Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Special Meeting_03/30/1994_Discussion ForumTOWDT COUNCIL OF JUPITER VILLAGE COUNCIL OF TEQUESTA MARTIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PALM BEACH COUNTY - DISTRICT 1 COMMISSIONER ~I;~CUSSION FORUM M E E T I N G M I NUT E S M A R C H 3 0, 1 9 9 4 CHAIR: Mayor Ron T. Mackail, Tequesta PURPOSE: Discussion on the Need, Locatioa, aad Any Intergovernmental Actions That May Be Necessary Relative to Arterial Roadways in the Northern Palm Beach County/South Martia County Area I. ROLL CALL and APPROVAL OF 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 Commission: Jeff Krauskopf, Commissioner Marshal Wilcox, Commissioner Janet Gettig, Commissioner Maggy Hurchalla, Commissioner Charlene Hoag, Commissioner Robert Crowder, County Sheriff Palm Belch County - District l: Karen Marcus, Commissioner Jupiter Town Council: Karen Golonka, Mayor Thomas McCarthy, Vice-Mayor 3arbara Henderson, Councilor Donald Daniels, Councilor Lee Evett, 't'own Manager '~ Discussion Forum Meeting Minutes '`„' 3 Page 2 -------------------- Tequesta 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 ENGINEERS Wes Millard, Martin County Joy: Pollock, Jupiter Charles Walker, Palm Beach County Fred Schwartz, Tequesta Councilmember Collings (Tequesta) allowed to comment/ask questions, each jurisdiction. Commissioner seconded the motion. The vote on Martin County Jeff Krauskopf - Marshal Wilcox - Janet Gettig - Maggy Hurchalla - Charlene Hoag - Palm Beach County Karen Marcus - Tequesta Ron T. Mackail - William E. Burckart - Joseph N. Capretta - Elizabeth Schauer - Earl L. Collings - ~piter Karen Golonka, Mayor - Thomas McCarthy, Vice-Mayor- Barbara Henderson, Councilor- Donald Daniels, Councilor- moved that the public be allowing ten minutes per Wilcox (Martin County) the motion was: for for for for for for for for for for for for for for for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. Chairman Mackail reported that a previous joint meeting had taken place in October, 1993, to discuss regional concerns of northern Palm Beach County and southern Martin County. From that meeting, the goal was to review issues which may have an impact on these municipalities. It was directed at that time for Village of Tequesta Manager, Tom Bradford, to prepare a traffic study. The purpose of the study was to specifically look at the traffic patterns crossing the Martin County/Palm Beach County line along the vicinity of Jupiter/Tequesta in order to pinpoint any problems that might be seen in the near future and to have data with which all jurisdictions could feel comfortable. Discussion Forum Meeting Minutes ~'~' March 30, 1994 Page 3 -------------------- II. PRESENTATION OF JOINT LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRAFFIC ENGINEERING STUDY. Commissioner Wilcox, Martin County, read into the record, a letter which was agreed to by all Martin County Commissioners, and addressed to Mayor Mackail of Tequesta. The letter stated that though Martin County was 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 Joint Local Traffic Engineering Study, which was requested by the elected officials to provide information to be used jointly in making policy decisions regarding 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 effort were: Curt Cooper, Consulting Engineer for the Town of Jupiter; Jim Davis, Director of Public Services for the Town of Jupiter; Fred Schwartz, Traffic Engineer Consultant for the Village of Tequesta; Charles Walker, Traffic Engineer for Palm Beach County; Joe Pollock, Traffic Engineer 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 existing conditions were, relative to traffic, and make a forecast about what future traffic conditions would be, based upon buildout of the areas in question. A methodology on proceeding involved: 1) establish a map (Exhibit A) defining the area and sub-areas referred to as traffic zones. Discussion Forum Meeting Minutes ~'"~' March 30, 1994 Page 4 -------------------- This task was 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) assignment of the forecasted future vehicular trips using four different roadway network scenarios, (Exhibit E). Martin County 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 Town of Jupiter was responsible for delineating the type of development anticipated within the currently undeveloped area shown as Zone 1. The Village of Tequesta was responsible for conducting a turning movement analysis at the intersection 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 chosen, using the data gleaned from the study, to project what would happen to the existing and proposed roadways in the area. Discussion Forum Meeting Minutes `~ '~ March 30, 1994 Page 5 -------------------- Assumption 1: 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 each of the applicable governments will not be superseded or overimpacted. Traffic loading on Loxahatchee River Road would exceed the stated 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. Assumption 2: Existing roadway without westerly connector, but with Long Shore Drive/Northfork connection. Conclusions: This 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 assumption, 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. Assumption 3: With westerly connector; without Long Shore Drive/Northfork connection. Conclusions: This scenario allows the traffic impact from the high traffic generation 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 Long Shore/Northfork Drive and Loxahatchee River Road. This is the roadway assumption used by Fred Schwartz, Tequesta Traffic Engineer, in his report of February 1993, which Tequesta has referred to frequently in its discussions. Discussion Forum Meeting Minutes '`~°' March 30, 1994 Page 6 -------------------- Loxahatchee River Road stays within its current LOS standard. Central Boulevard, however, exceeds its current LOS standard. This assumption has the greatest impact on Country Club Drive, as well as Island Way. Assumption 4: 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. sions of the Stndv arouD were as follows: 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 existing 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 Study, in conjunction 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 Meeting Minutes 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. DISCUSSION ON THE NEED, LOCATION AND ANY INTERGOVERNMENTAL ACTIONS THAT MAY BE NECESSARY RELATIVE TO ARTERIAL ROADWAYS IN THE NORTHERN PALM BEACH COUNTY/SOUTH MARTIN COUNTY AREA. Commissioner Marcus, Palm Beach County, asked Charles Walker, Palm Beach County Engineer, why the Martin County Connector Road was not shown in the report in order to determine whether that road would allow any traffic relief. Mr. Bradford explained that that was not requested to be done and was not discussed in staff meetings. 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 fora 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. Commissioner Marcus also asked what the ultimate right-of-way will be on Central Boulevard. Mr. Walker explained that the development behind Church has access only onto Central Boulevard, generating approximately 25,000 trips, creating a requirement for six lanes. ~, ~.. Discussion Forum Meeting Minutes March 30, 1994 Page 8 -------------------- Chairman Mackail inquired as to the weight capacity of Island Way Bridge. Mr. Bradford responded that it is posted at 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 is 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 Assumptions 2, 3 and 4. Mr. Bradford reported that it was basically arrived at through discussions, 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 percentages 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. Councilor Barbara Henderson, 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 numbers, etc., what kinds of equity issues needed to pursued, and what kinds of cost-sharing 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 costs for road improvements issue be further pursued. She further suggested that the Study Group look at other alternatives for an exit off Limestone Creek near Shoneys Restaurant as opposed to an exit on the westerly alignment routing itself through Central Boulevard and Church Street. Engineer Walker explained that that alternatives had been studied when considering the Braves Stadium and it was found that it would be very difficult to get permission from the State to make that connection near Shoneys. Discussion Forum Meeting Minutes °"` 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 impact 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 Engineer, 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 Jupiter behind Church Street will cause greater traffic than that from Martin County. Fred Schwartz, Tequesta Engineer, agreed with Mr. Walker that the Jupiter area has the largest potential to generate the most trips in the area, and, with the exception of Zone 2, the number 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 growth; and one that can require improvements to be made. Earl Collings, Tequesta Village Council, felt the significance of the Traffic Study snapshot, (which he saw as very valuable), is that it shows the present state of existence in the four communities, with the highest traffic areas being: 1) Center Street; 2) Riverside Drive and Old Dixie Highway; 3) and Tequesta Drive and Highway One. He felt this Study has shown each municipality which problem areas must be attended to. Discussion Forum Meeting Minutes °~ March 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 Henderson that there must be review of an alternative access. 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 Karen Golonka, Jupiter, felt the issue of development was not just a Jupiter/Church Street problem, but a Palm Beach County problem as well. Both governmental 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. Decreasing 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 impossible task of controlling 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 time, 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 issue 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 Country 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 thing Martin County could do is keep the density down, or maybe no building at all, in its southern area. Discussion Forum Meeting Minutes `'~"' March 30, 1994 Page 11 -------------------- Janet Gfettig, Martin County, 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. Mre. 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 Village 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. Liz Schauer, Councilmember, 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 on this issue was to come to some sort of compromise (i.e., little or no development in southern Martin County). IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS Al 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 since the speed bumps were removed, and that the area is now unsafe for those residents who have to go to their mailboxes to collect mail. Discussion 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 Legnor, 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 issue. 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 ~v to whom their traffic is impacting. Steve Hunter, a Limestone Creek resident, suggested that everybody try to be a good 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 haggling over things that have happened in the past, and deal with the realistic numbers that have been presented. IV. DISCUSSION RELATIVE TO NEED FOR ADDITIONAL JOINT LOCAL Q~OVERNMENT MEETINt3S . Chairman Mackail stated that progress had been made at this evening's meeting and recommended that there be another joint meeting in the near future. Commissioner Hurchalla, Martin County, suggested that everyone concentrate on mutual problems that should be concentrated on (i.e., density issues for undeveloped land; ENCON Stormwater issue, etc.). Protection of the River through land acquisition could serve the dual purpose of reducing 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 one priority issue and that each municipality should direct their staff to draft a letter to the South Flarida Water Management and ENCON. Councilmember Collings, Teques~:a, moved that another Joint Meeting be veld in three months. Commissioner Gettig, Martin County, seconded the motion. The vote on the mo~~ior~ was: Martin ~+c~y Jeff Krauskopf - for Marshal Wilcox - for Janet Gettig •- for Maggy Hurchalla - for Charlene Hoag - far Palm Beach County Karen Marcus ~ for Tequesta Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart. - for Joseph N. Capretta - for Elizabeth Schauer - for Earl L. Collings - for Jupiter Karen Golonka, Mayor - for Thomas McCarthy, vice-Mayor- for Barbara Henderson, Councilor- for Donald Daniels, Councilor- 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 Florida Water Management and ENCON which states that this joint group is interested in pursing the Stormwater/Loxahatchee River issue, bringing any response to the next joint meeting. Councilmember Capretta, Tequesta, seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Martin County Jeff Krauskopf - for Marshal Wilcox - for Janet Gettig - for Maggy Hurchalla - for Charlene Hoag - for Palm Beach County Karen Marcus - for Tequesta Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart - for Joseph N. Capretta - for Elizabeth Schauer - for Earl L. Collings - for ~p~~ Karen Golonka, Mayor - for Thomas McCarthy, Vice-Mayor- for Barbara Henderson, Councilor- for Donald Daniels, Councilor- 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: Jo nn Manganie o Village Clerk DATE APPROVED: