Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Special Meeting_01/31/1990i VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 • (407) 575-6200 FAX: (407) 575-6203 V I L I; A G E O F T E Q U E S T A S P E C I A L V I L L A G E C O U N C I L M E E T I N G M I N U T E S J A N U A R Y 3 1 1 9 9 0 I. The Tequesta V"illage Council held a special meeting at the Vi.ll.age Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, on Wednesday, January 31, 1990. The meeting was called to order at 5:30 P.^1. by Mayor Joseph N. Capretta. A roll call was taken by the Recording Secretary. Councilmembers present were: Mayor Joseph N. Capretta, William E. Burckart, Ron T. Mackail., Earl L. Collings, and Vice- Nlayor Edward. Howell. Village Offi.cial_s present were: Thomas G. r'~ir.adford, Village Manager; Wendy K. Harrison, Administrative 'assistant t.o the Village Manager; Bill. C. Kascavelis, Finance ?ii rector, and Department. Heads. Village Attorney, John C. Randolph sl ? -, ~ - , CI. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Caps°etta gave the Invocation and led those in attendance to the Pledge of Allegiance t.o the American Flag. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A) Village Manager Bradford requested that the Traffic Analysis Report under Item IV. (D) be brought up before Item IV (A). Councilmember Collings moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Councilmember Bizrckart seconded. that, motion. The vote on the motion was: Mayor Capretta - for Vice Mayor Howell - for Earl Collings - for Ron Mackail - for William Burcliart. - for • -i1e motion was therefore passed and the Agenda wa.s approved as ~~ mended . tipe~~ial Village Council Meeting Minutes ~;an~zary 31, 1990 Page 2 1) TRAFFIC ANALYSIS OF MASTER PLAN Village Manager Bradford exp] been working since December 14, 1989 (when Council adopted the Master Plan in concept and declared Zoning In Progress} on the necessary steps needed in order to implement, the Master Plan in some form or fashion. One of the important elements of those steps is the traffic analysis and traffic impact of the Master Plan land. uses in and around this area., and. the impact it ma.y- have by virtue of the Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards that will be applicable to County roadways within Tequesta that are impacted by this development. A traffic analysis, based upon the initiated Traffic Engineering Study worked on by- Gee & Jenson, was now prepared for presentation to Council. Richard Staudinger of Gee & Jenson gave Council an overview of that traffic analysis and presented some of the ramifications and changes that may be needed by virtue of traffic impacts. „ Staudinger presented an overhead presentation (see copy .:;tacked) of the pros and cons of traffic impact and phasing ,~i the new development and re-development areas of downtown Tequesta. The roads focused on were existing roadways: Tequesta Drive; Old Dixie Highway; li.S. Highway One; and Village Boulevard. For the purposes of assigning traffic trips, the study involved the "spine" roadways which run through the center of the Master Plan development area from north of the Post Office tying into L.S. 1, and the "spine" road running north-south from Tequesta Drive to Village Boulevard, a.nd Tequesta Drive, through the re-developed area, and again on up to Village Boulevard. Gee ~ Jenson studied the land use data supplied by Mark Schimment.i (New Development), and the trip generations those land uses would cause, then factored. out of that trip generation deletions for pass-by trips that are picked up by these uses, for internal trips in the mixed-use development area, and came up with. a total trip generation. A DRI Aggregation Calculation was then done, since certain amounts of residential and commercial land usage would trigger a. Development of Regional Impact which would involve a 12-18 month approval process from the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. The rules for DRI are set by the State, and since Tequesta is within. two miles of Martin County, DRI • iiresholds for Martin County must be used, as opposed to the 'i'T thresholds for Palm Beach County. Special Village Cou `?~ et.ing Minutes ~-wary 31, 1990 ~,.,ge 3 If Tequesta builds more than 750 residential units it would be considered a DRI; if more than 400,000 square feet of commercial space is built, that would also trigger a DRI. Mr. Staudinger stated the land usage figures could be adjusted to prohibit a DR.I, thereby causing a more timely development. However, if there is a mixed-use development with two land uses, a DRI is not necessary unless there is 80% (or 116% of the threshold) of 145% of combined uses. Residential is presently 63.2% of the threshold; commercial. is presently 51.8% of that threshold, making it 121% of the threshold. If the development is done as proposed, a Binding Letter would have to be done to determine whether or not this qualifies as a DRI. It would be more simple i.f Tequesta backed down to the 116% level, causing the development to be below the DRI in order to move ahead progressively through local permitting. It was Mr. Staudinger's suggestion that in order to do that, residential units must be dropped to 436 units to avoid a DRI. '':~yor Capretta asked why commercial was not cut, as opposed ~:~ resident.i.al. Mr. Staudinger answered that commercial .znerates more traffic than the residential, and dropping the >>sidential total_ was the most conservative route to take. The key to Scenario B-1 (Redevelopment) is: If new trips are a net increase of less than 500 over the ol_d trips, the Village is okay under the new Performance Standards. The Village meets that test, and this scenario poses no problems. This hypothesis includes the assumption of Step- Saver, Hart Office Building, and Alex Webster's to be redeveloped into some mixed usage. Councilmember Collings stated that is a "big" hypothesis. Mr. Staudinger stated the bottom line is: there is no problem in redevelopment. The problem in the new area is the 38 residential units which are over the DRI threshold which would cause a DRI. If Council adopts land uses that are below the DRI threshold, C~ee &. .7enson can finalize the traffic study and move forward with permitting, zoning changes, and any other changes necessary. Mayor Capretta stated he would not. mind seeing the commercial. reduced 100% in the new development area, since more commercial is not economically feasible, and that existing commercial in Tequesta is more than enough. r. Bradford reminded Council that the proposed I_,ibrary on ire Master Plan was not in the redevelopment area,. ,facial. Village Counci] eting Minutes ~iuary 31, 1990 >e 4 ~ounci.lmember Collings movea to airecL village rianager Bradford t.o make the reduction of up to 50% of commercial, if necessary, relative to the A-2 New Development scenario presented, with no reduction in the residential. Councilmember Mackail seconded that motion. The vote on the motion was: Mayor Capretta Vice Mayor Howell Earl Collings Ron Mackail William Burckart - for - for - for - for - for Mr. Bradford reminded Co~xncil that if there is a commercial factor in the trip generation rate, residential uses could later be increased, assuming a commercial reduction. ~uncilmember Collings moved to direct the Village Staff to -eve forward and. complete the Traffic Analysis Study for the • Ester Plan area based upon tonight's Council input. Vice- !.yor Howell seconded the motion. The vote on the motion :s. Mayor Capretta - for Vice Mayor Howell - for Earl Collings - for Ron Mackail - for William Burckart - for the motion was therefore passed and adopted. A) RIGHT OF WAY PROTECTION ORDINANCE Village Manager Bradford gave Council an overview of the Staff Meeting held regarding the provision of a Right-of-Way Protection Ordinance relative to the Master Plan. The key component of the Master Plan is the street network. There has been much debate as well as internal concerns regarding this network. It is necessary for Council to concern themselves with guaranteeing that these streets go where they are intended to go. The only way t.o do that is to do a Right.- i~f-Way Protection Ordinance which spells out the location of 1 the streets, their sizes, et.c. This would actually be a ~blic statement to all property owners who have an Merest. ;taecial Village i ~1~>~t ing Minutes ~antiaary 31 , 1990 ;~ ~ e 5 Mayor Capretta stated he understood that the main thoroughfare to Village Boulevard and the street coming across, south of Village Boulevard (the "spine") were the only streets which were undoubtful. Mr. Bradford agreed it was important to protect those streets, but other streets involved should be considered as well. Councilmember Collings felt the most logical move would. be to pass an ordinance which protects the main thoroughfares, leaving other structures for a later ordinance, or revision of the existing ordinance. Jim Pilz asked if this would remove some flexibility from the Plan, since it. wa.s his understanding the it. was hoped to bring in a. few big developers to help write the Ordinances and Codes to go along with this development. Mr. Bradford explained that on December 14, 1989, Council did Zoning in Progress, which states that zoning is in the process of being changed, and nothing in contravention of that which is anticipated can occur. By virture of that Delcaration, illage Staff has to be working and studying on ways and ;~a.ns to implement zoning, ordinances, etc. that would make his happen. Therefore, this is merely a status report .'owing it is being worked on. Mayor Capretta asked `'Ir. Bradford what was needed in the way of direction. Mr. Bradford answered that if some of the minor streets are left out of the Right-Of-Way Protection Ordinance, then the type of impact that would have would have to be a.scerta.ined. If the Ordinance would include every street that is in the Master Plan, it. is possi_bl.e to change any aspect of it at any later time. The Ordinance is merely a public statement showing Village preferences. Councilmember Collings stated the main street, which starts at Tequesta Drive and runs to the intersection of the Library property, plus the boundary along the eco-zone, the "T", as stated by Mayor Capretta were the only ones he felt were necessary for the ordinance. Mr. Burckart asked if Council. was prepared to condemn existing structures that would happen to be in the way of these proposed roadways. Mayor Capretta explained the Ordinance would not serve to condemn anything, but was merely the first step in a process to move ahead with the street network plan, and that changes could take place as the plans progressed. i ,,ial Village Council ling Minutes .nary 37., 1.990 • ,~e 6 Vice-Mayor Howell was concerned that the discussions taking place might "lock in" the Master Plan, when it was his understanding that it was approved in "concept" only. Mr. Bradford. reiterated that Zoning In Progress had already taken place and the present. discussion would give the Staff direction as to how to implement. the Zoning In Progress. Councilmember. Collings moved to instruct Village Staff tc draw up the Right-Of-Way Protection Ordinance to reflect the main "T" as discussed. Councilmember Mackail seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Mayor Caprett,a - for Vice Mayor Howe1.7 - for Earl Collings - for Ron Mackail - far William Burckart - abstained the motion was therefore passed and adopted. • B) SPECIAL PCD ZONING DISTRICT Mr. Bradford explained that: at. the last Staff Meeting, ways in which to adopt the ~'iaster Plan were discussed. There were three options: o Adopt as is and put in Ordinance format; o Create a special overlay zoning district Modify the PCD or PRD Ordinance, or both, with the YcL option. being most viable. Staff did not recall that any nnmme~rni a l at a l l wa.~ al 1 nwec-1 i n PRD areas . ial Village i.ng Minutes ,~,ry 31 , 199 7 Mayor Capretta asked if, in fact, a long meeting had taken place in Attorney Ra.ndolph's Office regarding this subject, which resulted in a recommendation from him and staff. Attorney Randolph explained the meeting took place because the Zoning In Progress and the conceptual Master Plan had already been approved. Those at this meeting discussed implementation which included the Right.-Of-Way Protection. Ordinance, and the various methods by which the Plan could be implemented. At that meeting it was determined that perhaps the best way to approach this would be to look at PCD or PRD provisions to try to make some amendments which caould allow this t,o come in under either one or both of those plans. Now it i.s necessary to decide whether or not this is a good approach, and. if so, then Staff would continue to look at the Plan in that manner. Attorney Randolph stated the Village needed to have the flexibility to look at both of these concerts. :uncilmember Collings felt the resolution of the DRI problem nd the Right-Of-Way Protection Ordinance, as handled in might's meeting, and the giving of flexibility to the Staff research both PCD's and PRD's, should be reported to the :~~.erested parties and that is as far as it should go at this time, in order to get a feeling for the feedback. Jim P.ilz inquired as to the status of the marketing plan for the Master Plan and asked if any feedback had been receieved from the marketing effort so far. Mr. Bradford responded that there had been two "blue chip" developers who have contacted the Village Administrative Office, both of whom are local, very visible, and. of high recognition. At least two meetings have taken place with these interested parties who have expressed an interest in the Master Plan 100%, as is, and would. like to do the entire thing. They have recommended to Village Staff to "stick to their guns" and implement the Master Plan. These potential developers have indicated a. desire to meet with the Mai=or or Council, one-on-one, to receive feedback from them, as the need may arise. They wanted. to do some further research and stated they would get back to the Village Staff. • ,.~~: ~~l.al village t;ouncit '~i~=r~r i ng Minutes ,n;aary 31, 1990 ~~ ~~~ 8 C) DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI) ISSUES These issues were discussed during review c Analysis. CONSIDERATION OF MASTER PLAN ADOPTION OR APPROPR] THEREOF Action was taken previously during the meeting. VII. ADJOURNMENT C~uncilmember Collings moved to adjourn the :;ckail seconded that motion. The vote on ;,yor Capretta - for `.ice Mayor Howell - for. i~:;.zrl Collings - for Ron Mackail - for William Burckart - for the motion was therefore passed and the 6:30 P.M. eting. you motion was: - ~-. -r' F, ~,,, -, Recording Secretary ~Q ~ nonce DirectorjL'Iilage Clem: 1FPRO1'FP _-----~'---'-~ ~°2' t -l ~-~O _ `J ---- ..- i i • VILLAGE 4F TEQUEBTA VILLAGE CEN2'ER MASTER PLAN January 29, 1990 A-1 New Developme nt (8aeed on land ue~s data supplied by Mark Scohimmenti) (~~nimum #+a) Trip Pa,as internal Land Uee Amount Gen. Rate Sy Tripe ~ Bingle Family 155 10/du 0$ 30$ Gonda/Apte (mxd-1) 76 7/du Oak 80~ Condo/Apts (mxd-1A) X5 7/du 4~ 20~ Commercial 231,250~t2 Formula 40~ 30$ MF (RS) 2Z8 7/du 0$ Zp~ Total Tripe 1,240 425 84 5,305 8,331 bR2 Aggregation Calculation: Residential 474/760 = 63.2 Commercial 231.25/400 = 57.S~k 121.0 >. ~,~ Must drop residential to 474.38 = 436 units to avoid being presumed to b• n ARI. 38 x 7 x .8 = 313 trips lees (total aP 8,118 trips) ~ rL 1 -- DJ 2~~~ 5 Ic~w ~ Ol.l~ h ~~ Flo ~ mcx--t- -isv 2~ - ~a- ~.of4 A-2 New Devslogment (Ba®ad on land use data supplied by Mark 8chimmenti) (4-Floor R~1 Sldaa) Trip Pass Intarnecl Land Use Amount Gen. Rate By Trips Single Family 156 10/du 0~ 20~ Co2'1fl0/Apt+~ (mxd-I ) 7 6 7/du 0$ 2 0~ Condo/Apts (mxd-lA) 15 7/du 0~ 2p~ Commeraia~, 231.,25oft2 Formuln 40~ 20~k MF (~t1) 330 7/du 0$ 20$ Total Trips 1,24fl 42b 84 3,229 81 8,b59 DRI Aggregation Calculations R®sident~,a1 846/'750 '72.8 Commeroial 331.25/x00 W 57.8 130.6 over 13C~ - Must drop to below lib to avoid being presumed to b• a DRY. This would result in loss of 110 residential units ar 38,400 ~t2 of commerc development. 2 of 4 H-1 A~c~eyelonment (Based on land u~sa data supplied by Mark 8chimmenti) ~~gpased Trip Paaa Internal Land Use Amount Gen. Rate Hy Tripe Total Trip Fine Arta Bldg 13,500 ft3 2S/1K ft3 30~ 10~ 272 Cult. Ctr 15,000 fta Z5/1K fta 20$ 10$ 253 Village Hall 20,000 ft3 69/1K ft2 30$ 10$ 9bb Library 4,500 ft3 43.5/12{ ft3 30$ 10$ 144 NH (Com, mxd 1&lA) 18,350 ft3 Formula 4S$ 3g$ 2,01 MF (mxd~1) 4 du 7/du p$ 2q$ 22 MF (mxd~1A) 5 du 7/du 0$ 30$ ~ ' 2,709 I• EX~.~„1~S (Land use date; supplied by V111aq® Staff) Trip pae6 Land Use Amount Gen. Rato 8y, Teq. Plaza 94,p00 ft3 Formula 43$ Alex Wabgters Rest 5,050 ftZ 96/1K ft2 15$ Fid Fsd 4,420 ttZ 291/1K ftZ 4S$ Ynlet Prof (Med) 5,830 ft 34.17/1K ftZ a0$ Hart Off. 10,830 ft2 Formula o$ Stop Savor .3,700 ft2 Std 748 58$ Offioe Sldq. 7,590 ft3 18/1K ft3 0$ Total Trips 4,074 494 695 ].78 354 314 _....._3~.~ 6,145 Trip 3 of 4 u 89 ADT ,~ D irection a ac Fxiotina Vol Old Dixie North 30,200 10806 Old Dixie South 13,700 10806 U5 1 North 46,300 21377 US 1 South 46,300 22882 Toque~ata West 13,700 4675 - Cnpaaitiee Old Dixie North Old Dixie Routh VS l North US 1 Svuth 3 Lanee 13,700 5 Lanee 30,200 6 L~no~s Div. 46,300 6 Lanea Div. 46,300 Totn1 Naw Tripe 8118 - S ~ 1624 per link 90-004 Prsj T~n~tia 1624 1624 ].624 1624 1624 New volume 12430 12430 23001 24506 6299 4 0~ 4