[1. Seaglass]
[00:01:11]
>> FOR THE SEAGLASS SMALL PLANNED PUD.
DO WE HAVE ANY EX PARTE DISCLOSURES? WHO WANTS TO GIVE ME A START?
>> NONE FOR ANDY FORE. COMMISSIONER.
>> I HAD A DISCUSSION WITH JOHN [INAUDIBLE] REGARDING THE LLC APPLICATION.
>> OKAY. COMMISSIONER GUISINGER.
>> I WALKED THE PROPERTY AND LOOKED AT IT.
>> I HAVE NOTHING TO DISCLOSE.
>> I SPOKE WITH COUNSELOR SCHNEIDER.
PREVIOUSLY, LOOKED AT GOOGLE MAPS AND HAD MY USUAL TALK WITH MARK.
>> [INAUDIBLE] THE PROPERTY, AND WE ALSO TALKED TO PETER.
>> PETER, I MEAN. I SAID MARK, I MEANT PETER.
>> THANK YOU. I SPOKE TO COUNSELOR SCHNEIDER AND JOHN SACKLER, THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND ZONING.
NOW THAT WE HAVE THAT OUT OF THE WAY, MR. BAIRD, WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO THE SWEARING-IN?
>> [INAUDIBLE]. PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE? DO YOU SWEAR THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?
>> THANK YOU. NOW WE WILL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. [NOISE]
>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS, COUNCIL.
>> YEAH. THEY'RE NOT ON HERE EITHER.
>> CAN YOU PRESS A BUTTON TO TURN THEM ON?
>> NO WORRIES. IT'S IMPORTANT.
>> ALL RIGHT. IT'S NICE TO SEE EVERYONE'S FAMILIAR FACE FROM THE LAST MEETING.
I'D LIKE TO JUST SAY AND INTRODUCE MYSELF AGAIN, I'M MILES RICH.
I'M PRESENTING THE SEAGLASS TOWNHOMES AS THE OWNER AND DEVELOPER.
I'D LIKE TO THANK EVERYONE FOR THEIR SUPPORT IN THE LAST MEETING.
I PREVIOUSLY CAME HERE A FEW MONTHS AGO TO GET 35 UNITS APPROVED, AND I PROCEEDED TO A CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC AND DENSITY THAT WE WENT AHEAD AND WE REVISED.
WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, I JUST WANT TO GO THROUGH THE PRESENTATION, EXPLAIN WHAT WE CHANGED SO IT'S CLEAR AND CONCISE, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THE PROJECT IS STILL LOCATED AT 550 BUSH ROAD AS SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE VISITED.
IT'S 2.9 ACRES, IT'S CURRENTLY OCCUPIED BY A HOUSE AND A CHURCH.
RICH PROPERTIES WERE THE DEVELOPER AND THE OWNER STILL.
WE MANAGE OVER 2,000 UNITS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA.
WE'RE A PROFESSIONAL CERTIFIED GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND A MANAGEMENT COMPANY.
RIGHT NOW, WE'RE REQUESTING A SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF 23 UNITS.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL HAVE A PRIVATE ROAD, A POOL, A LEASING OFFICE.
IT'LL BE PROFESSIONALLY MANAGED BY US.
WE ARE IN THE R3 ZONING DISTRICT CURRENTLY AND THAT REQUIRES WE'RE COMPLIANT WITH THE GREEN SPACE,
[00:05:02]
THE SETBACKS, ALL THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.WE HAVE EXCESS PARKING, AND WE HAVE A 10 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFERS AND A 15 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG BUSH ROAD.
CURRENTLY, THE ZONING IS, LIKE I SAID, R3, THE FUTURE LAND USE IS HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
HERE YOU CAN SEE WE'RE OFFERING 23 UNITS ON A 2.93 ACRE PIECE OF LAND, WHICH EQUATES TO 7.85 UNITS PER ACRE.
THAT'S MUCH LESS THAN WHAT WE WERE REQUESTING BEFORE, WHICH WAS 35 UNITS, SO WE HAVE A 35% REDUCTION IN THE DENSITY.
AS YOU CAN SEE IN THIS CHART, WE'RE MUCH MORE COMPARABLE NOW TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES THAT WERE DEVELOPED LONG TIME AGO BEFORE THIS.
