter; Fred Schwartz, Traffic Snqiaeer Consultant for the Village of Tequesta; Charles Walker, Traffic Engineer for Palm Beach County; Joe Pollock, Traffic Sngineer for the Town of Jupiter; and Wes Mallard, Traffic Engineer for Martin County. The Traffic Study involved looking at traffic patterns which cross the county line between Martin/Palm Beach County, and to establish what the existinq conditions were, relative to traffic, and make a forecast about what future traffic conditions would be, based upon buildout of the arese in question. A methodoloqy on proceedinq involved: 1) establish a map (Exhibit A) defininq the area and sub-areas referred to as traf f ic zones . Discussion Forum Meetiaq Minutes March 30, 1994 Page 4 This task wae completed by Martin County creating a map which showed the general area in question (southern Martin County south of Jonathan Dickinson State Park, the eastern boundary of U.S. Highway One; southern boundary of Indiantown Road; western boundary I-95, the Florida Turnpike and Section 28); 2) establish existing conditions (Exhibit C) by counting vehicular trips within the study area on key roadways; 3) forecasting future vehicular trips per day, plus existing conditions, based upon development already approved but not yet built; 4) sesignment of the forecasted future vehicular trips using four different roadway network scenarios, (Exhibit E). ytartin Countp was responsible for production of all necessary maps indicating the boundaries of the governments in question, the primary road network, the developed and undeveloped areas (Exhibit B), and breaking the study area into ten zones. They also coordinated the distribution of the trips that were forecasted by the study group. Palm Beach County was responsible for conducting the necessary traffic counts throughout the region (Exhibit C). The Towa of Jupiter wae reaponsible for delineating the type of development anticipated within the currently undeveloped area shown as Zone 1. The Villaqe of Tequesta was responsible for conductinq a turninq movement analysis at the intereection on Turtle Creek Drive and Country Club Drive. Tequesta was also responsible for conducting an Origin/Destination study in the vicinity of the Island Way Bridge (Exhibit D). Four different roadway scenarios were choaen, usinq the data gleaned from the study, to project what would happen to the existing and proposed roadways in the area. Discussioa Forwa Meeting Kinutes March 30, 1994 paqe 5 -------------------- Assumption l: As-built existing roadway network without the westerly connector; without Long Shore Drive/Northfork connection. (This represents the existing as-built roadway network). Conclusions: There appears to be no problem at the � crossing of the county line (in terms of traffic impact) upon the existing adopted roadway capacities. The adopted Level of Service (LOS) standards for the roads by eaeh of the applicable governments will not be superseded or overimpacted. Traffic loading on Loxahatchee River Road would exceed the atated LOS for the southern portion of the road. LOS standards on Center Street would be exceeded from Loxahatchee River Road to Indiantown Road. Central Boulevard LOS is exceeded when using the existing as-built roadway network and adding the trips to the roads based upon buildout. Assumptioa 2: Existing roadway without westerly connector, but with Long Shore Drive/Northfork connection. Conclusions: Thie scenario shifts traffic from Loxahatchee River Road to Long Shore/Northfork Drive, significantly increasing the projected traffic on Long Shore/Northfork Drive, while decreasing the projected traffic on Loxahatchee River Road. Long Shore/Northfork Drive would be close to its LOS standard. Loxahatchee River Road, under this asswaption, stays within its current LOS standard. Central Boulevard, however, will exceed its current LOS standard. This assumption provides less of an impact on Center Street than does Assumption 1. Assem�ption 3: With westerly connector; without Long Shore Drive/Northfork connection. Coaclusioas: This scenario allows the traffic impact from the hiqh traffic qeneration in Zone 1 to impact the residential areas of Martin County and Tequesta. It also distributes traffic most evenly of any of the four assumptions, relative to or between Lonq 3hore/Northfork Drive and Loxahatchee River Road. This is the roadway asswaption used by Fred Schwartz, Tequesta Traffic Engineer, in his report of February 1993, which Tequesta has referred to frequently in ita discussions. Discussion �orum Meetinq Minutes March 30, 1994 Page 6 -------------------- Loxahatchee River Road stays wit��n its current LOS standard. Central Boulevard, however, exceede its current LOS standard. This assumpt�on has the greatest impact on Country Club Drive, as well as Island Way. Assumption d: Provides for existing roadway network with westerly connector and with Long Shore Drive/Northfork connection. (This represents the current Palm Beach County Thoroughfare Protection Plan). Conclusion: This assumption distributes traffic similarly to Assumption 2 between Loxahatchee River Road and Long Shore/Northfork Drive, with a slight decrease on Long Shore Drive. Central Boulevard exceeds its current LOS standard. This Assumption has a similar impact on Country Club Drive, and Island Way, as does Assumption 3. The overall conclusions of the Study aroup were as fol�ows: o The existing roadway network and