Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Local Planning Agency_05/02/1996VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA Post Office Box 3273 - 357 Tequesta Drive Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 (407) 575-6200 Fax: (407) 575-6203 VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING MINUTES MAY 2, 1996 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, May 2, 1996. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Mayor Ron T. Mackail. A roll call was taken by Betty Laur, Recording Secretary. Councilmembers present were: Mayor Ron T. Mackail, Vice Mayor Elizabeth A. Schauer, Joseph N. Capretta, Carl C. Hansen, and Michael R. Meder. Also in attendance were: Village Manager Thomas G. Bradford, Attorney Scott Hawkins sitting in for Village Attorney John C. Randolph, Village Clerk Joann Manganiello, and Department Heads. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Under ANY OTHER MATTERS, Councilmember Meder requested the addition of a discussion of good fences make good neighbors, and Councilmember Hansen requested the addition of a discussion of annexation. Vice Mayor Schauer made a motion to approve the Agenda as amended. Councilmember Hansen seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - for Ken/cled Paper LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING MINUTES MAY 2, 1996 PAGE 2 Elizabeth A Schauer - for Joseph N. Capretta - for Carl C. Hansen - for Michael R. Meder - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the Agenda was approved as amended. III. COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS (NON-AGENDA ITEMS) There were no communications from citizens for non-agenda items. IV. TRANSMITTAL OF SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT 96-1 TO THE VILLAGE COUNCIL 1) Presentation and Recommendation by Staff and Consultants Building Official Scott D. Ladd explained that the Village had annexed several properties over the past few years and now needed to get them into the Land Use Map and officially accepted by DCA as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan so that those annexed areas could be utilized in the completion of the EAR (Evaluation and Appraisal Report), part of which would upgrade the demographic support documentation. Mr. Ladd stated the EAR due date for the Village was September 1, 1996, and explained that the Village had entered into a contract with DCA whereby the Village would receive a total of $14,069 at completion of the EAR program, of which a portion had been received. Mr. Ladd stated that Consultant Jack Horniman was present to answer any questions regarding the EAR process. Also present was Consultant Dan Dailey, who was currently working on a complete mapping series for the EAR process, and a proposed map atlas. Mr. Ladd identified the seven parts to the Small Scale Amendment 96-1 by pointing out on the map the property annexed in each situation. LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING MINUTES MAY 2, 1996 PAGE 3 ---------------- 1) A vacant lot on Point Drive. 2) Seven residential lots with homes. 3) A tiny parcel located in the middle of Constitution Park which had been incorporated into the park. 4) A very small parcel on Seabrook Road formerly owned by Mr. Hernandez. 5) and 6) Both commercial land located at the corner of County Line Road and U.S. Highway One. 7) An extension to Coral Cove Park on the beach. Jack Horniman explained that it was necessary to complete the EAR process which required current boundary information and under Florida Statutes and Florida planning law, these amendments did constitute small scale amendments, which meant that the Village would not need to go through a full-blown adoption procedure required for larger scale amendments. Mr. Horniman explained that the annexed areas met the criteria for small scale amendments, which required that each parcel must be individually less than 10 acres in size, must have less than 10 dwelling units per acre, and in aggregate must be less than 60 acres. 2) Discussion by LPA (Village Council) Vice Mayor Schauer questioned whether one of the owners of annexed property had been notified of this action, to which the response was that he did know about it and that the annexation had already been accomplished. 3) Local Planning Agency (Village Council) Recommendation to Village Council (Motion by LPA to Approve Transmittal of Small Scale Amendment 96-1 Village Council) Councilmember Meder made a motion to approve the recommendation to the Village Council to approve the transmittal of Small Scale Amendment 96-1. Vice Mayor LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING MINUTES MAY 2, 1996 PAGE 4 ---------------- Schauer seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - for Elizabeth A Schauer - for Joseph N. Capretta - for Carl C. Hansen - for Michael R. Meder - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. Tom Little, 486 Dover Road, referred to item 1.58, a landlocked piece of property, and questioned whether this was a form of inverse condemnation. Mr. Little questioned whether the owner of this property could apply for a variance due to hardship, which had been defined as the only criteria under which a variance could be granted. Mr. Horniman