Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Workshop_01/22/1998 F TF ~r ~~ Gf~a VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA ~~ Post Office BoY 3273 35~ Tequesta I)ri~~c o` Tcques~a, Florida 33469-0273 (~6U ~7>~Z(x) c~ Fax: (SCI) 575203 ~~ :_ 4~ Bch co y VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA VILLAGE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY WORKSHOP (VILLAGE COUNCIL SITTING AS THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY) MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 22,1998 • I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Tequesta Local Planning Agency held a meeting at the Village Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, on Thursday, November 20, 1997. The meeting was called to order at 7:04 P.M. by Mayor Elizabeth A. Schauer. A roll call was taken by Betty Laur, Recording Secretary. Councilmembers present were: Mayor Elizabeth A. Schauer, Vice Mayor Carl C. Hansen, and Councilmembers Joseph N. Capretta and Ron T. Mackail. Also in attendance were village Manager Thomas G. Bradford, Village Clerk Joann Manganiello, and Department Heads. Absent from the meeting was Councilmember Alexander W. Cameron. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Mayor Haasea made a motion to approve the Agenda as submitted. Councilmember Mackail seconded the motion. The vote oa the motion was: Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Carl C. Haasea - for Xec~ded Pcyx•r . Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes January 22, 1998 Page 2 ------------------ III. IV. Joseph N. Capretta - for Ron T. Mackail - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted aad the Agenda was approved as submitted. COM~[TNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS (NON-AGENDA ITED~S) There were no communications from citizens. PRESENTATION OF OUTLINE FOR IVE PLAN Aa introduction of the elements that will be presented with • changes made to the Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Plaa, as required by the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process. (Presentation by Mr. Jack Horaiman, Planning Consultant for the Village of Tequesta; Mr. Scott D. Ladd, Director of Community Development, village of Tequesta) A. Identification of Issues/Changes far Comprehensive Plan Elements: 1. Transportation (Formerly the Traffic Element) 2. Monitoring and Evaluation Procedures 3. Consistency with the State of Florida Comprehensive Plan Building Official Scott D. Ladd announced that this was the seventh of a series of Local Planning Agency meetings working with elements of the Comprehensive Plan, and that the only remaining element was Transportation, for which a meeting would be scheduled in the near future. • Transportation • Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes January 22, 1998 Page 3 ------------------ Mr. Horniman explained that this element, formerly called the Traffic Element, had been updated to change language to conform to the new rules and that Policies 1.1.5 through 1.1.8 were based on the new regulations. Policy 1.1.9 stated a policy to help with stacking problems at Tequesta Drive and Old Dixie Highway. village Manager Bradford commented that the verbiage must be clear that other agencies could provide turn lanes, and explained that the Village was eligible for County funds and that the County was capable of paying for improvements to both roads. The village Manager explained that Tequesta Drive had the highest traffic count of any road in the Village except U.S. One, and that traffic continued to grow on specific links. village Manager Bradford commented that if traffic could be kept flowing, then any possibility of . 4-lane roads could be delayed for many years. The Village Manager drew attention to Old Dixie Highway going south where a turn lane to go west on Tequesta Drive was needed; and that eastbound traffic on Tequesta Drive needed another straight lane in order to have two eastbound lanes with turn lanes on either side. Councilmember Mackail questioned whether impact fees were available or if the County was using those fees elsewhere within the County, to which Mr. Horniman responded that impact fees went into zones and the fees were supposed to be spent within those zones, however, spending must be included in current planning. Mr. Horniman suggested that Policy 1.1.9 be expanded to include this item. Mr. Ladd indicated that the impact fee for a single family home was $1,805. Village Manager Bradford commented that Tequesta was included in the zone from Indiantown Road north, and needed to request their fair share of the impact fees. The village Manager suggested that a stronger statement be made indicating that the Village should rely on the County's 5-year road improvement plan. • Doha Giba commented that there was a similar problem at • Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes January 22, 1998 Page 4 ------------------ Old Dixie going south and that traffic was backing up along Old Dixie for those wanting to make a right turn onto Tequesta Drive going west. Mr. Giba explained that he had talked with the County and they indicated there was no room for a right turn lane. Mr. Giba explained that there were only one or two cars at a time wanting to go east on Tequesta Drive, while there were usually 7 to 9 cars held up by one car wanting to go south on Old Dixie. Mr. Giba's solution was to substitute a right turn lane for the left turn lane since a right turn lane was going to be used more with future development. Mr. Giba urged that the Village should press the County for that solution. Mr. Giba requested that everyone speak into the microphones because the audience could not hear all that was being said. • Councilmember Capretta discussed the fact that there were changes in the traffic pattern, and that there were now 5,000 cars a day on village Boulevard. Village Manager Bradford commented that the developer had paid for a traffic light at the U.S. One and Village Boulevard intersection. Councilmember Capretta suggested that the new data of 5,000 cars per day be submitted to see if the traffic light could now be installed. Vice Mayor Hansen stated that he agreed with Mr. Giba, however, using Mr. Giba's suggestion traffic lanes would not line up with those across the street. Village Manager Bradford questioned how the County would have a point of entry to instruct Gary Van Brock to provide a turn lane if he built his proposed 252 apartment units at the southeast corner of Village Boulevard and Old Dixie Highway. Mr. Horniman indicated that could be done through the site plan review process. The village Manager commented that 252 apartment units • would generate 2,530 trips per day, increasing traffic counts by 50~. The traffic from Tequesta Oaks was [7 Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes January 22, 1998 Page 5 ------------------ discussed. John Giba commented that the situation was becoming more complex and that he believed the County or Mr. Horniman should be encouraged to look at the whole situation including village Boulevard for the next 25 year-period rather than fixing one intersection at a time. Mr. Giba commented that vice Mayor Hansen was correct in stating there would be a jog in the road using his solution to the right-turn lane problem discussed earlier, however, that could be solved. Mr. Horniman recommended expanded language for Policy 1.1.9 to state: The Village in conjunction with Palm Beach County's Comprehensive and 5-Year Capital • Improvement Plans where applicable should consider adding a northbound turning lane on westbound Tequesta Drive at its intersection with Old Dixie Highway plus two other straight lanes to alleviate stacking problems and traffic merging problems of westbound traffic on Tequesta Drive at the railroad crossing, or other intersection improvements that may be necessary. Mr. Horniman suggested that a separate policy 1.1.10 be added to seek signalization at the intersection of U.S. One and Village Boulevard. Mr. Horniman advised that the County had very strict requirements for adding a signal, and that the Village would have to really look at traffic count numbers, because a certain amount of trips per day were required. Councilmember Capretta discussed Village Boulevard, concluding that it did not need to be widened because it didn't go anywhere, but it was full of turns and people were constantly turning off of it to go other places. Mr. Horniman discussed level of service requirements, and pointed out that studies must support the request for signalization. Councilmember Capretta • commented that a traffic light was needed at each end of village Boulevard. Councilmember Mackail questioned • Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes January 22, 1998 Page 6 ------------------ whether the Village was consistent in application of level of service rules, to which Mr. Ladd responded affirmatively. Vice Mayor Hansen questioned policy 1.1.7, and was told that this policy referred to a Tri-Rail station, and that the word "intermodal" referred to an automobile parking lot next to a train station, at that point where the mode of travel changed. John Giba suggested language stating improvement of the intersection at Village Boulevard to take care of signal lights and any other items needed, such as turn lanes, widening, etc. Mr. Horniman agreed that was a good suggestion and stated that supporting documentation must • support whatever was said. Mr. Horniman suggested that another Policy, 1.1.11, be added to address additional improvements at the Old Dixie Highway/village Boulevard intersection. Policy 1.1.9 was discussed again, and Mr. Horniman recommended the language be changed from the previously discussed version to the effect that The Village in coordination with Palm Beach County shall attempt to (do the things previously mentioned) via the County's Comprehensive and 5-Year Capital Improvements Plans. Village Manager Bradford questioned whether someone could construe Policy 1.1.2 to mean that the Village must construct sidewalks or bike paths whenever the roads were repaved. Mr. Horniman referred to Objective 1.8.0 on page T-4 and its policies regarding bicycle paths, and suggested that those might replace Policy 1.1.2. After discussion, it was the consensus of the Village Council to delete Policy 1.1.2. • Mr. Horniman explained that Policy 1.2.5 would be covered further on the next page, that Policy 1.2.6 was required • Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes January 22, 1998 Page 7 ------------------ under the new rules, and also that 1.3.1 reflected the change made since the plan was adopted regarding Country Club Drive and Seabrook Road level of service standards. Village Manager Bradford referred to Policy 1.2.2, and commented that the Village might want a developer to construct and pay for something included in the Village's 5-year schedule of improvements. Mr. Horniman commented that was not inconsistent with Policy 1.2.2, and the village was only responsible for those roads in their 5- year plan that they were to fund. Mr. Horniman explained that off-site roads could be required of a developer during a site plan review if the Village could show their impact would create a problem. Mr. Horniman advised that conditions could be attached to special exception use, which in the village's situation would be mixed-use developments. Mr. Horniman advised also that the Village could review and change their Capital Improvements Plan annually without going through an amendment process, which would be the way to accommodate such situations. Mr. Horniman commented that everything on page T-3 was taken from the County's public and mass transit element of their Comprehensive Plan and had been worded in terms of the village supporting the County's program. Mr. Horniman explained that the Village did not need to take any action on these policies, but merely to support the County's program, which did not mean financial support. Mayor Schauer questioned how to educate the public that bike paths were only for bicycle use and not for pedestrians. vice Mayor Hansen reported that in Oregon there were many nice walking paths with a white line in the center indicating bicycles were to use the outside lane and that the inside lane was for pedestrian use. Mr. Horniman suggested using newsletter articles and meetings to educate the public. • Mr. Horniman explained that on page T-4 beginning with • Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes January 22, 1998 Page 8 ------------------ Objective 1.7.0, the policies and objectives were in support of the MPO; and that Policies 1.8.2, 1.8.3, and 1.8.4 were local things the village could do through their land development regulations. Village Manager Bradford questioned whether Mr. Horniman believed Objective 1.8.0 and the policies following it required the Village to start setting aside each year for pedestrian and bicycle pathways to cover missing linkages. Mr. Horniman responded affirmatively. Vice Mayor Hansen commented that he did not remember looking at this plan during budget time which would be a good idea. Councilmember Mackail confirmed that had been done in the past. • Councilmember Capretta commented that jogging and bike paths should be required inside each new development like Tequesta Oaks and Gary Van Brock~s new development where they were isolated by a wall. Village Manager Bradford commented that the Village long ago designated bicycle paths as recreational facilities so that they could be paid for with recreation impact fees. Village Manager Bradford advised Director of Community Development Scott D. Ladd that he should write a letter to Gary Van Brock advising him that he might cause thresholds to be exceeded that would cause him to have to pay for a traffic light at Old Dixie Highway and Village Boulevard, and perhaps a turn lane for northbound traffic to get onto Village Boulevard. Village Manager Bradford also requested that Mr. Ladd link Mr. van Brock with the County regarding this matter. made Griest, 494 Dover Road, questioned whether sidewalks were required when a new home was built in Tequesta, and reported that from research he had conducted he had found • that only about half of the new homes build within a 5- year period had installed sidewalks. Mr. Ladd explained • Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes January 22, 1998 Page 9 ------------------ that since 1979 the village had tried to be more consistent regarding sidewalks, but that in previous developments that ordinance had not been enforced. Mr. Ladd explained that in some areas such as in the Tequesta Country Club, people did not want sidewalks installed. Mr. Ladd commented that sidewalks could be added in certain neighborhoods when new drainage was added in the future. Mr. Giba commented that certain developments were designated pedestrian only developments. Mr. Giba commented that if sidewalks were added in Tequesta Country Club when the roads were resurfaced it would change the whole character of that community. Mr. Giba stated that Tequesta Oaks would not have to add any • sidewalks when its roads were resurfaced because it was designated a pedestrian development. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Horniman advised this would be regulated under land development regulations. Vice Mayor Hansen questioned Policy 1.8.4, which Mr. Horniman advised referred to zoning regulations. Mr. Horniman explained that Objective 1.1.90 and ensuing policies 1.1.91 through 1.1.94 were aimed at communication and situations with Palm Beach County, Jupiter, and Martin County regarding the completion of the north county road network. Mr. Horniman explained that the entities needed to know what was going on in each other s plans, and these policies addressed items so that when problems arose the Village would be covered. Mr. Horniman commented that the Village had been good about gathering things in their Comprehensive Plan to gain standing, and had gone through proper channels, which had not been done by some of their neighbors, which had worked to the villages advantage in recent court • cases. • Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes January 22, 1998 Page 10 ------------------ Monitoring and Evaluation Procedures Mr. Horniman explained that this whole section was housekeeping, and nothing had changed. Consistency with the State of Florida Comprehensive Plan Mr. Horniman explained that this section dealt with actual definitions of the Florida Statutes and explained the key provided to understand the matrix comparing each element of Tequesta's Comprehensive Plan with the State's Comprehensive Plan for consistency. V. ANY OTHER MATTERS • Mr. Horniman discussed completion timing and his concern in completing the necessary support documentation since the staff person who had been working on this project was no longer employed by the village. Mr. Horniman explained that he had discussed this with State representatives who had assured him the due date would not be enforced for small communities. Mr. Horniman clarified that he still hoped to meet the deadline; but wanted the village Council to be aware of the possibility that might not happen. Mr. Horniman explained that although the support documentation would not be adopted, it must be sent in to support the amendments, and the problem was having time to complete all the documentation. Mr. Horniman requested authorization to prepare a letter from the village to the State stating that the Comprehensive Plan had been completed and requesting additional time for completion of the support documentation. Mr. Horniman explained that the next meeting would be at the point when first reading for adoption would occur and the support documentation would be ready at that time. • Councilmember Mackail made a motion to approve the changes made to the Comprehensive Plan at tonight's meeting. vice . Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes January 22, 1998 Page 11 ------------------ Mayor Hansen seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Carl C. Hansen - for Joseph N. Capretta - for Ron T. Mackail - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. Couacilmember Mackail made a motion to authorize a letter to the State of Florida delaying the deadline to submit support documentation. Vice Mayor Hansen seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: • Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Carl C. Hansen - for Joseph N. Capretta - for Ron T. Mackail - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. Mr. Horniman explained that the next meeting would probably be two months away because of the research that would need to be done regarding traffic levels. VI. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Mackail made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Hansen. The vote on the motion was: Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Carl C. Hansen - for • Joseph N. Capretta = for Roa T. Mackail for • Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes January 22, 1998 Page 12 ------------------ The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Betty Laur 1 Recording Secretary ATTEST: Joann Mangani to Village Clerk DATE APPROVED: ~ /~ ~ 9~ •