[00:00:01]
[CALL TO ORDER]
GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE.I'D LIKE TO CALL THE TOWN OF JUPITER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER.
VALERIE, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?
>> CHAIR GROOMS. VICE CHAIR HAGUE.
>> THANKS, VALERIE. FOR ANYONE IN THE CHAMBER I WANTED TO REMIND YOU IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK BEFORE THE COMMISSION TONIGHT, EITHER FOR SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA OR NOT ON THE AGENDA, TO PLEASE SUBMIT A GREEN COMMENT CARD TO VALERIE AND YOU'LL FIND THEM OUT IN THE FOYER.
THANK YOU. FIRST THING TO DO IS TO LOOK OVER THE MINUTES FOR APPROVAL.
[MINUTES]
ARE THERE ANY CHANGES, SUBMISSIONS FROM ANYONE? IF NOT, MAKE IT A MOTION.>> AYE. MINUTES ARE APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOVING ON TO CITIZEN COMMENTS.
THESE COMMENTS WOULD BE UNRELATED TO AGENDA ITEMS AND WE WOULD NOT BE DISCUSSING THEM RIGHT NOW, WE'D BE GETTING BACK TO STAFF AND THEN GETTING BACK TO YOU IN THE FUTURE.
COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES IF ANYONE IS WISHING TO SPEAK.
VALERIE, DO WE HAVE ANY CARDS?
>> THANK YOU. NEXT ON THE AGENDA OF BUSINESS, BEAR'S CLUB.
[A1. Bear’s Club]
IT'S BEEN THE POLICY OF THE COMMISSION TO DECLARE EX PARTE COMMUNICATION THAT WE HAVE BEFORE THE MEETING WITH THE BEAR'S CLUB.WE'LL START WITH COMMISSIONER DUNNING, ANYTHING TO DECLARE?
>> SURE. I MET WITH THE APPLICANT YESTERDAY TO RATE THE FACILITY.
>> I MET WITH THE APPLICANT YESTERDAY TO RATE THE FACILITY, LOOKED AT IT IN GREAT DETAIL AND THAT'S IT.
>> I REVIEWED THE PALM BEACH COUNTY GLS MAPS AND THEN I ALSO SPOKE WITH JOHN SICKLER AND MARTIN SCHNEIDER.
>> I SPOKE WITH STAFF TODAY AND I DROVE BY THE BEAR'S CLUB TODAY.
I WANTED TO REVIEW IT, BUT APPARENTLY THE EMPLOYEES WEREN'T THERE AND I WASN'T ABLE TO GET IN.
I COULDN'T GO IN BY MYSELF, BUT I WANTED TO SEE THE SITE ITSELF.
>> I SPOKE WITH THE STAFF TODAY.
>> FOR MYSELF, I SPOKE WITH STAFF LAST WEEK AND ALSO TODAY I HAD ALSO REQUESTED [NOISE] THE OLD COTTAGE INFORMATION THAT WE HAD SO WE CAN COMPARE IT TO WHAT IS ON THE REQUEST.
I ALSO LOOKED AT PROPERTY APPRAISER IMAGES AND ALSO GOOGLE MAPS JUST TO GET AN IDEA FROM OVERHEAD HOW EVERYTHING LOOKED.
FIRST, WE GO TO PRESENTATION BY APPLICANT, PLEASE.
>> GOOD EVENING. FOR THE RECORD MY NAME IS MORRIS CRADY, I'M A SENIOR PARTNER WITH THE ACETYL AND ASSOCIATES.
NORMALLY YOU SEE MY ASSOCIATE, [INAUDIBLE] WAS HERE I THINK AT THE LAST MEETING BUT HE'S BATTLING CANCER RIGHT NOW ACTUALLY, BUT I DO WANT TO MENTION THAT I WORKED ON THIS PROJECT FOR THE FIRST FIVE YEARS WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED.
I WAS THE PLANNER IN CHARGE AND GOT IT THROUGH THE PROCESS AND A LOT OF WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING TODAY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WAIVERS THAT WERE GRANTED ON THE ORIGINAL PROJECT BUT BLISTERED.
LET ME SEE, IS IT ON THIS SIDE? THIS IS THE MASTER PLAN AND AS BUILT, ACTUALLY, IT'S PRETTY CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED MASTER PLAN.
WE'RE NOT INCREASING THAT NUMBER OF UNITS EVEN THOUGH WE'RE ADDING SOME UNITS WITH THIS APPLICATION, THOSE UNITS WERE ALREADY WITHIN THE TOTAL COUNT.
THAT EQUATES TO ABOUT 0.3 UNITS PER ACRE.
OVERALL, WE HAVE OVER 78 PERCENT OPEN SPACE AND ONLY ABOUT 82 PERCENT OF THE PROPERTY HAS IMPERVIOUS AREA ON IT.
THE BEAR'S CLUB HAS ALWAYS BEEN A GREEN PROJECT, I WOULD CALL IT WITH A LOT OF LANDSCAPING AND A LOT OF OPEN SPACE.
THE AREA THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY IS THE CLUBHOUSE SITE.
[00:05:05]
IT'S THIS 1.27 ACRES RIGHT HERE AND THE CLUBHOUSE SITE, JUST TO GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS SLIDE JUST TO SHOW YOU WHERE IT IS IN THE PROJECT, IT'S RIGHT IN THIS AREA RIGHT HERE, SO MORE OR LESS IN THE CENTER OF THE SITE.WE HAVE 1.27 ACRES TO WORK WITH.
IT'S REALLY THE ONLY VACANT PARCEL LEFT.
THERE MAY BE A COUPLE OF LOTS LEFT, BUT AS FAR AS COMMON AREA, THIS IS THE REMAINING VACANT LAND THAT'S AVAILABLE.
THE AREA TO THE NORTH OF THIS SIDE IS THE CLUBHOUSE COTTAGES AND I WAS INVOLVED WITH THAT ORIGINAL APPROVAL.
AS I MENTIONED, WHAT THIS WHOLE SITE PLAN IS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IS VERY QUAINT SPACES THAT ARE CREATED BY ARCHITECTURE AND THAT ARE ENHANCED BY LANDSCAPING.
THAT'S THE TYPE OF PROJECT WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE WITH ON THIS NEXT PIECE WE'LL MATCH THAT.
BUT YOU CAN SEE ALL OF THESE PROJECTS, ALL OF THESE PHOTOS ARE SHOWING YOU EXISTING CONDITIONS AND AGAIN, THE WAIVERS THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR TODAY ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE WAIVERS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY GRANTED AND THAT CREATED THIS TYPE OF LANDSCAPE.
OVER YEARS, THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL VARIATIONS OF SITE PLANS APPROVED ON THESE 1.27 ACRES.
AGAIN, IT'S THIS AREA RIGHT HERE.
THIS IS THE PLAN AS ORIGINALLY APPROVED IN 2001 WHEN I WORKED ON IT, AND THAT'S AGAIN PART OF THE MASTER PLAN.
IN 2005, THERE WAS ANOTHER MODIFICATION TO THE COTTAGE LAYOUT, AGAIN, LOOKING AT THIS AREA.
THEN IN 2007, ANOTHER SLIGHT MODIFICATION.
IT WAS MODIFIED AGAIN INTO WHAT IT IS TODAY TO LOTS IN 2011, SO WE'RE REDESIGNING AND RE-PURPOSING THAT PROPERTY BASED ON THE EXPERIENCE AND THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY.
THEY DID GO OUT AND GOT THE PLA TO DO A FORMAL VOTE AND ACCEPTED THIS PLAN THAT WE'RE PROPOSING.
I KNOW THERE'S ONE INDIVIDUAL THAT OBJECTS, BUT THAT'S THE ONLY ONE THAT WE'RE AWARE OF AND NO ONE ELSE HAS INDICATED ANY OBJECTIONS.
AGAIN, THIS IS THE 1.27 ACRES.
THIS IS THE PLAN THAT WE'RE PROPOSING NOW AND IS MOVING THE FITNESS CENTER OUT OF THE CLUBHOUSE INTO ITS OWN SPACE HERE, WHICH WILL BE AVAILABLE AGAIN FOR ALL THE RESIDENTS.
THEN WE'RE PUTTING IN THE 2, 3, 2 UNIT STRUCTURES HERE FOR A TOTAL OF SIX UNITS.
I THINK WE HAD SEVEN UNITS HERE APPROVED AT ONE TIME, SO ACTUALLY REDUCING ONE OF THE UNITS.
AGAIN, IT'S BEING DESIGNED IN A VERY METICULOUS MANNER TO CREATE OPEN SPACE.
THERE'S NO CARS PARKED OUTSIDE.
ALL OF THE GARAGES AND ALL THE CARS ARE PARKED IN GARAGES WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT FOR THE COTTAGES.
THIS IS THE ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING OF THAT SAME SPACE.
THIS IS THE FITNESS CENTER AND THESE ARE THE THREE UNITS AROUND THERE AND THE PARKING COURT.
THIS IS THE EXISTING COTTAGES HERE.
I THINK THIS IS A GARAGE FACILITY WHERE THERE IS ENCLOSED PARKING.
THIS IS THE ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING OF THE ACTUAL STRUCTURE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED AND I DO HAVE THE ARCHITECT HERE, STEVE POLLIO WITH PEACOCK AND LEWIS.
IF YOU DO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON ARCHITECTURE, I ALSO HAVE BOB WESSELMAN HERE WHO IS THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE CLUB, AND OUR ATTORNEY, ADAM GOOTEN, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
AGAIN, THIS IS THE EXISTING COTTAGES.
THE WAIVERS ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SAME WAIVERS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY GRANTED.
THIS IS THE CONCEPTUAL RENDERING OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND THE PROPOSED UNITS.
WE ARE ASKING FOR WAIVERS, THE FRONT BUILDING SETBACK AS NOTED HERE AND YOU CAN SEE THAT ALL OF THESE ZERO OR THESE SETBACKS ARE ZERO, BUT THEY'RE NOT ADJACENT TO ANOTHER HOME, THEY'RE NOT ADJACENT TO ANOTHER LOT.
I MEAN, THEY'RE IN A COMMON AREA SPACE, SO EVEN THOUGH THE SETBACKS AREN'T TYPICAL, THIS ISN'T A TYPICAL R1 SINGLE-FAMILY LOT EITHER.
IT'S ARCHITECTURAL EXERCISE THAT CREATES THESE SPACES NOT A LOT IN A SETBACK REQUIREMENT.
WE'RE ALSO REQUESTING WAIVERS ON THE FENCES, WALLS, AND HEDGES TO CREATE A SIX-FOOT WALL AROUND THESE.
AGAIN, WE'RE BALANCING PRIVACY WITH AESTHETICS.
ALL OF THESE UNITS WILL HAVE THEIR OWN PRIVATE AREAS AND THE WALL FEATURES THAT WE'RE PROPOSING ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE DESIGNER AND THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE OF THE WALLS THAT ARE ALREADY OUT THERE.
[00:10:03]
SO TO SPEAK, THROUGHOUT THE COTTAGE AREA.WE'RE ALSO REQUESTING A SETBACK ON THE LOT COVERAGE, BUT AGAIN, AS I MENTIONED, IF YOU LOOK AT THE BEAR'S CLUB AS A WHOLE, WE'RE ALMOST 80 PERCENT OPEN SPACE.
AGAIN, IT'S HARD TO COMPARE A TYPICAL SINGLE-FAMILY LOT WITH THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PATTERN, BUT WE ARE PROVIDING 50 PERCENT COVERAGE FOR THE DUPLEX COTTAGE INSTEAD OF 35.
THEN WE'RE ALSO REQUESTING A CHANGE TO THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE, THAT'S 10,000 SQUARE FEET NORMALLY FOR THE R1, A ZONING DISTRICT, AND WE'RE GOING TO 9,200, AGAIN, JUST TO FIT THE NEEDS OF THE PARTICULAR USE.
THE ONE SPACE FOR THREE SEATS HAS BEEN APPROVED AS PART OF THE PUD SINCE DAY 1.
WE HAVE PLENTY OF PARKING ON THE SITE.
WE'VE NEVER HAD AN ISSUE WITH PARKING AT THE CLUBHOUSE OR ANYWHERE ON THE SITE.
THERE'S ALWAYS AVAILABILITY OF SPACES, SO WE'RE JUST MAINTAINING THE RATE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED WHICH IS CONSISTENT AND HAS NOT CAUSED ANY PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER IN THE COMMUNITY.
AGAIN, THESE ARE THE EXISTING COTTAGES DON'T KNOW WHY I'M SHOWING THOSE AGAIN IN THE CONCEPTUAL RENDERINGS AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AGAIN, WE HAVE OUR TEAM HERE AND WE'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER THEM.
>> GOOD EVENING, CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
I'M WITH THE TOWN'S PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT.
STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF [NOISE] THE PROPOSAL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN EXHIBIT 1, AND CONTINGENT UPON TOWN COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC BENEFITS AND WAIVER REQUESTS OF THE APPLICANT.
TOWN COUNCIL HAS THE FINAL CALL ON WHETHER THEY SUPPORT THE PUBLIC BENEFIT AND THE WAIVERS.
WELL, THE PUBLIC BENEFIT, THAT PART OF IT WE DON'T SUPPORT IS THE CONTRIBUTION.
INSTEAD OF PROVIDING THE ACTUAL TREES, INSTALLING THE ACTUAL TREES, AND THERE IS A CONDITION THAT REQUIRES THAT THE TREES BE PLANTED IN COORDINATION WITH THE TOWN, WITH THE NATURAL RESOURCES COORDINATOR.
OR IF A LOCATION CANNOT BE FOUND ALONG FREDERICK SMALL BECAUSE IT'S A COUNTY RIGHT AWAY, SO THE COUNTY MIGHT HAVE A SAY THAT THEY DON'T WANT THOSE TREES THERE FOR SOME REASON, BUT THEY HAVE TO GET THE PERMIT THROUGH THE COUNTY.
IF FOR SOME REASON THEY CAN'T DO THAT, A DIFFERENT LOCATION WOULD HAVE TO BE FOUND BY THE APPLICANT AND AGREED TO BY THE TOWN AND THE NATURAL RESOURCES THAT'S TOWN STAFF.
THE PUD WAS APPROVED WITH 12 COTTAGES WITHIN THE CLUBHOUSE PROPERTY BACK IN WHEN THE CLUBHOUSE AREA WAS FIRST DEVELOPED.
FIVE OF THOSE COTTAGES WERE BUILT ON THE NORTH END.
SIX OF THE SEVEN ENTITLED COTTAGES ARE PROPOSED IN THIS PROJECT.
THE WAIVER REQUESTS PRESENT A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE TO THE LOT COVERAGE AND DECREASE THE SETBACKS TO ALLOW FOR LARGER COTTAGES THAN ON THE NORTH END BUT THE EXISTING ONES THAT EXIST THERE NOW.
WHEN LOOKING AT IT FROM AN OVERALL PUD PERSPECTIVE, THE IMPACT OF THE WAIVERS UPON THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY IS NOT GREAT SINCE THE COTTAGES ARE LOCATED INTERNAL TO THE PUD IN BUFFERED BY THE GOLF COURSE AND LANDSCAPE BUFFERS AND THE PROJECT WAS APPROVED BY THE PLA OF THE BEARS CLUB.
THE ARCHITECTURE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE CLUBHOUSE AND SURROUNDING COTTAGES.
AGAIN, THE SCALE IS MUCH LARGER THAN THE EXISTING COTTAGES, BUT THE ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS ARE SIMILAR TO WHAT IS THERE.
THE PARKING WAIVER REQUEST THAT IT'D BE BASED ON ONE SPACE PER THREE SEATS IN THE CLUBHOUSE WHERE CODE STATES THAT IT'S THE GREATER OF ONE PER THREE SEATS OR ONE PER 300 SQUARE FEET.
THE WAIVER REQUEST IS DUE TO THE LARGE SIZE OF THE CLUBHOUSE BUILDING, AND IT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED USING THE ONE SPACE PER THREE SEATS.
THEY WANT TO CONTINUE THAT METHOD THERE.
[00:15:02]
THE MEMBERSHIP IS CAPPED AT 325 MEMBERS, AND THAT REMAINS UNCHANGED AND THERE IS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT IT REMAINED CAPPED AT 325 MEMBERS OR THEY COME TO TOWN COUNCIL TO REQUEST AN INCREASE IN THAT.THE FITNESS CENTER IS NOT PARKED BY SQUARE FOOTAGE EITHER.
IT'S CONSIDERED, IN THIS CASE AS PART OF THE CLUBHOUSE AND THEY'RE NOT ADDING ANY SEATS.
THERE'S A CONDITION THAT REQUIRE A UNITY OF TITLE BETWEEN THE CLUBHOUSE PROPERTY AND THE NEW FITNESS CENTER PORTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT WAS CARVED OUT OF THE COTTAGE LOCATION.
WITH THAT, I CAN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE. THANK YOU.
>> I FAILED TO MENTION WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS OF APPROVAL AND THE CONDITIONS THAT THEY MENTIONED.
>> NOW WE'LL START THE PORTION OF THAT APPLICATION FOR QUESTIONING FROM THE COMMISSION.
THIS IS THE PART WHERE WE'RE LOOKING FOR FACT-FINDING.
ANY COMMENTS ABOUT SUPPORTING OR OPPOSITION WE CAN DO DURING OUR DELIBERATION AND OUR DISCUSSION AT THAT TIME.
WE'LL BE ASKING OUR QUESTIONS FOR OUR DUE DILIGENCE, SOME MORE OF OUR DUE DILIGENCE TODAY.
I'LL START WITH COMMISSIONER DUNNING FOR QUESTIONS.
>> NO, WE RECENTLY TODAY WE RECEIVED THIS LETTER THAT THERE'S BEEN AN APPEAL THAT HAS BEEN FILED [NOISE] AND I THINK WE JUST NEED TO GET SOME DISCRETION ON THAT.
>> HI, MY NAME IS BILL KATKO I'M PINCH-HITTING FOR MR. BAIRD TODAY BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT ON THIS ITEM.
YES, I'VE REVIEWED THE REQUEST BY THE OBJECTORS' ATTORNEY TO DELAY THIS AGAIN.
YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO EITHER DELAY OR MOVE AHEAD WITH THIS.
WE FEEL BOUND CURRENTLY BY THE COURT RULING WHICH WAS TO DENY THEIR MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION BASED ON NO LIKELIHOOD THAT THEY WOULD PREVAIL ULTIMATELY, THE OBJECTORS WOULD STILL HAVE OPPORTUNITIES.
THE TIME FRAME FOR WHEN THAT WOULD BE HEARD.
IT REALLY COULD BE MONTHS UP TO A YEAR BEFORE THAT WOULD BE HEARD, SO IT'S UP TO THE COMMISSION WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO PROCEED WITH THE APPLICATION TONIGHT AND MOVE IT TO TOWN COUNCIL OR NOT.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT?
>> SHE JUST STOLE MY THUNDER BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO ASK THE TOWN ATTORNEY THE QUESTION IF WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.
BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT AT THIS POINT.
>> YES, FOR STAFF. MARTIN, WHERE WAS THE LOT SIZE OF THE FIRST FIVE COTTAGES? DO YOU HAVE A SENSE OF THAT?
>> IT'S ON ONE SHARED LOT, SO THERE'S NOT A LOT SIZE.
>> IN THE ANALYSIS, WE DID LOOK AT THAT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AND DETERMINED IT'S APPROXIMATELY 35 PERCENT BLACK COVERAGE.
>> THE COTTAGES WERE ROUGHLY 2,600 SQUARE FEET?
>> ALL RIGHT. TWO STORIES? FIVE OF THEM, SO 12,000 TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE?
>> OKAY. THE NEW ONES, THE PROPOSED ONES ARE 13,000 SQUARE FEET EACH AND THERE'S THREE OF THEM?
>> CORRECT, AND THERE'S TWO UNITS PER EACH OTHER'S BUILDINGS,.
>> HOW WAS PARKING HANDLED FOR THE EXISTING COTTAGES? HOW MANY SPACES PER UNIT?
>> IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BASED PROBABLY ON THE BEDROOMS AND I'M NOT SURE.
I KNOW THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH THE TWO LAKEFRONT PROPERTIES.
>> I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS TWO OR THREE SPACES PER UNIT BASED ON THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS, IF MEMORY SERVES ME, I THINK THERE ARE FOUR BEDROOMS. THAT WOULD BE A THREE-SPACE REQUIREMENT.
>> OKAY. DID THAT WORK OUT OKAY?
>> THERE WERE SOME SIGNIFICANT ISSUES ABOUT PARKING IN THAT AREA AND THERE WAS A MITIGATION STRATEGY PUT IN PLACE TO BUILD
[00:20:03]
A PARKING GARAGE TO SUPPLEMENT THE PARKING ON WHAT WAS GOING TO BE A FUTURE COTTAGE SITE, I BELIEVE.THEY DID HAVE SOME EARLY ISSUES WITH THAT AND THERE WAS ALSO SOME CHALLENGES WITH THE TWO COTTAGES THAT ARE AT THE NORTH SIDE BECAUSE THEIR PARKING AND ACCESS IS MORE DISTANT FROM THEIR UNITS.
>> OKAY. ARE WE CONCERNED THAT THOSE PARKING ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED FOR THEIR PROPOSED COTTAGES SUFFICIENTLY?
>> THEY DO HAVE GARAGES IN EACH OF THE UNITS.
TWO GARAGES ARE ON THE FIRST FLOOR; ONE TO SERVE THE DOWNSTAIRS UNIT AND ONE TO SERVE THE UPSTAIRS UNIT.
THEN THERE IS PARKING SPACE BEHIND THE GARAGES FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING.
>> I THINK THE APPLICANT MENTIONED THAT IT WAS ALL CONCEALED, BUT IN ORDER TO MEET THEIR PARKING REQUIREMENTS, IT IS NECESSARY THAT THERE'S PARKING SPACES OUTSIDE OF THE GARAGE BASED ON THEIR [INAUDIBLE] SIZE.
>> YEAH. THERE WERE SOME PROVIDED FOR IN THE DRIVEWAYS FOR GUESTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
THOSE ARE THE QUESTIONS I HAD. THANK YOU.
>> ALL RIGHT. QUESTION FOR STAFF.
JUST SOME CLARIFICATION ON THE APPLICATION ITSELF, THAT THERE IS AN APPLICATION FOR THE FITNESS CENTER AND THERE'S A SEPARATE APPLICATION FOR THE COTTAGES.
>> THERE'S THREE DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS.
ONE'S FOR THE PLA [OVERLAPPING] AMENDMENT, WHICH IS THE WAIVERS TO ALLOW THIS TO OCCUR AND THEN THERE'S A SITE PLAN FOR THE THREE COTTAGE BUILDINGS WHICH WOULD BE ONE PARCEL AND A SEPARATE APPLICATION FOR THE FITNESS CENTER.
>> THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THE COMMISSION COULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE FITNESS CENTER AND NOT THE COTTAGES OR VICE VERSA, CORRECT?
>> IF THEY HAPPEN TO BE BOTH APPROVED, THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT ONE WOULD BE BUILT FIRST AND THE OTHER ONE WOULD BE BUILT OR EVEN IF EITHER ONE WOULD BE BUILT?
>> NO, THERE'S NO PHASING PLAN IN THIS.
THEY CAN GO IN EITHER ORDER AND NOT NECESSARILY BUILD ONE OR THE OTHER.
THERE'S NOTHING COMPELLING THEM TO BUILD ALL PARTS OF IT.
>> I NOTICE THERE'S A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE SIZE OF THE FITNESS CENTER SQUARE FOOTAGE.
THE ORIGINAL ONE IS 2,819; IT'S GOING UP TO 8,515.
BUT THIS IS FOR STAFF FIRST QUESTION.
THEY'RE SAYING THAT THERE WILL BE NO CHANGE IN EMPLOYEES BECAUSE THE FITNESS CENTER AND THE 2,800 SQUARE FEET PLUS WOULD BE CHANGED TO A BREAK ROOM.
>> I WOULD JUST SAY THAT THE CLUBHOUSE, THE WAY THEY'RE ASKING FOR THE WAIVER IS TO HAVE IT BASED ON THE NUMBER OF SEATS IN THE CLUBHOUSE, WHICH REMAINS UNCHANGED.
WE DIDN'T GET INTO NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES THAT MIGHT BE IN THE NEW SECTION.
THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
>> OKAY. I KNOW IT WAS BROUGHT UP THAT THERE IS NO "POSSIBLE IMPACT TO OTHER RESIDENTS BECAUSE OF THESE PARTICULAR UNITS OR THESE PARTICULAR PROPERTIES ARE BUFFERED BY CONSERVATION AREAS OR BY THE GOLF COURSES." COULD YOU MAKE A COMMENT ON HOW MUCH CONSERVATION LAND IS IN THERE?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THE COMMISSION HAS ANSWERS. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT INFORMATION ON THAT.
I BELIEVE THERE'S AT LEAST 92 ACRES OF CONSERVATION LAND THAT'S SCATTERED THROUGH THE GOLF COURSE FAIRWAYS AND EDGE AREAS OF A GOLF COURSE FAIRWAYS AND THEN THERE'S A LARGER PARCEL ON THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS 16 ACRES.
>> THERE IS LAND IN THERE THAT'S PRESERVED FOR PERPETUITY, ISN'T THERE?
>> YEAH. THERE'S CONSERVATION EASEMENTS ON THOSE PROPERTIES.
THEY DO CURRENTLY HAVE A RESIDENTIAL LAND USE.
>> I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT PLEASE.
>> JUST SO YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT PRESERVER IS THE 116 ACRES, THE TOTAL CONSERVATION AREA.
>> OKAY. I WANTED TO REFER TO YOUR EXHIBIT G AND EXHIBIT I THAT WE HAD.
IT WAS A LETTER FROM THE PLA TO THE RESIDENTS ON
[00:25:02]
APRIL 30TH OF '21 ASKING FOR A VOTE TO APPROVE THE THREE BUILDINGS.THAT ONE ONLY REFERENCED THE THREE BUILDINGS FOR THE TWO CONDOS PER BUILDING.
THEY SAID THAT YOU SEND OUT A SITE PLAN TO THE RESIDENTS AND YOU ALSO LISTED ALL THE BENEFITS THAT WOULD BE GENERATED IF THEY DID APPROVE THOSE BUILDINGS.
WHAT EXACT SITE PLAN DID YOU SEND THEM?
>> THE SITE PLAN I'M PROPOSING TONIGHT.
THERE WAS NOTHING DIFFERENT, RIGHT?
>> THERE IS NOTHING DIFFERENT.
>> I'M SORRY. PROBABLY YOU SHOULD COME UP, INTRODUCE YOURSELF.
I DIDN'T HANDLE THAT PARTICULAR NOTICE.
THIS IS BOB WESSELMAN. GENTLEMEN.
>> HELLO. THANK YOU. BOB WATSON, GENERAL MANAGER OF THE BEARS CLUB.
THAT SITE PLAN WAS THE ONE THAT HAS BEEN SHOWN IN ALL ALONG.
THE PLA SENT THAT OUT AS PART OF THE CLUB.
I WASN'T PART OF WHAT WAS SENT OUT TO THE PLA AND TO THE HOMEOWNERS.
I KNOW WHAT WAS THERE BECAUSE I RECEIVED IT, BUT I'M PRETTY SURE IT WAS THE ONE THAT YOU HAVE ON.
>> THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE IS IN EXHIBIT I, THERE WAS A LETTER THAT WENT OUT ON MAY THE 3RD TO THE RESIDENTS AND THAT WAS TALKING ABOUT THAT QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP ABOUT A FITNESS CENTER AND THIS LETTER SAID THAT IF THE SIX CONDOS WERE APPROVED, THEN THE CLUB WILL BUILD A FITNESS CENTER.
I WAS JUST WONDERING, DID YOU FIND THAT THERE ARE RESIDENTS WHO SPECIFICALLY WANTED A STAND-ALONE FITNESS CENTER AND SO THEN THE IDEA OR IT WAS PUT OUT TO THE RESIDENTS THAT OKAY, NOW WE'LL PUT IN A FITNESS CENTER?
>> AT ALL TIMES WE SHOWED THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF LAND WHERE THE FITNESS CENTER IS AS FUTURE FITNESS.
FIRST OF ALL, 90 PERCENT OF THE HOMEOWNERS ARE MEMBERS OF THE CLUB AND IF THERE'S ONE THING THAT WAS NEVER BUILT TO THE STANDARD OF THE CLUB WAS THE SIZE OF THE FITNESS CENTER.
ALL THE HOMEOWNERS, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE FITNESS CENTERS, PERSONAL TRAINING IS IMPORTANT, AND DOING THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
WHAT WE DID WAS WE'VE ALWAYS SAID WE WERE GOING TO BUILD A FITNESS CENTER.
TO PAY FOR THE FITNESS CENTER, WE OBVIOUSLY NEEDED TO SELL THESE CONDOS IN ORDER TO GET THE PROFITS FROM THE CONDOS TO BUILD THE FITNESS CENTER.
IT WASN'T DO THIS AND THEN WE'LL DO THAT NECESSARILY BECAUSE WE WERE ALWAYS GOING TO BUILD A FITNESS CENTER, IT WAS A MATTER OF TIMING.
A LOT OF THE HOMEOWNERS SAID, WE'D LOVE TO SEE THE FITNESS CENTER AND WE CAME BACK AND SAID, WELL, LOOK, IF IF THIS GETS APPROVED, WE WILL HAVE THE MONEY TO BUILD THE FITNESS CENTER FOR OUR MEMBERSHIP.
>> THOSE WERE ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE.
ANYBODY ELSE COME BACK WITH ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NONE THIS TIME. VALERIE, DO WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT?
>> HI. GOOD EVENING. REBECCA ZISSEL FROM SACHS SAX CAPLAN.
I'VE SENT THE LETTER EARLIER TODAY HERE ON BEHALF OF LONG-TIME BEAR'S CLUB RESIDENT GARY SELLERS.
WE ASK THAT YOU DENY OR ABATE CONSIDERATION OF THE GOLF CLUB APPLICATIONS PENDING THE RESOLUTION OF THE ACTIVE AND DIRECTLY RELEVANT LITIGATION.
AS MENTIONED IN THE LETTER, WE DISAGREE WITH THE COURT RULING DENYING THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AND BELIEVE THE JUDGE COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR.
WE'VE FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL.
TOWNS HAVE A VITAL INTEREST IN PROTECTING RESIDENTS AND UNDERSTANDING WHETHER LOCAL HOMEOWNER COMMUNITIES EITHER DO OR DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE LAWS, PARTICULARLY STATE LAWS THAT PROTECT HOMEOWNERS FROM OVERREACHING DEVELOPERS.
AS YOU MAY RECALL, THE LITIGATION OVER THE CONDO DEVELOPMENT THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THESE APPLICATIONS IS A SMALL PART OF A MUCH LARGER, MORE IMPORTANT LAWSUIT, CHALLENGING THE DEVELOPERS CONTINUING IN FOREVER CONTROL OVER THE BEAR'S CLUB COMMUNITY.
WE EMPHATICALLY BELIEVE THAT THE COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE AT THE BEAR'S CLUB VIOLATE SECTION 720 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES, WHICH ARE THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION LAWS.
WE KNOW THE FOLLOWING FACTS ARE UNDISPUTED.
THAT SECTION 720 PROHIBITS DEVELOPERS FROM CONTROLLING HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS OR OTHERWISE VOTING ON HOMEOWNER MATTERS, THAT THE GOLF CLUB STILL CONTROLS 53 PERCENT OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATIONS VOTING POWER, AND HAS HAND-PICKED EVERY POA DIRECTOR.
THAT IN TWO SEPARATE RULINGS THE TRIAL JUDGE AND THE PENDING LITIGATION HAS DETERMINED THAT THE GOLF CLUB IS A STATUTORY DEVELOPER OF THE BEAR'S CLUB, AND THAT NOT ONCE HAVE THE HOMEOWNERS ELECTED A POA BOARD DESPITE THE TURNOVER THAT WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE HAPPENED IN 2016.
TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, THE BEAR'S CLUB IS THE ONLY COMMUNITY IN FLORIDA OF OVER 48,000
[00:30:02]
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS THAT'S CONTROLLED INTO PERPETUITY BY A DEVELOPER AFTER THE TURNOVER.TURNING TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE APPLICATIONS THEMSELVES, THERE'S ALREADY BEEN TALK OF THE WAIVERS.
WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE PARKING WAIVER THAT WOULD RESULT IN 83 SPACES FOR THE CLUBHOUSE AND FITNESS CENTER INSTEAD OF THE 166 THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED UNDER THE CURRENT APPLICATION OF THE CODE, WHICH IS 50 PERCENT.
THE PARKING IS BEING MAINTAINED, BUT NO ADDITIONAL PARKING ADDED OTHER THAN ONE ADA SPACE FOR THE NEW FITNESS CENTER.
ALTHOUGH THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL TO LIMIT MEMBERSHIP TO 325 IS A START, WE DON'T BELIEVE IT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO ADDRESS PARKING CONCERNS.
THERE ARE PARKING AND TRAFFIC ISSUES, EVEN UNDER THE CURRENT NUMBERS.
FOR REFERENCE, WE'D LIKE TO BRING UP THE NEW STRICTER RULE REGARDING GUESTS, WHICH LIMITS IN-SEASON GUESTS TO ONE PER MEMBER MOST DAYS OF THE WEEK OR THREE PER MEMBER ON MONDAYS AND TUESDAYS.
ALSO, THE GOLF CLUB RECENTLY PAYING TO INSTALL A PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY BETWEEN THE FRONT GATE AND THE GOLF CLUB, WHICH TO MY KNOWLEDGE, IS THE FIRST TIME THEY'VE PAID FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WHICH WE THINK WAS DONE TO ACCOMMODATE PEDESTRIANS MORE IN THE ROADWAY, TRAFFIC CONCERNS POSSIBLY RELATED TO PARKING.
THAT'S AT 325 MEMBERS. IS THAT TIME?
>> IF I COULD JUST SAY ONE OTHER QUICK COMMENT.
BUT THE 13,000 SQUARE FEET, AS SOMEONE MENTIONED, IS FIVE TIMES THE SIZE OF THE EXISTING.
IF I COULD JUST SAY ONE OTHER POINT, WHICH IS THAT WE REALLY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE SPLIT BETWEEN THE CLUBHOUSE AND THE FITNESS CENTER.
IN ADDITION TO THE EXHIBITS YOU'VE CITED, THERE WAS AN EMAIL THAT WENT OUT THAT ALSO SAID THAT AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TWO LOTS AND CONTINGENT UPON THE APPROVAL OF CHANGING THE TWO SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS INTO SIX CONDOS, THEY WOULD BUILD A FITNESS CENTER.
WE ARE CONCERNED THAT THE WAY THAT IT'S STRUCTURED NOW, THEY COULD DO JUST THE COTTAGES.
THERE'D BE NOTHING REQUIRING THEM TO BUILD THE FITNESS CENTER AND THEY WOULD HAVE GOTTEN THE APPROVAL FROM THE POA THAT SEEMED TO BE CONDITIONED ON THE FITNESS CENTER AND WOULD NOT NECESSARILY HAPPEN. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THANK YOU. SORRY FOR GOING OVER. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
WE'RE GOING TO OPEN UP FOR DELIBERATION DISCUSSION.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS TO, AS EACH ONE OF US COMMISSIONERS BRING UP OUR COMMENTS, THAT IF ANY OF THE OTHERS OF US WOULD LIKE TO WEIGH IN ON THAT PARTICULAR DISCUSSION POINT THAT WOULD JUST BE FINE.
I'M GOING TO START WITH COMMISSIONER DUNNING OVER THERE.
>> BASED ON WHAT COUNCIL HAS TOLD US WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REJECT OR NOT REJECT IT BASED ON THE LETTER FROM THE ATTORNEY AND THAT IT WAS ALREADY LITIGATED BEFORE, AND NOW THERE'S AN APPEAL AGAINST IT.
WE'RE ABLE TO VOTE ON THIS APPLICATION.
BASED ON WHAT I HAVE SEEN AND THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, IT APPEARS, BASED ON WHAT STAFF HAS SAID AND WHAT THE APPLICANT SAYS, THAT THEY MEET ALL THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE WAY I KNOW IT AND SEE IT.
IT MAKES A GREAT DEAL OF DIFFERENCE THAT THE POA IS IN FAVOR OF IT AND IT'S ONLY, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, JUST ONE AGAINST.
THAT'S SOME OF MY CONSIDERATIONS FOR MY VOTE.
>> A CONCERN I DO HAVE IS JUST ABOUT WHAT YOU BROUGHT UP, COMMISSIONER HAGUE, THE EMPLOYEE PARKING.
WE HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF SPACES.
IT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER OF.
THERE WAS GOING TO BE ADDITIONAL STAFF, IT'S GOING TO BE NECESSARY AND HOW THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO FIND SUFFICIENT PARKING FOR THAT.
IT IS A CONCERN IN LOOKING AT THIS THAT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED.
>> BASED ON MY READ, I THINK I WANT TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS, WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND WITH THE APPLICANTS, THEIR DETAILED REPORT.
BUT ALSO, I'M SYMPATHETIC TO WHAT THE LAWYER BRUNG HERE IN GARY SELLERS' CASE, AND IT'S NOT MY PLACE TO RULE OR DECIDE ON THAT BECAUSE THE COUNCIL, THE LAWYER SAID WE CAN DECIDE ON IT.
BUT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE BEAR'S CLUB TRY TO RESOLVE THEIR ISSUE WITH MR. SELLERS OUTSIDE OF COURT.
>> ASHLEY, I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE PARKING AS WELL, BUT EVERYTHING.
[00:35:04]
I WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT THE MARCH 10TH VIDEO AND THEY ASSURE US THAT THEY'VE NEVER HAD ANY PARKING ISSUES, SO I THINK WE HAVE TO TRUST THAT, IT'S AN INTERNAL ISSUE TO THEM.I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE COVERAGE, JUST THE SCALE OF THE NEW COTTAGES VERSUS THE EXISTING ONES.
I THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING I'M THINKING ABOUT, OR ARE WE SETTING A PRECEDENT HERE THAT COULD BE USED AGAINST US IN THE FUTURE ON ANOTHER PROJECT BY ALLOWING, I DON'T KNOW, TWO OR THREE X OR THE SQUARE FOOTAGE? I UNDERSTAND THE BENEFIT IS THEY'RE GOING TO GET MONEY FOR EVERY SQUARE FOOT THEY CAN BUILD ON THIS LOT.
BUT SHOULD WE CONSIDER PARING BACK THE SIZE OF THESE COTTAGES A LITTLE BIT? THE PARKING, I THOUGHT THROUGH, I TALKED TO JOHN AT LENGTH ABOUT, AGAIN, I THINK WE HAVE TO TRUST THEM THAT THEY HAVEN'T HAD ANY ISSUE AND IF THEY DO, THEY'RE GOING TO FIGURE OUT A SOLUTION TO THAT.
THOSE ARE MY TWO ISSUES THAT I THOUGHT A LOT ABOUT THE COVERAGE IN THE PARKING.
ON THE LEGAL ISSUE, IT SEEMS LIKE IF THEY'RE GOING TO GO TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, THIS COULD BE A YEAR BEFORE THERE'S ANY RESOLUTION TO THIS.
I'D RATHER US DO OUR JOB, GET A DECISION MADE HERE, AND THEN THEY CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT ON A PARALLEL PATH.
THEY CAN DEAL WITH THAT AS IT NEEDS TO BE DEALT WITH.
>> THANK YOU. I'VE LOOKED OVER THIS THE SECOND TIME THIS HAS COME IN FRONT OF US THE FIRST TIME.
WHEN YOU ALL WERE NOT ON THE COMMISSION, WE POSTPONED IT.
BUT THE FRONT WAIVERS REALLY SOMETHING THAT CONCERNS ME.
NONE OF THE OTHER BUILDINGS HAD A ZERO SETBACK FOR A FRONT END.
THAT CONCERNS ME, THAT WAIVER CONCERNS ME, THE MASS CONCERNS ME.
IT IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHER COTTAGES.
WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT ALL FIVE COTTAGES COULD FIT INTO ONE OF THE BUILDINGS, WHAT YOU'RE DOING FOR LOT COVERAGE BEFORE YOU HAD.
NOW YOU'RE ASKING FOR 39,000 SQUARE FEET, WAY BEFORE YOU HAD 13.
IT DOESN'T MAKE IT IN HARMONY WITH THIS.
EVEN THOUGH A PUD IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO MAKE CHANGES AND BE CREATIVE, IT STILL HAS THE INTENTION OF BEING IN HARMONY WITH THE OTHER COTTAGES IN PROXIMITY.
THAT'S WHAT I WORRY. THAT'S WHAT AS FAR AS MY PLANNING WOULD BE.
THE BULK OF THE MASS IS REALLY AN ISSUE.
THE PARKING IS AN ISSUE AS WELL, EVEN THOUGH THEY SAID THAT THEY HAVEN'T HAD ANY.
IT WAS INTERESTING BECAUSE WHEN I LOOKED ON THE GOOGLE MAPS AND PROPERTY APPRAISER, THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF PARKING IN THE PARKING LOTS, THE CARS THAT WERE THERE.
I DO HAVE CONCERN ON BULKING UP THE SIZE OF THE FITNESS CENTER.
THEN WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED THE PUBLIC BENEFIT ISSUE.
IN ORDER TO GRANT WAIVERS FOR SOMETHING, WE STATED THAT THERE MUST BE SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC BENEFIT.
DOES THE COMMISSION FEEL THAT THESE TREES ARE SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO GRANT THE TRADE-OFF FOR THE BULK AND FOR THE ZERO SETBACK AND THE SIZE OF THE BUILDINGS ON THOSE TWO PROPERTIES? PERHAPS SOMETHING ELSE?
>> I TALKED TO JOHN ABOUT THAT AS WELL, SINCE I'M RELATIVELY NEW, I HAVE NO SENSE OF HOW PUBLIC BENEFIT IS QUANTIFIED FOR PROJECTS, 15,000 COMPARED TO THE COST OF THESE BUILDINGS BEING BUILT, IS A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S APPROPRIATE OR NOT APPROPRIATE OR CONSISTENT WITH PAST, PRECEDENT ON THE OUTSIDE, I DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA.
>> MY ISSUE WITH THE PUBLIC BENEFIT IS THAT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT THE PRIVATE PROPERTY HERE; THE BEARS CLUB.
THE IMPACT IS GOING TO BE ON THE RESIDENCE IN THE COMMUNITY, THE BEARS CLUB.
IS IT REALLY OUR ROLE TO WEIGH THE PUBLIC BENEFIT? BECAUSE IT'S REALLY HOW IT AFFECTS THE BEARS CLUB.
>> I DISAGREE. BECAUSE I LOOK AT IT AS IT'S PART OF THE POLICY OF PUD AND SO IT DOESN'T CONCERN ME.
MY DETERMINATION IS, IS IT JUST GOING TO BE A PUBLIC BENEFIT FOR THE BEARS CLUB OR IS IT SET IN POLICY
[00:40:04]
FOR WHAT A PUD NEEDS TO BE GIVEN AS FAR AS, IS IT WORTH WHAT EXTRA YOU'RE GIVING IN THAT PARTICULAR PUD FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT THAT YOU'RE GETTING IN RETURN? THAT WOULD BE MY INPUT ON THAT.>> I HAVE LOOKED AT THE FITNESS CENTER THAT THEY HAVE NOW AND IT'S NICE, BUT IT'S NOT AS ROBUST AS PROBABLY WHAT THEY WANTED AND I THINK THAT'S THE REASON WHY THEY'RE DOING THE COTTAGES TO PAY FOR THE FITNESS CENTER: BECAUSE OF THE CLIENTELE THAT THEY HAVE THERE AND THE UTILIZATION THAT THEY HAVE.
THAT SEEMED PRETTY REASONABLE TO ME, ANYWAY.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I THINK YOU'VE NOTICED FROM MY COMMENTS IS THAT I DON'T SUPPORT THE REQUEST.
I FEEL THERE'S TOO MUCH MASS FOR WHAT THEY'RE GIVING, I DON'T FEEL LIKE THE PUBLIC BENEFIT IS ENOUGH.
SO, OF COURSE, THE MAJORITY RULES.
ONE POSSIBILITY WE HAD TALKED ABOUT BEFORE, IS THAT THERE ARE THREE APPROVALS HERE.
THERE'S THE PUD, THERE'S THE FITNESS CENTER, AND THERE ALSO THE COTTAGES.
EITHER A CALL FOR MOTION OR MORE DISCUSSION.
THEN IT'S UP TO THE COMMISSION, THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION, WHETHER OR NOT TO PASS IT ONTO COUNCIL.
IT'S ALSO A POSSIBILITY TO SEE IF THE APPLICANT IS WILLING TO REDESIGN THE SITE IN ORDER TO MAKE IT A LITTLE MORE PALATABLE SO THAT IT IS NOT SO BULKY.
BUT IT'S UP TO THE COMMISSION.
>> YEAH. I THINK I'D BE SUPPORTIVE OF SEEING IF THE APPLICANT CAN MAKE A PASS AT A REDESIGN TO MAYBE REDUCE THE BULK A LITTLE BIT FOR THE BUILDINGS, AND THEN TAKE A LOOK AT THE PUBLIC BENEFITS.
>> OH, SURE. TO HAVE THE APPLICANT AND STAFF WORK AND SEE IF THEY CAN TAKE A PASS AT MAYBE REDUCING THE BULK, THE TOTAL MASSING OF THE BUILDINGS AND PERHAPS LOOK AT THE PUBLIC BENEFIT OF IT.
>> EXCUSE ME, MA'AM. IS IT OKAY IF WE HAVE THE ARCHITECT TALK ABOUT THE ARCHITECTURE A LITTLE BIT, AND WHY IT'S DESIGNED THE WAY IT IS? WOULD THAT BE APPROPRIATE NOW? YOU GUYS WANT TO HEAR FROM OUR ARCHITECT; IS THAT OKAY?
>> ATTORNEY, USUALLY THIS IS A DELIBERATION AND DISCUSSION SO I'LL LEAVE IT UP TO YOUR COUNSEL.
>> THE COMMISSION CAN TAKE ADDITIONAL COMMENT OR RESPONSE FROM THE APPLICANT IF YOU SO DESIRE.
>> GOOD EVENING. I'M STEVE POLLIO, A PEACOCK FOR MOST ARCHITECTS AND THE ARCHITECT DESIGNER FOR THE PROJECT ITSELF.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT THE MASSING.
BUT ONE THING I'D LIKE YOU TO REALLY CONSIDER IS HOW THE PROGRAM OF THE HOME, ESPECIALLY IN THIS PARTICULAR ECONOMIC BRACKET POST COVID NOW HAS CHANGED.
THE MULTIPLE TASKS OF A HOUSE NOW AS WE ALL KNOW IT REVOLVE, THAT THERE'S A BENEFIT OF HAVING THE OFFICE IN THE HOME ITSELF SO THAT THE STANDARD FOOTPRINT IS ACTUALLY INCREASED.
NOW, AS A RESULT OF THE PROGRAM THE WAY IT WAS EXPLAINED TO US IN A NUMBER OF ROLES THAT WE ESTABLISHED, THAT BECAME THE FOOTPRINT OR THE TEMPLATE FOR THE BILLING ITSELF.
AS TO THE MASSING, WE KNEW THAT WAS GOING TO BE A CONCERN.
BUT ONE OF THE THINGS I'D LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER IS THAT WHEN WE DID THE MASSING, WE SPENT THE TIME AND EFFORT TO TRY ARTICULATE THE BUILDING ITSELF, BUT ALL THE JOBS AND THE ROPE AND THE MASSING AND ALOOF CHANGES TO TRY TO APPEAL TO THAT MASSING CONCERN THAT YOU HAD.
ALSO, WHEN YOU SEE IT FROM THE AERIAL, YOU'LL SEE THAT IT'S TRYING TO TAKE ON ALMOST A FEW OF EUROPEAN ENCLAVE WITH THE MASSING THAT IT DOES CREATE, VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT'S DONE IN EUROPE.
THE ONE THING IS THAT WE HAVE AROUND THE ROTUNDA, AND ACTUALLY WE WANT IT TO BE EVEN CLOSER, BUT BECAUSE OF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE FIRE TRUCK, WE HAD TO ACTUALLY SPREAD THAT MANUAL A LITTLE FARTHER.
AGAIN, I ASK YOU IF WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE AERIAL, YOU SEE THE LANDSCAPE AROUND IT AND YOU LOOK FROM ABOVE, EVEN WITH THE CONTEXT OF THE FITNESS CENTER, WE WERE TRYING TO CREATE AN ENCLAVE AND BE SENSITIVE OF ALL THOSE THINGS THAT YOU'RE TALKING, CONSIDERING THAT THE PROGRAM WAS PRETTY HEFTY AND STRONG TO BEGIN WITH.
[00:45:01]
THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY.IT WAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION ALWAYS A THOUGHT, EVEN THOUGH HE ADDRESSED THE ELEVATION AND I THINK YOU CAN SEE THAT IF THEY'RE IN A PERSPECTIVE ON HOW THE BUILDING JOBS, WHICH REALLY WE DIDN'T PUT A BOX ON THE SITE OBVIOUSLY, SO WE WERE SENSITIVE TO THAT AND THE VARIOUS ARTICULATION OR THE LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS TO TRY TO BREAK THAT BUILDING DOWN.
>> SEE HOW WE BREAK THE ROOF LINES.
I MEAN, IT'S SOMETHING THAT NORMALLY SOMEBODY WHO WOULDN'T WANT TO DO BECAUSE IT'S ADDITIONAL COST.
IT WAS ABOUT THE AESTHETIC WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE WITH THE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AND THE FACT THAT NO ELEVATION IS IDENTICAL SO THAT WHEN WE TURN THE BUILDINGS THEMSELVES, THEY WILL HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL CHARACTER OR WRAPPED AROUND WHAT WE CALL THE LITTLE ROTUNDA BUT AGAIN, TRYING TO HAVE THAT HOST SENSITIVITY, TO SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE MORE CONDUCIVE OR EVEN EUROPEAN AND IN CONCEPT.
EVEN WHEN YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE DETAILS, WE DON'T MAKE OUR ARCHES EIGHT INCHES WIDE, WE MAKE THEM 16, WE MAKE THEM 12, AGAIN, TO GET THAT EMPTINESS IN A BREAKDOWN AND IN ADDITION WITH THE VINES GROWING UP THE BUILDING TO BE MORE ORGANIC AND FEEL LIKE ALMOST IT'S A VILLAGE ITSELF SO THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
WE'LL SEE IF WE CAN GET SOME A CONSENSUS WITH THE COMMISSION HERE FOR ANYMORE DISCUSSION ON IT OR BEFORE A CALL FOR QUESTION OR SOMEONE WANT TO PUT FORTH A MOTION.
>> I GUESS THE STAFF HAD ANY CONCERNS THAT WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT THAT HAD BEEN BROUGHT UP TO LIKE, THERE WAS A LARGE CAVEAT ON OUR RECOMMENDATION AND IT WAS REALLY PREDICATED ON FIRST THE FINDING OF THE ADEQUATE PUBLIC BENEFIT AND THEN ALSO THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE WAIVERS AND IF THOSE ARE GRANTED, THEN THEY WOULD MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS SO FAR AS WHAT THE SETBACKS ARE FOR THESE UNITS.
WE DID HAVE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF CONCERN ABOUT THE BULK OF MASS AS WELL IN CONTEXT WITH THE COTTAGES THAT ARE TO THE NORTH OF THIS THAT WAS SOMEWHAT RESOLVED IN A MANNER OF THE THIS IS VERY INSULAR TO THEIR DEVELOPMENT.
IF THIS WAS SOMETHING ON A PUBLIC STREET, I KNOW YOU WOULD SEE A VERY DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATION FROM THE STAFF AS IT RELATES TO HOW WE ANALYZE THESE UNITS.
THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED ABOUT PRECEDENT DO GET USED BY OTHER DEVELOPERS THEREAFTER SO, THAT'S A BURDEN THAT WE WILL HAVE TO FACE AND YOU WILL HAVE TO FEAST ON FUTURE APPLICATIONS THAT MIGHT POINT TO THE ACTIONS THAT WERE TAKEN ON ITEM LIKE THIS.
THE PARKING TO MY KNOWLEDGE, HAS NOT BEEN A CONCERN.
THERE IS SOME SENSITIVITY TO THE FACT THAT THEY ARE MAKING EXPANSION TO THE RECREATION BUILDING AND YOU LOOK AT THE PARKING LOT THAT'S IN FRONT OF THE CLUB, I BELIEVE IT HAS 48 SPACES AND IF THIS WAS A COMMERCIAL FACILITY, IT WOULD NEED 43 SPACES AND GRANTED THEIR OPERATIONS ARE DIFFERENT BUT THESE ADDITIONS COULD HAVE SOME STRESS ON THE LIMITED PARKING THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BECAUSE IT IS TAKING AWAY A VACANT LOT THAT WAS THERE AND IT'S ADDING MORE USE THAT COULD HAVE IMPACT ON ITS UTILIZATION.
>> QUESTION FOR THE TOWN ATTORNEY.
IF THE COMMISSION WANTS TO APPROVE ANY PORTION OF THESE, BUT IT'S NOT SATISFIED WITH THE PUBLIC BENEFIT THAT COULD BE ADDED IN THE MOTION?
>> WELL, LOOKING FOR SOME [OVERLAPPING].
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE FITNESS CENTER, BUT I AM GOING TO CONTINUE TO TRY TO KEEP IN THE CONFINES OF THE PUBLIC BENEFIT.
I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE FITNESS CENTER WITH THE WAIVER STAIN AT 35 PERCENT NOT RAISING TO THE 58 PERCENT WAIVER REQUESTED.
>> CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT THAT MEANS.
[00:50:02]
>> IS JUST A POINT OF ORDER AS WELL, YOU WILL NEED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE PUD REQUEST FIRST, WHICH SETS FORTH THE WAIVERS.
BECAUSE IF THOSE AREN'T PUT IN PLACE, THEN THE SUBSEQUENT APPLICATIONS FOR THE FITNESS CENTER AND THE DUPLEX COTTAGES WILL NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PUD SO WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER YOU DO IN YOUR FIRST STEP FACILITATES THE SECOND STEP.
IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THE PUD AS ITS PROPOSED, NOW, YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE OTHER TWO APPLICATIONS.
>> WOULD THE MOTION BE TO APPROVE THE PUD ALONG WITH A FITNESS CENTER IN THE COTTAGES?
>> YOU SHOULD TAKE THEM EACH INDIVIDUALLY.
MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FIRST ON THE PUD AND THE EXHIBIT THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THAT INCLUDES THE CONDITIONS.
THOSE ARE ON PAGE 1 DASH 14 AND ONE DASH 15 FOR THE PUD.
>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PUD.
>> MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
ARE THERE ANY CHANGES TO THE MOTION THAT ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE? IF NOT, GO AHEAD, VALERIE AND PAUL, PLEASE.
>> OKAY. THE PUD HAS BEEN APPROVED GOING DOWN TO THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A FREESTANDING CLUBHOUSE FITNESS CENTER ON A POINT TO ONE PLUS OR MINUS ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF THE BEARS CLUB VILLA CONDOMINIUM.
>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE FITNESS CENTER.
VALERIE, GO AHEAD AND PULL, PLEASE.
>> COMMISSIONER KERN. [OVERLAPPING]
>> OKAY. THE THIRD PART OF THE APPLICATION SITE PLAN APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT THREE RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX BUILDINGS WITH A TOTAL OF SIX DWELLING UNITS ON A 1.06 PLUS OR MINUS ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF THE BEARS CLUB VILLAS CONDOMINIUM COTTAGES. SHARE MOTION?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE COTTAGES.
RALLY REALLY PULL COMMISSION, PLEASE.
>> MOTION FAILS. IN THIS CASE, THE PUD WAS APPROVED, RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL, AS WAS THE FITNESS CENTER, BUT THE SITE PLAN FOR THE CONDOS WAS NOT APPROVED.
>> DOESN'T THERE HAVE TO BE EMOTION THAT PASSED?
>> THERE WAS. THERE WERE THREE MOTIONS.
>> WHAT THIS WOULD HAPPEN WOULD BE THAT THEN IT WOULD GO TO ASSUMING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL TO THE TOWN COUNCIL FOR THE THIRD ITEM.
[00:55:03]
THAT WOULD BE WHAT WOULD GO TO COUNSEL THEN.IT WOULD JUST BE YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS NOT A FINAL DECISION.
>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN.
[A2. Chevron Gas Station]
MOVING ON TO THE APPLICATION FOR CHEVRON.I THINK WILL A PRESENTATION FROM THE APPLICANT.
>> SHOULD I START? I THINK YOU SAVED IT HERE, RIGHT?
[NOISE] HI. GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYBODY.
FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS GABRIELLE SEMARIA, AM ARCHITECT OF [INAUDIBLE] THE PROJECT AND THE PRINCIPAL OF CH2 SIGN.
WITH ME IS THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND THE OWNERS REPRESENTING ALSO.
THE PROJECT IN QUESTION I BELIEVE THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THERE YOU SEE, SO I'M GOING TO EXPLAIN WHAT IS THE PROJECT ABOUT.
THIS IS THE EXISTING GAS STATION IN A1A AN INDIAN TOWN IN THE CORNER.
THE PROJECT ITSELF IS NOT AFFECTING THE GAS STATION ITSELF, IT'S ONLY ADDING ADDITIONAL CAR WASH TO THE FACILITY.
THESE I GOING TO SHOW YOU A FEW PICTURES FIRST, OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS.
THESE ARE PICTURES TAKEN FROM AERIAL VIEW THAT SHOWS THE EXISTING CONDITIONS.
THERE YOU SEE THE MAIN BUILDING IN THE FRONT AND THE PUMPS AND SURROUNDED BY LANDSCAPE IN EVERY SIDE [NOISE].
IT HAS TWO BUILDINGS, BIG BUILDINGS ON THE SIDE.
THE PROJECT ITSELF, IT'S TRYING TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT ON THE VIEW FROM THE ROADS.
THESE ARE EXISTING PICTURES OF THE BUILDING RIGHT NOW.
THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED WITH THE STAFF FOR THE PAST MORE THAN SIX MONTHS.
I THINK WE STARTED AT THE END OF LAST YEAR TALKING ABOUT THESE PROJECTS AND THE STAFF ARE COMING UP TO US TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF THE VIEW FROM THE ROAD AND THE PUBLIC BENEFIT OF THIS.
WE'VE BEEN BACK AND FORTH WITH THIS.
WE ARE NOT REQUESTING ANY SPECIAL CONDITION EXCEPT THE USE THAT WE ARE HAVING.
EVERYTHING IS UNDER THE STANDARDS OF THE ZONING CODE.
WE ARE IN THE COLD WITH THE GREEN AREA WITH A MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE AND THE SETBACKS, EVERYTHING IS WITHIN THE CODE.
IN THIS PICTURE, IN THIS PLAN, YOU SEE THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED PLAN.
LET ME SEE IF I CAN GO THE MOUSE HERE.
THIS IS THE LOCATION OF THE TUNNEL.
THIS IS AN AUTOMATIC CAR WASH.
PEOPLE GO THROUGH THE CAR WASH AND GO OUT.
THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL PARKINGS THAT WE HAVE HERE WITH A VACUUMS SO PEOPLE CAN USE THE VACUUMS AND GO THROUGH THE TUNNEL AND THEN GO OUT.
MOST POSSIBLE ARE GOING TO BE THE SAME COSTUMERS ARE GOING TO USE THE GAS STATION AS WELL.
LET ME GO OVER SOME THERE IS A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT.
WE RESTRUCTURED THOSE PARKINGS.
WE DO ALSO THE PARKING FOR THE VACUUMS THAT WE DISCUSSED.
AGAIN THE GREEN AREA REMAINS, I THINK IT WILL INCREASE A LITTLE BIT THE GREEN AREA THAT WE HAVE IN THE LOT.
YOU SEE HERE, THE CAR WASH IN THE BACK, IS NOT FACING THE STREET.
AS YOU CAN SEE IN THESE PICTURES, THIS IS A REPRESENTATION OF THE NUMBER OF TREES AND THE LOCATION OF THE TREE.
IS NOT THE EXACT SIZE OF THE TREES, BUT WE HAVE AN INTENSE LANDSCAPE PROPOSAL THAT INCREASE A LOT
[01:00:04]
THE NUMBER OF TREES AND REPLACE ALL TREES THAT ARE IN CONFLICT WITH POWER LINES.ALSO SOME OF THE LANDSCAPE ARE CONSIDERED THINGS THAT THE STAFF ASK US TO CONSUME.
ELEVATIONS. AS YOU SEE THIS IS THE PROPOSED BUILDING IN RELATION WITH EXISTING BUILDING AND THE NEIGHBOR.
THESE ARE STANDALONE ELEVATIONS AND PLANS OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING.
IT'S A TUNNEL WITH A MECHANICAL ROOM ON THE SIDE.
PRETTY MUCH WE TRY TO MATCH THE EXISTING BUILDING IN STYLE BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN THE SCOPE.
LANDSCAPE PLAN SHOWS HOW MANY OF THE TREES ARE IMPACTED.
ALL THESE ARE PROPOSED TREES AND PROPOSED LANDSCAPE.
THESE ARE SOME VIEWS OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING [NOISE].
THIS IS THE AREA OF THE VACUUMS AND THE AXIS [NOISE].
I GOING TO SHOW A QUICK VIDEO THAT GOING TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF MORE INFORMATION AND DATA BEFORE GOING TO SOME COMMENTS.
[NOISE] YOU CAN SEE THERE THAT THE IMPACT FROM THE ROAD IS MINIMUM, SO WE BARELY SEE THE BUILDING FROM THE ROAD.
[NOISE] I ALSO WANT TO MENTION A COUPLE OF THINGS REGARDING THE PUBLIC BENEFIT OF THIS PROJECT.
WE HAVE AN EXTENSIVE LIST THAT THE STAFF PUT TOGETHER AS A PUBLIC BENEFIT THAT INCLUDES IMPROVEMENTS ON THE ROAD ON A1A.
THAT INCLUDES DOING THE NEW WALKWAY AND IMPROVING THE LANDSCAPE ON THE ROAD, INCLUDING THE MAINTENANCE FROM THE OWNER TO THAT PIECE OF LANDSCAPE.
WE ALSO HAVE IN PART OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STAFF THAT THE OWNER NEEDS TO DO UNDERGROUND POWER LINES.
THERE IS ALSO IMPROVEMENTS IN THE BUILDING ITSELF BECAUSE THERE ARE SEVERAL THINGS THAT ARE NOT UP TO CODE.
OF COURSE, WE GOT APPROVING IN THE PAST BUT NOW ARE NOT UP TO CODE SO WE PUT UP TO CODE ALL THOSE THINGS.
I'M TALKING ABOUT CONCEAL CERTAIN AREAS OF THE BUILDING THAT SHOULDN'T BE EXPOSED, CONTAINERS, CONDENSING UNITS, GAS TANKS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
WE ARE ALSO ALL THE REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF THE BIKES, BIKE RACKS, AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS REGARDING THE PUBLIC USE.
WE ALSO ARE DOING AN IMPROVEMENT ON THE LANDSCAPE ALL OVER THE PLACE, INCLUDING THE ROADS.
I MENTIONED THE WALKWAY ON A1A, BUT ALSO ANOTHER PLACES INSIDE THE PROPERTY WE ARE DOING IMPROVEMENTS IN THE LANDSCAPE.
THERE IS ALSO THE REPAIRS, MAINTENANCE, AND ALSO THE ANNOUNCEMENT THE CTE IS REQUIRED REQUIRING US TO PROVIDE FOR A UTILITY USE INSIDE THE PROPERTY.
OWNERSHIP IT'S AN AGREEMENT OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM
[01:05:01]
THE STAFF AND WE REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL ON THAT.>> WE WANT APOLOGIZE TO THE COMMISSION THAT I DID NOT ASK FOR EXPARTE.
CAN I EVER DO OVER FOR THAT RIGHT NOW.
ANY EXPARTE THAT YOU WANT TO DECLARE? WANT TO DO THAT BEFORE STAFF GETS UP THERE?
>> SURE, I DROVE BY THE SITE ON THE WAY TO THE MEETING HERE.
>> I DROVE BY THE SITE AS WELL.
>> I DRIVE BY MANY TIMES A DAY.
>> I ALSO DROVE BY THE SITE AND LOOKED AT GOOGLE MAPS TOO.
>> I DID AS WELL, I DROVE BY THE SITE. THANK YOU.
>> GOOD EVENING AGAIN. FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS MARTIN SCHNEIDER, I'M WITH THE TOWN'S PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT, THE STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT WITH THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN EXHIBIT 1.
DID WANT TO BRING UP THAT THERE HAD BEEN SOME MAINTENANCE AND UPKEEP ISSUES ON THIS PROPERTY.
THERE WAS A RECENT CASE THAT WAS CLOSED.
THAT CASE DID INVOLVE SOME LANDSCAPING ISSUES, BUT SINCE THIS PROJECT WILL REDO THE LANDSCAPING, THAT WASN'T PURSUED AT THAT TIME, IT WILL BE PART OF WHEN THEY REFRESH ALL THE LANDSCAPING AND DO THE NEW LANDSCAPING PLAN.
THERE IS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF CONDITION NUMBER 17, TO DO SOME ADDITIONAL REPAIRS AND UPKEEP WITHIN 60 DAYS, AND THAT HAS TO DO WITH SOME OF THE STUCCO AND ROOF TILES, AND JUST THE GENERAL CONDITION OF THE BUILDING.
THERE IS A CONDITION ALSO TO CONVERT TWO OF THE VACUUM SPACES.
TWO OF THOSE WOULD BE CONVERTED TO EMPLOYEE PARKING TO SERVE BOTH THE CONVENIENCE STORE AND THE EMPLOYEES, THERE WILL BE JUST ONE OR TWO EMPLOYEES THAT WORK AT THE CAR WASH, JUST KIND OF GUIDING PEOPLE IN.
THOSE AND THE APPLICANTS THEY AGREE WITH THE CONDITION.
SO THERE WILL ONLY BE THREE VACUUM SPACES.
AS HE STATED, THERE ARE SOME IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH THIS PROJECT.
IT DOES CONCEAL SOME MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT THAT'S VISIBLE NOW.
THEY'RE CONCEALING IT IN THE NEW BUILDING AREA.
THEY'RE APPROVING THE PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE ALONG ALTERNATE A1A BY SEPARATING THE SIDEWALK FROM THE TRAVEL LANES AND PUTTING IN SOME GROUND COVER IN THAT AREA.
THEY'RE ADDING LANDSCAPING TO THE BUFFER AREAS AND INCREASING THE GREEN SPACE SLIGHTLY.
THERE IS A REQUIREMENT FOR UNDERGROUNDING ALONG INDIAN TOWN ROAD THAT'S REQUIRED FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT TO UNDERGROUND UTILITIES.
UNDERGROUNDING IS DIFFICULT BECAUSE IT CAN BE INEFFICIENT IF YOU JUST DO ONE LITTLE SEGMENT AT A TIME.
THE CONDITION READS THAT THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE FUNDS TO COVER THE COST OF THE UNDERGROUNDING.
IT SAYS, THE CONTRIBUTION TO THE CHALLENGE SHALL BE BASED EITHER ON QUOTES FROM EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY, COMPANIES OR ESTIMATED COST PER LINEAR FOOTAGE AS DEVELOPED FOR OTHER RECENT PROJECTS ALONG INDIAN TOWN ROAD.
I'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE TOWN ENGINEER AND HE SAYS IT'S DIFFICULT COMPARING ONE PROJECT TO ANOTHER BECAUSE THERE'S DIFFERENT UTILITIES.
THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT ISSUES.
THERE'S A DIFFERENT ABILITY TO PUT THEM UNDERGROUND OR NOT.
HE PREFERS THE FIRST PART OF THAT CONDITION.
THE PART THAT SAYS THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE TOWN SHALL BE BASED ON, AND AFTER DISCUSSION WE MADE A CHANGE TO, SHALL BE BASED ON BINDING ESTIMATES FROM EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY COMPANIES INSTEAD OF JUST QUOTES.
THAT'S JUST ANOTHER THING THAT STAFF DISCUSSED.
IT'S NOT IF YOU APPROVE IT AS IS THAT WOULDN'T BE IN THERE, BUT IF YOU DID WANT TO CHANGE THAT LANGUAGE, THAT'LL BE UP TO YOU.
AS HE SAID, THEY DID AGREE TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS, SO THE LANDSCAPING THAT'S BEING SHIFTED INTO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FURTHER,
[01:10:05]
THEY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UPKEEP OF THAT AND THAT'S A STANDARD CONDITION ALSO.HE TALKED ABOUT THAT THEY WILL BE MOVING THE MERCHANDISE DISPLAY THAT'S INSIDE SO THAT THE APPEARANCE INTO THE BUILDING IS CLEANER AND WE'LL BE LOOKING FOR THAT WHEN THEY DO THE IMPROVEMENTS.
WITH THAT, I CAN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
>> WE'LL START THE QUESTIONS THIS TIME WITH COMMISSIONER KERN.
MARTIN, IS THERE ANY LIGHTING UNDERNEATH THESE CANOPIES THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE PUTTING ON THE BACK OF THE BUILDING? IF YOU KNOW?
>> YEAH, MY CONCERN. [OVERLAPPING] MY CONCERN IS GET THESE CANOPIES EXTENDING OVER THE BUILDING.
>> YOU TALKING TO GAS CANOPY OR.
>> IT SEEMS LIKE THAT COULD BE A PRETTY UNSAFE AREA AT NIGHT IF THERE'S NO LIGHTING UNDER THERE AND I'M ALSO CURIOUS IF THERE'S ANY CAMERA COVERAGE THAT'S PLANNED FOR THE BACK OF THE BUILDING IF THERE IS ANY NOW OR THERE WAS PLANNED TO BE.
>> LET ME CLARIFY. THIS IS ONE OF THE PARTS THAT IS CONSIDERED THE PARKING SPACE.
THESE ARE CALLED REQUIREMENT THAT NEEDS TO BE OF ALL, A ONE-FOOT CANDLE.
OF COURSE, WE DIDN'T GET TO THAT POINT THAT THEN WE ARE NOT IN THE LIGHTING YET BUT OF COURSE, THAT NEEDS TO COMPLY WITH GOLD AND NEEDS TO HAVE A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT.
I SEE THIS, WE DID THE OTHER CAR WASHES IN OTHER PLACES IN FLORIDA AND THOSE HAVE ENOUGH LIGHTING.
I MEAN, SOMETIMES IT'S A WARM LIGHT.
REMEMBER THAT THE CANOPY SAR AGAINST THE WALL SO THAT MAYBE HAVE ONE OPTIONS TO PUT SOME CONSTANTS.
SOME KIND LIGHT IN THERE BUT OF COURSE WILL BE. YES.
>> DO YOU KNOW IS THERE EXISTING VIDEO COVERAGE OF THAT AREA BACK THERE OR IS IT PLANNED NOW?
I MEAN, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT MOST OF THE GASES STATIONS HAS.
>> IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE.
>> LOOK, IT'S GOING TO ATTRACT SOME LESS DESIRABLE PEOPLE IN CARS.
>> YEAH. I MEAN, THIS IS A CAR WASH THAT ALSO REMAINS OPEN MOST OF THE TIME SO YOU CAN GO MAYBE IN THE LATE AT NIGHT.
>> IS IT OPEN? WHAT ARE THE HOURS TYPICALLY DURING?
>> I DON'T KNOW WHY. I THINK IT'S MOSTLY A BUSINESS DECISION IF THEY'RE GOING TO OPEN ALL THE TIME.
BUT I'M SAYING THAT IT'S REALLY ACCESSIBLE.
YEAH, IT NEEDS TO HAVE SOME SECURITY FOR SURE.
THOSE THINGS ARE, OF COURSE, PART OF THAT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT THAT IS COMING UP.
>> YES. HI THERE. A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
JUST CONCERNED A1A, AN INDIAN TOWN ROAD THERE'S TRAFFIC PROBLEMS AS IT IS.
YOUR PROJECT, HOW DO YOU SEE THAT'S GOING TO AFFECT TRAFFIC IN A SENSE COME [OVERLAPPING]?
>> YEAH I AM SORRY, I FORGOT TO MENTION THAT WE HAVE OUR TRAFFIC STUDY.
WE DID A TRAFFIC REPORT BY AN ENGINEER.
THIS REPORT HAS BEEN RENEWED BY THE STAFF BUT ALSO THE STAFF RECOMMENDED TO GO TO PALM BEACH TO BE REVIEWED BY THE PALM BEACH COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
THEY DID AND THEY APPROVED THAT.
THEY SAY THAT THESE NOT FOR THE PERMITS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE TRAFFIC IMPACT IS VERY LOW AND WE ARE NOT CHANGING THE AXIS AND EXIT FROM THE ROADS.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT THESE GAS STATION GENERATES, WE CAN SAY THAT THIS IS UNDER THE 15 PERCENT, 20 PERCENT.
THE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC FROM THE EXIST IN TRAFFIC THAT WE ALREADY HAVE.
>> MY CONCERN IS WHEN YOU HAVE THE HEAVY TRUCKS AND YOU'RE DOING THE PROJECT ITSELF.
I'M NOT SO MUCH CONCERNED WHEN THE PROJECT IS [NOISE] FINISHED, I'M CONCERNED WHEN YOU'RE DOING THE PROJECT, WHAT IMPACT IT'S GOING TO HAVE ON TRAFFIC WHEN YOU HAVE THE CONCRETE, THE TRUCKS, AND EVERYTHING.
>> WELL, THIS IS A SYSTEM SHALL BE.
REMEMBER THAT WE HAVE IN THIS AREA, TRUCKS THAT THE NUMERATOR GAS AND THERE ARE HUGE TRUCKS AND EVERY DAY PRETTY MUCH.
I MEAN, EVERY NIGHT COMING IN TO UNLOAD.
I THINK WE KNOW AND HAVE ANY PROBLEM IN THAT.
I'M NOT SURE IF FOR THE CONSTRUCTION ITSELF, WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO SHUT DOWN PORTIONS OF THE GAS STATION OR EVEN THE GAS STATION IN TOTAL IN SOME POINT DURING THE PROCESS.
BUT WE BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH SPACE TO DO THE CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT AFFECTING THE TRAFFIC ON THE ROADS.
[01:15:06]
IT'S A CORNER SO WE HAVE BOTH ACCESS, BOTH EXITS.IT'S A VERY CONVENIENT PLACE TO DO A JOB SITE.
>> THAT'S MY QUESTIONS FOR NOW. THANK YOU.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
THE SITE PLAN CRITERIA, THERE WAS 11 OUT OF 12 THAT WERE MET.
>> YEAH. TYPICALLY WITH A LOT OF DIFFERENT SITE PLAN PROJECTS, THAT'S THE ONE THAT IS NOT MET AND THOSE ARE USUALLY WHY THERE'S CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
IT'S NOT MET WITHOUT THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BUT THERE'S CONDITIONS THAT ARE LAID OUT IN ORDER TO.
>> SO THAT'S A COMMON EXCEPTION?
>> YEAH, THAT'S THE ONE THAT IS TYPICALLY LISTED THERE AND THEN THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ARE CRAFTED TO HANDLE THOSE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT THEY FELL SHORT ON FOR SOME REASON.
THE CONDITIONS, INCLUDING THE UNDERGROUNDING IS A REQUIREMENT SO THERE'S A CONDITION FOR THAT.
THERE'S A LOT OF SIGNAGE CONDITIONS SO MAKING SURE THAT IS THAT.
>> IT'S A COMMONLY ACCEPTED EXCEPTION. THANK YOU.
>> I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE, MR. KERN CONCERNS WITH REGARDS TO THE LIGHTING AND SECURITY CAMERAS AND I THINK YOU SAID YOU THOUGHT THEY WERE GOING TO BE PUT IN BUT YOU WEREN'T SURE.
IS THAT CORRECT? COULD WE HAVE IT BASED ON CONDITION APPROVAL THAT, THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, THAT YOU WOULD HAVE ADEQUATE LIGHTING IN THERE AND SECURITY CAMERAS?
>> ON ONE POINT, ON THE LIGHTING ASPECT, THERE ARE SPECIFIC STANDARDS THAT THEY'LL HAVE TO MEET AFTER THE APPROVAL.
THEY HAVE TO SUBMIT A LIGHTING PLAN THAT MEETS THE TOWN STANDARDS FOR ADEQUATE LIGHTING FOR COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES.
UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING SPECIAL OR UNIQUE THAT WILL COVER THE ORDINARY REQUIREMENTS FOR LIGHTING.
THERE ARE LIGHT SHIELDING AND REQUIREMENTS AND CERTAIN THINGS THAT THEY HAD TO DO WHEN THEY PUT IN THEIR CANOPY IN PARTICULAR.
BUT AS IT RELATES TO THE CAMERAS, THAT IS A SEPARATE AND UNIQUE ISSUE. IT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED.
>> YEAH, I'M SORRY. I WAS CONFUSED WITH THE ONE I DID MY RESPONSE.
WHEN I SAY THAT I WAS NOT SURE, IS ABOUT WHAT TYPE OF LIGHTING WE'RE GOING TO USE.
BUT FOR SURE, IT WILL BE LIGHT AND ENOUGH TO COVER THE CODE REQUIREMENT OF AT LEAST ONE-FOOT CANDLE AND EVEN MORE.
BECAUSE REMEMBER THAT THIS IS A PLACE THAT PEOPLE ARE USING THE VACUUM TO VACUUM HIS CAR SO NEEDS TO HAVE ENOUGH LIGHTING.
>> FOR THE COSTUMER BE COMFORTABLE DOING THAT.
>> SURE, AND WITH REGARDS TO THE SECURITY CAMERAS?
>> I'M SURE THE OWNER WANTS TO DO THAT.
I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S A REQUIREMENT BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT WILL BE FOR SURE.
I MEAN, YOU CAN ADD IT AS A REQUIREMENT BUT I'M SURE THAT THE OWNER WANTS TO HAVE THIS MONITORING.
>> ALL RIGHT. ALL MY QUESTIONS.
MINE IS STAFF REPORT SAID IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER THE UTILITY LINES COULD EVEN BE PLACED UNDERGROUND BECAUSE OF THE SMALL AMOUNT OF FRONTAGE SO HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THAT AND THEN ASKING FOR AN ESTIMATE?
>> IT'S NOT THAT IT CAN'T BE DONE.
IT'S NOT PRACTICAL TO DO SUCH A SMALL SEGMENT WITHOUT THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
>> [OVERLAPPING] SAYING WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
>> WE COLLECT THE MONEY FOR THE INCREMENT WITH THE INTENTION OF EVENTUALLY UPON THE OTHER PROPERTIES COMING ONLINE AND HAVING THE NECESSARY EASEMENTS TO THEN MORE SYSTEMATICALLY BE ABLE TO INCORPORATE THE UNDERGROUNDING FOR A LARGER SEGMENT.
>> THE APPLICANT IS FINE WITH ALL OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, THE LANDSCAPE RECOMMENDATION FOR CONTRIBUTION, ETC.
>> SCORE. [LAUGHTER] THOSE ARE OTHER QUESTIONS SIGNED THERE AS WELL.
ANYTHING FROM THE PUBLIC? ARE THERE ANY COMMENT CARD?
>> NOTHING. DISCUSSION. ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY, COMMISSIONER DUNNING?
>> I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE THAT PART OF THE CONDITION OR RE-APPROVAL HAVE SOME SECURITY CAMERA OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE IN THERE.
>> I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT AND THE LIGHTING.
[01:20:02]
>> I AGREE WITH MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS ON THAT.
IF I'M HEARING THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION OF RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, THEN THE MOTION WOULD WANT TO BE ADDED ONTO WITH A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR CAMERAS.
I THINK STAFF HAD ALREADY SAID THAT LIGHTING WOULD BE TAKEN CARE OF AFTER THE FACT SO THAT NECESSARILY [OVERLAPPING] WORK PRIOR TO PERMIT, SO THAT WOULD NOT HAVE TO BE ADDED ON AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL.
>> CALLING FOR A MOTION FROM THE FLOOR WITH WHAT THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSIONERS.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE AS WRITTEN, WITH THE ADDITION OF SECURITY CAMERA COVERAGE FOR THE BACK OF THE BUILDING.
>> VALERIE, WOULD YOU PULL THE COMMISSION, PLEASE?
>> APOLOGIZE. COMMISSIONER KERN?
>> YES. IT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL ANONYMOUSLY TO GO TO COUNSEL WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION.
>> THAT'S IT FOR THE AGENDA TONIGHT EXCEPT FOR ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS OR ANYTHING THAT INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS WOULD LIKE TO SAY AFTER WHAT HAS BEEN ON THE AGENDA FOR THE MEETING? ANY COMMENTS? NOTHING AT ALL?
JUST GOING THROUGH THE APPLICATION, INDIAN TOWN ROAD, DRIVE IT EVERY DAY AND JUST UNDERSTANDING WITH CODE COMPLIANCE ISSUES WITH COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.
SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE ARE, HOW DO WE ENFORCE THOSE, WHEN THERE ARE THOSE TYPES OF SITUATIONS THAT COME UP.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY MAINTENANCE CODE FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
NOW, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD EVER WANT TO ADVISE FOR COUNCIL TO POSSIBLY LOOK AT.
JUST LOOKING AT THE IMPROVEMENTS, JUST KEEPING THE AESTHETICS OF THE CURRENT COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, ESPECIALLY ALONG INDIAN TOWN ROAD AND THROUGHOUT JUPITER.
>> THAT'S IT FOR INPUT FROM THE ACTING TOWN ATTORNEY AS FAR AS A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, WHAT WOULD BE YOUR COMMENT ON ANY.
>> YOU COULD CERTAINLY RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN COUNCIL THAT YOU WANT TO HAVE A REVIEW AND WHERE NECESSARY, BEEFING UP OF ANY CODE PROVISIONS THAT DON'T ALREADY COVER NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
>> YOU WANT TO ADD THAT AND WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT THE FELLOW COMMISSIONERS WOULD ALSO WANT TO APPROVE OF OR THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA.
>> DID YOU SAY MAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR NON-COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES?
>> YES. MAINTENANCE CODE, MAINTENANCE CHARACTER.
>> THE OTHER THING IS THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO RECOMMEND THAT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT REQUIRES STAFFING AS WELL.
CAN WE ADD ON TO THAT WITH THE RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROPRIATE STAFFING HOPE FOR.
>> SURE I MEAN, I THINK THAT WOULD BE UNDERSTOOD WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION OBVIOUSLY, THAT CANNOT OCCUR WITHOUT APPROPRIATE STAFF BEING INVOLVED.
>> JUST AS COMMENTARY TO THAT, THAT HAS BEEN A CONCERN THAT THE CODE COMPLIANCE STAFF HASN'T HAD ALL THE NECESSARY TOOLS THEY NEED TO ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS I THINK THAT YOU'RE REFERENCING.
WE REFERENCED IT SOMEWHAT IN THE CHEVRON STAFF REPORT AND WE ADDRESSED IT THROUGH THE STAFF REPORT AND THE CONDITIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE THINGS GOT ADDRESSED BECAUSE OF THE GAP IN THE CODE REALLY TO DEAL WITH.
SOME OF THE MORE MINOR THINGS LIKE MILDEW ON WALLS OR MISSING TILES AND THINGS LIKE THAT TEND TO BE A CHALLENGE.
THEY ARE BETTER ADDRESSED FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
THEN JUST ALSO TO NOTE, FROM A STAFFING PERSPECTIVE, THE CODE COMPLIANCE DID EXPERIENCE SOME VACANCIES DURING A PERIOD WHERE RE-HIRING WAS NOT OCCURRING AND NOW THEY'RE TRYING TO CATCH UP WITH THAT.
I THINK THEY'VE BEEN HAVING SOME CHALLENGES WITH BRINGING ON STAFF.
THEY ARE IN THE PROCESS OF ADDING, I BELIEVE, TO CODE OFFICERS THAT WILL HAVE SOME HELP WITH GETTING BACK ON TRACK.
[01:25:04]
>> I'VE LOVE TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THIS LAST THURSDAY.
I KNOW FOUR US ENJOYED THE PLANNING AND ZONING WORKSHOP THAT WAS HOSTED BY THE TOWN OF JUPITER.
IT WAS GREAT. YOU ALWAYS LEARN SOMETHING.
ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY WE WERE LUCKY TO HAVE THE TIME OFF OR BE IN TOWN FOR THAT.
WE THANK THE TOWN OF JUPITER FOR HOSTING THAT.
THERE WAS NONE LAST YEAR BECAUSE OF COVID.
HOPEFULLY, I MEAN THIS WAS GREAT BECAUSE IT WAS RIGHT IN OUR BACKYARD SO THAT WE COULD GO TO IT.
WE ESPECIALLY ENJOYED THE FIRST HALF OF THE PRESENTATIONS, AND SO WE WANTED TO THANK THE TOWN FOR HOSTING.
>> WE CAN'T TAKE ALL THE CREDIT BECAUSE IT WAS ACTUALLY PUT ON BY THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION TREASURE COAST CHAPTER AND I THINK IN COMBINATION WITH THE PLANNING CONGRESS, PALM BEACH COUNTY.
BUT VALERIE DID A LOT OF WORK IN COORDINATING AS DID THE RECREATION STAFF.
THEN EVERYBODY CHIPPED IN A LITTLE BIT AT THE LAST MINUTE TO GET EVERYTHING IN ORDER.
THANK YOU AND I'LL PASS THAT ALONG TO THE ORGANIZERS,.
>> COMMISSIONER HAGUE STOLE MY THUNDER.
[LAUGHTER] I WAS GOING TO COMMENT ON THAT BUT SINCE SHE STOLE MY THOUGHT.
>> SORRY. NOW I'M GOING TO ASK FOR A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
>> SOMEBODY HAD TO GIVE THE MOTION. [LAUGHTER]
>> MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
>> THANK YOU, EVERYBODY FOR YOUR PATIENCE WITH ME SITTING IN FOR TERRY.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.