responded that he believed the Village Code stated that a nonconformity could not be increased, and if this lot fit that definition then a variance could not be granted which would increase the nonconformity. Village Manager Bradford explained that Mr. Hernandez had had a condition of annexation whereby an annexation agreement would be entered into which allowed him to seek the right to build a house on that property. Mr. Horniman stated that the zoning ordinance needed to be checked, however, most zoning ordinances permitted the building of a unit on a residential lot, and that Mr. Hernandez's development rights could not be taken away. Mr. Little stated that if Mr. Hernandez could not build on the property and was paying taxes on it that this was an inverse way of condemning the property. Mr. Horniman stated he believed the Village ordinances stated that the development right to be able to build a unit could not be taken away, and that a variance was not needed because the right existed. V. ANY OTHER MATTERS Councilmember Meder discussed a notice which had appeared in the Jupiter Courier previous day's edition. The following excerpt was read by Councilmember Meder: Section 28 is functionally .isolated from Martin County. One must travel LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING MINUTES MAY 2, 1996 PAGE 5 through Palm Beach County to get to it. We collect the taxes, they deal with the infrastructure. Martin County will bear little of the effects of any development since most of the traffic will be heading south into Jupiter. Councilmember Meder commented that this was amazing language to put into print that Martin County was more than happy to send all their problems south of the border but keep their tax dollars north of their border. Councilmember Meder suggested that the Planning Agency should consider themselves on notice because of this advertisement and should place something into the EAR or the Village plan to protect the Village. The advertisement had been sponsored by the Treasure Coast Builders and the Economic Council of Martin County, and also Jensen Stuart Chamber of Commerce. Village Manager Bradford commented that certain forces in Martin County were trying to put pressure on the three Palm Beach County Commissioners who were the majority continuing the Section 28 legal activity. Councilmember Hansen stated that the advertisement was also promising that the $2,000,000 Western Alignment Road was going to be built as a part of the developer's plan. Mayor Mackail commented that FDOT had not yet indicated that the Western Corridor would be suitable for the traffic demand which would increase by 7,000 trips per day as a result of the new Home Depot on Indiantown Road, only 100 yards away from Wal-Mart. Mr. Horniman explained that he had recently been asked to review Palm Beach County's amendments to their Comprehensive Plan, one of which was in regard to the Thoroughfare Identification Map. The issue of the whole North County road system was interrelated with actions by the Town of Jupiter, by Palm Beach County, and Section 28. Mr. Horniman explained that Section 28 had an adopted Site Plan per Court Order which showed a northeasterly entry into Section 28 through the Island Way extension, an interior road network, and a road going to the southerly boundary of Section 28 which would ultimately align with a future extension of Church Street. Mr. Horniman stated that the Village had gone on record when Jupiter proposed their Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Weiser Tract, stating that there was nothing in their amendment requiring either the City or the developer to build that extension by extending Church Street LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING MINUTES MAY 2, 1996 PAGE 6 to connect. Jupiter contended that their basis for that was the road was not theirs, but belonged to the County; however, recommended that the County 4-lane that extension from Section 28 to Indiantown Road. The County Comprehensive Amendment recommended an increase of the Church Street right-of-way from 60 feet to 80 feet; however, their Capital Improvements element made no provision for acquisition of the right-of-way or the construction of the road. Therefore, in reality no one was doing anything. To further confuse the issue, the North Fork extension issue came forward and Jupiter recommended that it be removed from the Thoroughfare Identification Map. Mr. Horniman stated that his concern on behalf of the Village had been that if the amendments to the Jupiter Plan and the County Plan were approved as proposed, then there would be no southerly western corridor extension provided for, and if the North Fork extension was removed from the Thoroughfare Identification Map there would be no relief to the south from that direction; therefore, in essence, if Section 28 were built, all the traffic would flow through Tequesta or Martin County. Mr. Horniman explained that the Village was on record with DCA on all of these issues. Another issue was that neither the Town of Jupiter or the County had gone through the Intergovernmental Coordination Program, in which all municipalities in the County were supposed to participate. The MPO was showing on their 2015 Plan that a westerly extension from Section 28 down to Indiantown Road was still in existence. The County staff was recommending against that because it would be too close to the I-95 ramp, and instead recommended to go through a residential area, with a bridge over the canal, connecting near the westerly side of Shoney's. DOT had concerns because that would place a traffic light too close to the light to the east, therefore, it had not been finalized. Mr. Horniman stated the Village had done a good job of getting on record and that if this ever went to Court the Village would have good standing. Mr. Horniman explained that at his suggestion, Mr. Ladd had sent to the Intergovernmental Coordination Program all of the documentation which had been submitted to DCA regarding the Jupiter amendment, the Palm Beach County amendment, and the North Fork Extension issue, so that they would have it LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING MINUTES MAY 2, 1996 PAGE 7 ---------------- on record and everyone would be aware of the position the Village had taken for the past two years. Councilmember Meder reported that Commissioner Karen Marcus had told him that eight homes would be taken by imminent domain to make the Western Connector road happen next to Shoney's. Mr. Meder had objected that would not be safe for traffic, to which Commissioner Marcus had responded that the County Transportation Department had declared the plan safe. Mr. Horniman commented he believed the Village's interest should be that some southern relief was provided, in the event that Section 28 was developed, which must be assumed since there was an approved site plan. After further discussion, Councilmember Meder commented that he believed the flyover would be much safer. Mr. Horniman cautioned that if the Village wanted to support any of these proposals to be sure assurances had been received from DOT to avoid sharing the liability in the future. Village Manager Bradford explained that DOT standards did not allow a crossover that close to what was essentially another crossover--the intersection of Indiantown Road, I-95, and the Florida Turnpike. Further discussion ensued. Village Manager Bradford explained that Center Street had been designated as a constrained roadway several years ago so that it could not exceed three lanes. Councilmember Capretta commented he could see no solution to the problem. Mr. Horniman commented that if this issue ever went to Court, the decision would be made based on good design standards, good traffic engineering standards, etc., and the record had been worded to clearly show that North Fork Extension had been clearly designed as a thoroughfare, and Country Club Drive as a local road. Mayor Mackail commented that each municipality was interested in their own agenda, and could not agree; and that a decision could only be made if some of the agreements which had been made were broken. Village Manager Bradford expressed his opinion that the matter could be resolved if DOT would allow a traffic signal intersection next to Shoney's. The Village Manager stated that it must be learned whether DOT would grant approval before entering into mediation. Councilmember Hansen discussed the fact that the previous LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING MINUTES MAY 2, 1996 PAGE 8 attempt at annexation had failed, and the next opportunity would be in March, 1997. Councilmember Hansen stated that selected targeting might be feasible and if the Village Council wanted to consider that, he would be interested in participating, and urged the other Councilmembers and the staff to begin thinking about the matter and what could be done. Mr. Hansen expressed his opinion that if legislative annexation was chosen that the outcome might be dependent on how actively the Village had pursued annexation, and suggested that the Village begin any possible actions along that line. Mr. Horniman commented that for the past few years requests through legislation had fallen on deaf ears, and that the enclave legislation was challenged each year; however, it was an alternative and if chosen then the Village must begin early. Mr. Horniman suggested that the best way would be to get areas to voluntarily annex. Mayor Mackail expressed his opinion that too many areas had been targeted at the last annexation attempt so that the people had been overwhelmed, and it had been impossible to predict the outcome. After further discussion, Vice Mayor Schauer recommended Anchorage Point as the first selected target area for annexation. Further discussion ensued regarding the newspaper advertisement discussed earlier in regard to Martin County. VI. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Meder moved that the meeting be adjourned. Vice Mayor Schauer seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Joseph N. Capretta - for Carl C. Hansen - for Michael R. Meder - for the motion was therefore passed and adopted and the meeting was adjourned at 7:48 P.M. ~ LOGAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING MINUTES MAY 2, 1996 PAGE 9 ---------------- Respectfully submitted, Betty Laur Recording Secretary ATTEST: ,. o D~__~,_~ J ann Mangani to Village Clerk DATE APPROVED: ~ ~~e.. /3 i9 ~6 .-~-