Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Park Master Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears park master‑plan update; debate focuses on parking, batting cages and artificial turf
Summary
Kimley‑Horn presented an updated Tequesta Park master plan that adds parking, playground amenities, batting cages and a turf field. Council and residents pressed staff for parking studies and raised objections to added parking and artificial turf; staff will return with refined designs and playground options in March.
Jonathan Heg, senior landscape architect with Kimley Horn, presented an updated site plan for Tequesta Park at the Feb. 2 workshop, saying the current design largely follows the 2022 master plan with targeted changes to parking, circulation and recreation amenities.
Heg said the revision adds roughly 111 new parking spaces to address current under‑parking and meet Martin County code; he described a total of about 229 spaces in the updated plan. "What we've done is we've added uh 111 new parking spaces ... for a total of ... 229," Heg said while walking council through the conceptual layout.
Major elements: The plan retains the main program of the prior master plan while adding a family "fun zone" (splash pad, shaded playground pods and a 40‑by‑80 pavilion that would seat roughly 100), two ball fields (a 300‑foot and a 225‑foot field), batting cages, a concession/restroom building, and an artificial‑turf multi‑use field intended for year‑round soccer and other programming.
Points of contention: Several council members and residents expressed reservation about increased parking and clearing of natural areas. One resident who took public comment urged the council to reduce the developed footprint and argued doubling parking contradicts earlier public‑engagement preferences. Council members asked staff for a parking study or data that justify adding spaces above minimum requirements.
Artificial turf and use considerations: Staff and consultants described turf as a lower‑maintenance, year‑round option that avoids taking fields out of service for recovery; opponents on council cited environmental and consistency concerns with nearby natural areas. The council discussed tradeoffs and asked for cost and maintenance comparisons before making a final decision.
Program schedule and next steps: Heg gave a schedule that includes a pre‑application submittal in February, environmental assessment updates and site plan prep through spring, county review in April–June, and delivery of 90% plans to the village by December 2026. Staff said they will return to council in March with more detailed playground and splash‑pad options and to seek consensus on remaining items.
Public input: Multiple residents spoke at the workshop. One resident urged the council to honor prior public‑engagement outcomes and to reduce parking and the developed footprint; another resident reported recurring billing/ownership confusion for commercial plaza notices during the earlier utilities item.
Next step: Staff will present refined design options and respond to council’s questions on parking, turf and amenity management when the item returns to the March agenda; no approvals were taken at the workshop.