the Palm Beach County Thoroughfare Protection Plan are both inadequate for the proposed development within Traffic Zone 1. The 60' right-of-way existing for Church Street will not accommodate the proposed development. o No roadway crossing at the County Line fails under any Assumption. This means that the roadways would continue to operate within their existinq adopted LOS standards. If no additional crossings are constructed, it will be necessary to make some improvements to Loxahatchee River Road at its southern end. o The Origin/Destination 3tudy, in conjunctioa with the Turning Movement Analysis, revealed that: A) In the peak hours, traffic on Island Way demonstrates definite commuting travel patterns (74.3$ of westbound traffic in the morning peak is destined outside the area: 60.1$ from Martin County - 14.2$ from the Village of Tequesta). (61.3$ of eastbound traffic in the afternoon peak originated outside the area: 39.0$ to Martin County - 22.3$ to TeQuesta); Discussion Forum Meetinq Miautes . March 30, 1994 Page 7 -------------------- B) The total traffic on Island Way has one end of the trip in the areas west of Loxahatchee River and the other end in the following zones: Martin County - 22�; Tequesta - 18�; C) 40$ of the total traffic on Island Way has one end of the trip in the areas west of the Loxahatchee River and the other in the following areas : Martin County - 22�; Tequesta - 18$; D) The Origination/Destination Study confirmed Tequesta's contentions regarding the composition of traffic on Country Club Drive. o Central Boulevard, south of Long Shore Drive, will require widening under every scenario, based on buildout. o Center Street will exceed the adopted LOS in the future. Assumption 1(the existing road network), has the greatest impact on Center Street. III. DISCUSSIOH ON THS NFSD, I�OCATION A]iD A�TY I ACTIONS THAT KAZ BB 1�EC8SSARY RBI.ATIVS TO ARTSRI7IL ROAD�IA?S IH THE NORTHBRN PAIM BEACH COUI�TY/SOUTH MARTIB COUI�'1'Y ARBA. Commissioner Marcus, Palm Beach County, asked Charles Walker, Palm Beach County Engineer, why the Martin County Connector Road was not shown in the report ia order to detenaiae whether that road would allow any traffic relief. Mr. Bradford e�lained that that was not requested to be done and was not discussed in staff ineetings. He explained further that one reason may be the assumption, by staff, that the recent changes to the street network in the neighborhood called Little Club has provided for a free and clear east/west route which could be used as a Connector Road. A.traffic count was done on Little Club Way, north, totaling 1600 trips per day, which would not qualify it as a reliever road. Coam�issioaer Marcus also asked what the ultimate right-of-way will be on Central Boulevard. Mr. Walker explaiaed that the development behind Church has access only onto Ceatral Boulevard, generating spproxiunately 25,000 trips, creatinq a requirement for six lanes. Discusaion Forum Meetinq Miautes March 30, 1994 Page 8 -------------------- Chairman Mackail inquired as to the weight capacity of Isiand Way Bridge. Mr. Bradford responded that it is posted a: 8 tons, with a probable tonnage of 22-24 tons. Mayor Golonka, Jupiter, asked the engineers if it was possible to create a table that would show, zone by zone, the number of units developed, those to be developed, and total number of units. Mr. Walker responded that such tables could be created. Realizing that traffic engineering ie not an exact science, Mayor Golonka asked the engineers how they came up with a 50/50 split and a 50/40/10 split on Aesumptions 2, 3 and 4. Mr. Bradford reported that it was basically arrived at through discuesions, and based upon the traffic engineers opinions. The discussions basically dealt with how much accuracy was needed to develop this study, and how much time, money and effort was needed to sink into this study. The traffic engineers felt, for the most part, that the percentaqes are pretty much what would be found even if a much more extensive and time-consuming study was done. Engineer Pollock commented that investigations were done regarding percentages, and it was found that the percentages reported were reasonable. Couacilor Barbara Hendersoa, Jupiter, asked if any of the questions brought up in the October '93 joint meeting regarding equity of costs for road improvements had been addressed in the present survey. Mr. Bradford answered that the Study Group was aware that that was one of the directions to be taken, the Study Group felt it was their role to present the facts, as they saw them, in the fairest way possible, and let the elected officials determine, based upon the numbera, etc., what kinds of equity issues needed to pursued, and what kinds of cost-eharing mechanisms needed to be presented. Mr. Bradford stated further that Tequesta's concern has always been composition of traffic (i.e., what percentage of traffic on Tequesta roads comes from Martin County). Councilor Henderson requested that the equity of coats for road improvements issue be further pursued. She further suggested that the Study Group look at other alternatives for an egit off Limestone Creek near Shoaeys Restaurant as opposed to an exit on the westerly aliqnment routinq itself throuqh Central Boulevard and Church Street. 8ngineer Walker e$plained that that alternatives had been studied when considerinq the Bravee Stadiwa aad it was found that it would be very difficult to get penaission from the State to make that connection near Shoneys. Discussion �orwn Meetiaq Ninutes � March 30, 1994 Page 9 Councilor Henderson felt the Study Group should look at the westerly extension routing itself through Church Street and through a residential community which would then impact all of the levels of service on Central, Center and Indiantown Roads. She felt the Group should look more seriously at an east/west connector, over the Interstate and routing it west of I-95 to where the level of service would have a lesser i.mpact on the Jupiter community. Mr. Bradford commented that these problems had been discussed during the study and it was discovered that there would be a problem with FDOT access requirements for anything near Shoneys. There are also overpass setback requirements that must be met. Chairman Mackail asked the engineers what their. recommendations would be. Charles Walker, Palm Beach County Snqineer, stated that there was an exceedingly small amount of property to be developed in Martin County, under the present Land Use Codes. Assuming that the current land use stands, the additional traffic that will come from the buildout of Martin County will be exceedingly small. The proposed development in Jugiter behiad Church Street will cause greater traffic than that from Martin County. Fred Sch�artz, Tequests Saqineer, aqreed with Mr. Walker that the Jupiter area has the larqest potential to generate the most trips in the area, and, with the exception of Zone 2, the nwnber of acres for potential development in Martin County are small. Chairman Mackail asked if the LOS is not compatible with a neighboring municipality, what would be the outcome. Mr. Schwartz stated the LOS can be a two-edged sword - one that can potentially limit development qrowth; and one that can require improvements to be made. Earl Collinqs, Tequssta Village Council, felt the significance of the Traffic Study snapshot, (which he saw as very valuable), is that it ehows the present state of exieteace in the four commuaities, with the hiqhest traffic areas beinq: 1) Center Street; 2) Riverside Drive and Old Dixie Hiqhway; 3) and Tequesta Drive and Highway One. He felt this Studp has shown each municipality which problem areas must be attended to. Discussion Forum Meeting Miautes Marcb 30, 1994 Page 10 -------------------- Vice Mayor McCarthy, Jupiter, stated that his concern was for the area west of the River, and that the problems between Martin County and Tequesta were removed from his immediate concerns. He felt the major point of the Study was the Church Street area and agreed with Councilor Hendereon that there must be review of an alternative accesa. Mr. McCarthy stated he was somewhat encouraged regarding Long Shore Drive and Loxahatchee River Road, sensing now that those roadways were not as serious a problem as he had originally thought. He was in favor of evening out the traffic between those two roads. Mayor Rarea t3olonka, Jupiter, felt the issue of development was not just a,7upiter/Church Street problem, but a Palm Beach County problem as well. Both qovernmental entities have indicated they do not want to widen Church Street beyond two lanes, and 29,000 estimated trips cannot fit on a two-lane road. Decreasinq traffic volume by decreasing density is a difficult task. Regarding the "fly-over", consideration, other than residential, should be given to this land use, since land use should dictate the roadway. Don Daniels, Jupiter, stated that the Study reveals the impact which Church Street and Central Boulevard are receiving from the land use, with the cumulative total from Indiantown Road being unbelievable. Proposed development in that area is presently quite dense. He felt the proposed Interchange Study use was the best use for its proposed area, therefore, sensing that Jupiter is stuck with the next to impoasible taak of ' controllinq the density. Joseph Capretta, Tequesta, stated that at the last joint meeting the fairness of Martin County sharing impact fees with Tequesta was discussed. At that tivae,,60+$ of the traffic on Country Club Drive was from Martin County; the recent Study shows that count has increased to 70$. However, the most important iseue to the people of Tequesta is all the development in southern Martin County which creates traffic coming east on the Island Way Bridge and down Co�ntry Club Drive. Real estate values have dropped on Country Club Drive due to the heavy traffic on that roadway. Tequesta citizens prefer to see Country Club Drive closed off at the Martin County line. Mr. Capretta felt the friendliest thinq Martin County could do ie keep the density down, or maybe no buildinq at all, in its southern area. Discussion Forum Meetinq Kinutes March 30, 1994 Paqe 11 -------------------- Janet aettig, Martin Ccunty, stated that the densities in future Martin County building is very, very low, as shown on the maps that were created. A synopsis of the Origination/ Destination Study over Island Way Bridge shows that 37� use by Tequesta on that bridge. Mrs. Gettig questioned the impact the proposed Tequesta 90-acre downtown development would have on the Island Way Bridge. Mrs. Gettig stated that Martin County residents are very concerned about the recent closing of Country Club Drive and that the Martin County Attorney and the Martin County Sheriff were in attendance to address that issue. Mrs. Gettig asked when the road would be re-opened, stating that Martin County would take legal action if the road is not re-opened by the end of the three-week designated period. Tequesta Villaqe Manager Bradford explained that the road is closed for a three-week period for construction projects that are currently under way. The three week period was originally intended to end, commencing on Monday morning April 4. The project is ahead of schedule and is believed that the road will re-open on Friday, April 1. Lis Schauer, Couacilmember, Tequesta, stated she felt no progress was being made regarding the impact of Martin County traffic on Country Club Drive, especially since it is the suggestion of the Martin County Commission to turn Country Club Drive over to Palm Beach County. She felt the only way to make any progress oa this issue was to come to some sort of compromise (i.e., little or no develop�nent in southern Martin County). ZV . PUBLIC COi�II�iTS A1 Levy stated that he felt it was necessary to keep the northern county area desirable, as it is presently, with no "fly-overs", and keep the Miami look as far south as possible. He suggested any funds set aside for a fly-over be used to be development rights instead. Mr. Penhoust, a Little Club resident stated that Little Club has become intolerable because of the increased traffic eince the speed bumps were removed, and that the area is now unsafe for those reaideats who have to qo to their mailboxea to collect mail. Discussioa Forum Meeting Minutes March 30, 1994 Page 12 -------------------- Bill Treacy stated that Country Club Drive has become a Martin County speedway, causing property values to drop $25,000/home, and to do nothing regarding the abundance of traffic and the speed of traffic would be absolutely ludicrous. Dr. Stan Leqnor, Country Club Drive resident, invited Martin County Commissioner Wilcox to come to his house for a first- hand view of the heavy traffic on Country Club Drive. Bobbie Tower, Tequesta Country Club resident, stated she moved here 26 years ago, and since then has seen Country Club DriVe traffic change considerably. She encouraged Tequesta and Martin County to be good neighbors and to come to a compromise on the traffic iseue. Jim Currency, Jupiter resident, stated that traffic in the Shores of Jupiter area is already intense, yet Martin County is considering adding 900 residential units in that area, creating over 9000 trips/day - not a small impact. He felt Martin County should contribute impact fees to those neighbors to whom their traffic is impacting. Steve Hunter, a Limestone Creek resideat, suggested that everybody try to be a qood neighbor. He stated that Limestone Creek is a very small community, and yet they don't shout "We don't want...". Limestone Creek residents understand they have to accept things, and" felt the northern Palm Beach County area should accept certain things because they have happened. His suggestion was to move forward and quit haqgling over things that have happened in the past, and deal with the realistic numbers that have been presented. IV. DISCIJSSIOF REI.ATIVB TO �iSSD FOR ADDITIONAL JOINT LOCAL GOVBRN1rtENT MSETINGS . Chainaan Mackail stated that progress had been made at this evening's meeting and recommended that there be another joint meeting in the near future. Co�issioner Surchalla, Martia County, suggested that everyone concentrate on mutual problems that should be concentrated on (i.e., density issues for undeveloped land; ENCON 3tonawater issue, etc.). Protection of the River throuqh land acquieition could serve the dual purpose of reducinq development which impacts traffic. ♦ Discussion Forum Meeting Minutes March 30, 1994 Page 13 -------------------- Commissioner Marcus, Palm Beach County, felt that the Stormwater issue should be the number dne priority issue and that each municipality should direct their staff to draft a letter to the South Florida Water Management and ENCON. Councilmember Collings, Tequesta, moved that another Joint Meeting be held in three months. Commissioner Qettig, Martin County, seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Martin Countv Jeff Rrauskopf - for Marshal Wilcox - for Janet Gettig - for Maggy Hurchalla - for Charlene Hoag - for Palm Beach County Raren Marcus - for Teguesta Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart - for Joseph N. Capretta - for Elizabeth Schauer - for Earl L. Collings - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. Commissioner Gettig suggested that the next meeting be held in Martin County. Discussion Forum Meeting Minutes March 30, 1994 Page 14 -------------------- Commissioner Marcus, Palm Beach County, moved that the separate Staffs be directed to draft a letter to South Flcrida Water Management and ENCON which states that this joint group is interested in pursing the Stormwater/Loxahatchee �iver issue, bringing any response to the next joint mee�ing. Councilmember Capretta, Tequesta, seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Martin Count,y Jeff Krauskopf - for Marshal Wilcox - for Janet Gettig - for Maggy Hurchalla - for Charlene Hoag - for Palm Beach Countv Raren Marcus - for Tequesta Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart - for Joseph N. Capretta - for Elizabeth Schauer - for Earl L. Collings - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, '-�� Fran Bitters Recording Secretary ATTEST: Joann Manganiello Village Clerk DATE APPROVED: