Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Workshop_03/03/1981 MINUTES OF THE V.TLLAGE UF' TEQUESTA • COUNCU WORKSHOP MEETING MARCH ..3, 1981 A Workshop Meeting was held by the Village. Council of the Vi.Z.Zage of Tequesta, Florida at 7;30 P.M., Tuesday, March 3, 1981 in the Village Ha11. Counc.ilmernbe.,rs present were: Mapes, Stoddard, Cook and Little. Also present were Robert_ Harp, V.i1.Zage Manager and John C. .Randolph, Village Attorney. Council member Elect Lee Brown was also in attendance. The Village Clerk had advised she was i11 and would not be in attendance. Clark Krueger P.E. and Craig Unger, P.E., Gee & Jenson were in attendance on behalf of the Village. The first item for discussion was Chapel Court Subdivision, presently located in Palm Beach County. Mr. Theodore Davis, one of the owners and developers and K.M. Kirk, P.E. were in attendance representing Chapel Court. Kirk distributed Master Plan Sheet Number 1, Drawing Number 79-0121-14, dated 2-1-81, revised 2-19-81 for the project and advised that it had received preliminary approval from Palm Beach County. Kirk said he had reviewed the Village Subdivision Regulations and found the following items which the Village would probably have to give • variances for if the subdivision was to be done under Village procedures: 1. Possible variance for street right-of-way width of 50 feet instead of 60 feet. However, he noted the Village regulations did not provide a width for a minor street and perhaps this variance would not be required. The Village Attorney is to review this matter. 2. Cut-de-sac Length - Village regulations provide far maximum Length of 400 feet. a) Chapel Circle cul-de-sac is approximately 675 feet but is somewhat shorter if only considered as serving twelve (12) Lots, No. 19 - 30 inclusive. Lots 18 and 31 would be served from Chapel Court. b) Chapel Court cul-de-sac is approximately 1180 feet south from County Line Road 3. The center line off-set between Chapel Court and Roberts Road (Martin County) on County Line Road is estimated to be approximately b0 feet instead of 125 feet as required by the regulations. Approval would probably also have to be obtained from Palm Beach County for this lesser off-set since it is on County Line Road, a County road. i 3-3-81 - 2 • 4. Sidewalks - Kirk explained the edge of the road was to be constructed with a 2' wide valley gutter as shown in the residential street right-of-way 50 feet on the plans. A 4' wide sidewalk instead of 5' wide would be requested. 5. Drainage outfall on Lot I26 - request a 7~' easement instead of 12' wide as required by the regulations to allow the Zot to be built upon, without affecting the side setback. This easement would be for a 15" drainpipe. There would be a I5' drainage easement provided on Lot 24 Chapel Court for a drain pipe. The easement between Lots I3 and 14 Chapel Court, for the drain pipe from Chapel Court into the detention pond is to be 20' wide. 6. Paz~k Dedications - Kirk handed out Palm Beach County regula- tions pertaining to this and suggested the developer provide payment to the Village based upon 4% of the developer's cost for approximately 4.6 acres of the land. This would be considerably less than the amount required under the Village regulations. The developer is to submit his proposed amount to the Village for review. The proposed drainage for the subdivision was discussed at length. Kirk said the calculations he had submitted for review by the Village's engineer were for SFWMD requirements with positive outfall and without positive outfall. He advised that Palm Beach County requires a positive outfall for subdivision drainage. He said his calculations indicated that • the detention pond, without a positive outfall, could handle a 3 year storm on site. The detention pond with a drainage control structure as recommended by Gee & Jenson would provide peaking in the pond before minimal discharge to the existing drainage system through a small bleeder slot in the structure. Kirk indicated his tests indicated the percolation for the Chapel Court area was very good. A 3 year storm is 3" rainfall in one hour. Stoddard said he had some questions about the design criteria. Mapes asked about the percolation rates in the detention pond and Kirk said they were good from soil borings taken from two areas of the pond. Brown asked about the percolation after growth, etc. forms on the bottom of the pond and Kirk said this would reduce the percolation but such growth could probably be removed to increase the percolation at various intervals as required. Stoddard referred to the 100 year storm definition in the SFWMD manual. Krueger advised that storm drainage design is either to SFWMD or Palm Beach County standards. Drainage provisions for 100 year storms generally protect finished floor elevations and for 10 year storms for finished road elevations. Ponding will occur but run-off should be fairly fast. Herb Foxman said the Tequesta Pines residents were concerned about future percol- ation ability after additional construction is completed. Brown said he was concerned that the existing drainage system in this area of Tequesta Pines was designed for approximately 10 acres and could not carry drainage from an additional 13 acres and Tequesta Pines property owners have reason • to be concerned. The Tequesta Pines system is at capacity now for the design event. ~J 3-3-81 - 3 Stoddard discussed the additional drain line along the south side of Riverside Drive to a drainage ditch located in the County as suggested by Gee & Jenson. Clark Krueger said this was an added option to the manner to provide for the handling of the drainage. The new line would be able to handle an additional 3 CFS discharge. Kirk then provided the Village Council with a blackboard drawing and explanation of the recommended control structure with bleeder slot. It is Kirk's opinion that the detention pond as designed will store all of the water from a 3 year event and other amounts over the design event would bleed down through the bleeder slot over a period of 2-3 days. Stoddard commented on the need of maintenance for the drainage ditch, which is located in the County. Brown noted the perforated drain pipe in the existing drainage system and said that he observed catch basin 34 had a weir or baffle plate in it. Krueger again reviewed the proposed control structure with bleeder slot but stated if there was more discharge required than the bleeder slot would allow, the additional drain pipe would be required. Mapes said to Krueger that the residents wanted assurance that they won't be in any danger. Krueger advised that the existing Tequesta Pines drainage system • is designed to handle a 3 year event. The proposed control structure would only allow small discharge through the bleeder slot into downstream system which would not impact the existing system. Stoddard said tte thought the Pine Hi11 Trail drainage system should be connected to the drainage ditch at Riverside Drive. Mrs. Higgins, owner of Lot 158, Tequesta Pines, 76 Pine Hi11 Trail Caest, expressed her concern with the proposed drainage and wanted to know why the developer could not put in his own storm drains. Davis explained the County requires positive outfall for the development. She was concerned with the fact that the system is at capacity. Krueger explained that the drainage systems are designed for complete build out of aI1 the properties. Kirk said they designed an oversize detention pond but that Palm Beach County requires a positive outfall. Davis said they have tried to work out the drainage so that there would not be problems with it in the future. Herb Foxman again expressed the concern of all the residents of Tequesta Pines about additional drainage being added to the existing image. He intimated that Gee & Jenson had goofed in their previous recommendation to the Village Council and alluded to Gee & Jenson having problems in other areas. Kirk said he believed Krueger did a good job with this review and Mapes expressed his confidence in Gee & Jenson. Brown asked what other alternatives had been considered and Davis advised that they tried to get approval to retain drainage 1001 on site. • 3-3-81 - 4 • The Village Attorney suggested the Council could not make a decision on the various items at this meeting but believed they could give some indication of their thoughts in the matters of the drainage and specific variances requested to assist the developers with their future planning for the project. If the indications were not to grant the variances, the developer would probably request relief for the drainage from Palm Beach County so they could plat the subdivision in the County. Both Davis and Kirk said they would like to plat through the Village. Stoddard suggested Kirk recheck his figures and calculations and if found to be inadequate, to provide for the additional drain pipe at Riverside Drive. The Village Attorney advised the variances would have to be granted based upon shown hardship, but that there would be a problem if the matter of the parks was handled differently than for previous developers. Davis said the purpose of the discussion was to try to annex the Chapel Court area into the Village. Mapes said he would not approve drainage into existing drainage system unless the area was annexed and would not waive Village requirements for green area (park) contribution. Kirk stated that additional costs are a problem for any developer. He stated they couldgo back to the County requesting a drainage variance based upon a hardship. The Village Attorney said the Village's 4i park requirement will have to be adhered to. The Councilmembers present indicated their general feeling • that they would probably agree to the required variances but would not change the method of contribution from the developers for parks. Cook and mapes both expressed their confidence in the firm of Gee & Jenson. Upon the developer's determination to be annexed and to plat Chapel Court in the Village pursuant to the regulations as may be varied except the contribution for parks, the Village Attorney will provide the procedures to be followed. The next item for consideration was Bayview Terrace Subdivision, which is located west of the First Presbyterian Church, and is in the Village. Tim Messler, P.E. and Attorney Patrick Gordon were in attendance representing the developers. Messler provided the Council with copies of proposed plat of Bayview Terrace, Drawing No. 80-136-A, dated November 1980, Job No. J80-47, 2 sheets. Messler explained that the proposed subdivision consists of eighteen (18) lots with Bayview Road tying into Shady Lane. Bayview Road will interconnect with Tequesta Drive approximately 85' west of Gulfstream Drive in Bermuda Terrace, a Palm Beach County Subdivision. Messler said the roads are 60 feet wide, and all Lots meet the Village minimum requirement of 12,000 square feet for the R-1A Single Family Residential Area. The drainage will outfall to the River through the area marked recreation area. All cul-de-sacs are less than 400 feet in length. • 3-3-81 - 5 C r: Mapes asked the Village Manager about the ingress and egress on to Tequesta Drive and was advised it did not seem to present a problem. Stoddard expressed his desire for the recreation area fronting on Tequesta Drive to be well landscaped. The property owners association will be responsible for the maintenance of green areas through the deed restrictions and restrictive covenants. The Council members present expressed their general agreement with the plat as presented. Unger, Gee & Jenson, suggested that there should not be a problem with the Village granting a variance for the Zesser off-set between the center Lines of Bayview Road and Gulfstream Drive, but would like to review prior to making a recommendation. He stated there might be some problems with roadway tangents, arcs, etc. and the tie-in to Shady Lane which will require a review of the plat. Mapes asked if Unger could have his recommendations ready for the March 10, 1981 Council Meeting and Unger advised he could. Robert B. Moore, Country Club Drive, asked the developer's representatives what route the construction trucks would take to get to the subdivision. Hessler said they could not control this but that they probably would come west on Tequesta Drive. Moore was concerned that some construction traffic would come in from the north on Country Club Drive. The Workshop Meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~,,-l`_~ {~- '~ t Harp Village Manager RH: jf •