YOU CAN SEE OWL POINTE, WHICH IS OUR NEIGHBOR, LAUREL OAKS, TIMBERWALK, AND CHASEWOOD SOUTH.
THEY ALL HAVE HIGHER DENSITY UNITS PER ACRE THAN THE PROPOSED PROJECT HERE AT 550 BUSH ROAD.
THIS IS HOW WE CAME UP WITH OUR DENSITY.
THERE IS A BASE DENSITY OF SIX UNITS.
WE'RE GOING FOR A SMALL SCALE PUD, PROVIDING GREEN BUILDING THEORIES AND BIOSWALES TO GET US TO THE TWO UNITS EXTRA PER ACRE OF BONUS DENSITY TO COME UP WITH 23 UNITS.
THIS IS OUR NEW PARKING CALCULATION AS WELL.
JUST TO COMPARE IT TO OUR LAST PARKING CALCULATION, WE HAD 96 SPACES BEFORE AND NOW WE'RE PROVIDING 117 SPACES.
THAT NUMBER IS INCLUDING THE TWO-CAR GARAGE THAT WE'RE NOW PROVIDING COMPARED TO THE PREVIOUS PROJECT WHICH HAD ONE-CAR GARAGES.
OF COURSE, IT'S STILL A DOUBLE CAR DRIVEWAY UPFRONT.
THAT'S A 30% INCREASE IN PARKING COMPARED TO THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION.
OUR PUBLIC BENEFIT TO GET PART OF OUR SMALL-SCALE PUD IS THE GREEN BUILDING THEORY.
WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THE FLORIDA GREEN BUILDING COALITION.
WE'RE GOING TO ATTAIN A SILVER LEVEL OF CERTIFICATION THROUGH LOW E-CLASS ENERGY EFFICIENT APPLIANCES, ENERGY EFFICIENT WATER FIXTURES.
WE'RE GOING TO ATTAIN A SILVER LEVEL CERTIFICATION THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS, AND WE'RE USING A THIRD-PARTY DESIGN CONSULTANT FOR THE COMPLIANCE AND THE CERTIFICATION.
IN CONCLUSION, WE'RE HERE TO GET THIS PROJECT MOVE FORWARD.
OUR GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES OF THIS PROJECT IS CONCURRENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITH THE TOWN OF JUPITER'S GOALS PER THE CODE, AND WE'RE EXCITED FOR THIS PROJECT.
>> NOW WE'LL HEAR FROM PETER MEYER FROM THE TOWN'S PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT.
>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
FOR THE RECORD, PETER MEYER, SENIOR PLANNER OF STAFF.
THE APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION TONIGHT IS A SMALL SCALE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.
REQUESTS INCLUDE A DENSITY INCREASE OF TWO UNITS PER ACRE.
THE INCREASE FROM 6-8 UNITS PER ACRE EQUATES TO FIVE ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS REQUESTED, AND A SITE PLAN TO CONSTRUCT 23 RENTAL TOWNHOME UNITS ON A SINGLE LOT AS 2.93 ACRES.
A PRIOR APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED BY THE SAME PROPERTY OWNER FOR 35 RENTAL TOWNHOME DWELLING UNITS.
THAT INCLUDED THE CONSTRUCTION OF FIVE WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS THAT RELIED UPON THE GRANTING OF A WORKFORCE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS, AS PROVIDED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING REGULATIONS AS AN INCENTIVE.
THIS APPLICATION WAS CONSIDERED AT THE JANUARY 10, 2023 PLAN AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING, AND WAS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL WITH A SIX TO ONE VOTE.
ON FEBRUARY 7TH, 2023, THE TOWN COUNCIL DENIED THE APPLICATION FOR THE 35 RENTAL TOWNHOUSE DWELLING UNITS.
PURSUANT TO SECTION 27-264, ANY APPLICATION WHICH HAS BEEN DENIED BY A TOWN COUNCIL MAY NOT BE RESUBMITTED FOR A PERIOD OF 24 MONTHS AFTER THE DENIAL.
THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A NEW APPLICATION WHICH DOES NOT REQUEST A DENSITY INCREASE BY PROVIDING ADDITIONAL [INAUDIBLE] HOUSING.
IT DOES REQUEST A DENSITY INCREASE FOR A SMALL-SCALE PUD.
THE REQUEST UNDER CONSIDERATION TONIGHT IS FOR 23 RENTAL TOWNHOUSE DWELLING UNITS, WHICH IS 12 UNITS LESS THAN PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED AND A 34% REDUCTION.
[00:10:04]
THEREFORE, THE APPLICATION WAS CONSIDERED A DIFFERENT APPLICATION AS WAS PERMITTED TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.IN REGARDS TO DENSITY, THE PROPERTY WHO HAS A RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY, LAND USE DENSITY, AND R3 ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH ALLOWS FOR A BASE DENSITY OF SIX UNITS PER ACRE.
BASED ON THE ACRE TO THE SITE, A TOTAL OF 18 UNITS ARE PERMITTED.
THE APPLICANTS REQUESTED AN INCREASE IN DENSITY FROM 6-7.8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE THROUGH THE SMALL-SCALE PUD DENSITY BONUS AS PERMITTED BY POLICY 1.3, 0.4 PARENTHESES A OF OBJECTIVE 1.3 OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, WHICH STATES AN ADDITIONAL TWO UNITS PER GROSS ACRE MAY BE GRANTED IF THE PROJECT IS DEVELOPED AS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING FIVE ADDITIONAL UNITS.
THE PROPOSED DENSITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DENSITY OF SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS.
THE [INAUDIBLE] REQUESTS ANY WAIVER TO THE ZONING CODE AS PART OF THE SMALL-SCALE PUD.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ACHIEVE SILVER LEVEL CERTIFICATION WITH THE FLORIDA GREEN BUILDING COALITION AS A PUBLIC BENEFIT, WHICH IS ONE OF THE SIX IDENTIFIED PUBLIC BENEFITS LISTED IN THE ZONING CODE FOR SMALL-SCALE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENTS.
THIS IS A THIRD PROJECT IN A TOWN PROPOSING TO UTILIZE GREEN BUILDING PROGRAM.
THERE ARE TWO PROJECTS SUCCESSFULLY WERE BUILT AND RECEIVED CERTIFICATION.
THE INTENT OF THE GREEN BUILDING PROGRAM IS TO ENCOURAGE SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION, WATER EFFICIENCY, ENERGY EFFICIENCY, SUSTAINABLE MATERIAL SELECTIONS, AND IMPROVED INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT INFILL PROJECTS.
STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED THE CONDITION TO PRIORITIZE AND ADD CERTIFICATION POINTS, WHICH INCLUDE NOT PROPOSING TURF AND DENSELY SHADED AREAS.
WE PLAN TO DONATE, REMOVE VEGETATION, PRESERVE, OR CREATE WILDLIFE HABITAT, SHELTER, REUSE CLEAR MATERIAL FOR MULCH LANDSCAPE.
THE TOWN CODE REQUIRES OF A SUBMITTAL OF AN IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT EQUALING 5% OF THE TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF THE PROJECT AS REQUIRED BY THE GREEN BUILDING PROGRAM TO ENSURE THE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS ARE SATISFIED.
IN ADDITION, WITHIN 12 MONTHS FROM THE RECEIPT OF THE LAST CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, THEY MUST SUBMIT THE SILVER LEVEL CERTIFICATION FROM THE FLORIDA GREEN BUILDING COALITION.
IN REGARDS TO WORKFORCE HOUSING, ONE WORKFORCE HOUSING UNIT IS REQUIRED BASED ON THE TOWN'S INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENT.
SINCE THE APPLICANT IS NOT REQUESTING A WORKFORCE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS, THEIR HOUSE WOULD PAY A FEE IN LIEU OF CONSTRUCTING THE ONE REQUIRED UNIT ONSITE.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PAY $150,000 AS ESTABLISHED IN THE TOWN CODE.
IN REGARDS TO TRAFFIC DURING THE REVIEW OF THE PRIOR APPLICATION, FIRST PROPERTY, SOME OF THE ISSUES WERE RAISED BY NEARBY RESIDENTS, INCLUDING ISSUES WITH THE VEHICLES TRAVELING SOUTHBOUND ON BUSH ROAD, STACKING AND BLOCKING DRIVEWAYS AND SEMI-TRUCKS TRAVELING SOUTH ON BUSH ROAD.
IN REGARDS TO STACKING, IT WAS INDICATED THAT VEHICLES WERE CAUSING ISSUE EGRESS FROM DEVELOPMENTS.
ACCORDING TO TOWN'S TRAFFIC ENGINEER, THE TURN LANE ADDITIONS AT THE TINY PENNOCK AND BUSH ROAD INTERSECTION ARE SCHEDULED IN 2025 COMMITTEE INVESTMENT PROGRAM.
THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ARE ANTICIPATED TO ADDRESS THE AFOREMENTIONED ADVERSE IMPACTS, TO ESSENTIALLY REDUCE THE SIDE STREET BUSH ROAD DELAY AND IMPROVE ITS CURRENT FAILING LEVEL OF SERVICE FROM LEVEL SERVICE F TO PASS THE LEVEL OF SERVICE C FOR THE PMP COWERS, NOT THIS LEVEL OF SERVICES FOR THE INTERSECTION, NOT FOR BUSH ROAD ITSELF.
IN REGARDS TO SEMI TRACTOR TRAILERS, THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WILL COORDINATE TO HAVE SIGNAGE INSTALLED RESTRICTING A TRACTOR TRAILER TRAFFIC ON BUSH ROAD SOUTH OF THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES THAT FRONT IN THE INTERNAL ROAD BETWEEN WALMART AND TONEY PENNA.
SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING IN JANUARY INCLUDED NEW CONDITION TO ADD A STOP SIGN AT THE ENTRY POINT OF THE PROJECT, AND TO ACQUIRE A SIGNAGE PLAN.
THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE A PLAN THAT INCLUDED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING WARNING SIGN TO BRING AWARENESS TO THE INTERSECTION AND CROSSWALK AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROJECT AS RECOMMENDED BY TOWN ENGINEER.
IN ADDITION THE COMMISSION REQUESTED IF THERE'S A TEMPORARY SOLUTION THAT COULD BE IMPLEMENTED SOONER THAN THE 2025 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FOR THE TONEY PENNA AND BUSH ROAD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT.
ACCORDING TO THE TOWN'S TRAFFIC ENGINEER, IF AN ALWAYS STOP CONTROL IS ADDED TO THE INTERSECTION OF TONEY PENNA AND BUSH ROAD, THE WESTBOUND TRAFFIC DELAY WILL BE INCREASED SIGNIFICANTLY AND IT'S LEVEL SOURCE WILL WORSEN TO A LEVEL F DURING THE PM PEAK HOURS.
THEREFORE, AN ALWAYS STOP CONTROL IS NOT FEASIBLE TRAFFIC MITIGATION FOR THIS LOCATION.
THEY REQUESTED A SMALL-SCALE PUD AND SITE PLANNING [INAUDIBLE] WITH THE TOWN CODE, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT 1, AND CONTINGENT UPON THE TOWN COUNCIL APPROVING THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PUBLIC BENEFIT,
[00:15:04]
AND TO SAVE THEM IN YOUR TIME FOR A REBUTTAL.>> THANK YOU. WE CAN GO ON TO QUESTIONS NOW.
COMMISSIONER PINTEL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO START US OFF?
>> SURE. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
THIS WAS REJECTED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL.
THE TRAFFIC ISSUES YOU FEEL THAT THIS NEW PROPOSAL JUST MODIFIES TO THE TRAFFIC CONCERNS THE TOWN COUNCIL PROJECTED WHEN THEY FIRST CAME BEFORE THEM?
>> THE APPLICATION DOES ADD LESS TRIPS THAN WAS PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED DUE TO THE REDUCTION IN THE DENSITY.
THERE IS STILL A TRAFFIC DEFICIENCY AT THE INTERSECTION OF TONEY PENNA AND BUSH ROAD, WHICH THE TOWN HAD ALREADY TAKEN STEPS IN PROGRAMMING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ON THAT INTERSECTION IN FISCAL YEAR 2025, WHICH STARTS THE OCTOBER OF 2024.
WITH THAT IMPROVEMENT, THE INTERSECTION WILL RETURN TO A LEVEL OF SERVICE THAT'S ACCEPTABLE.
SINCE THAT'S A PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT, WE CAN RELY ON THAT OR THE APPLICATION CAN RELY ON THAT AS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS.
>> ANOTHER QUESTION FOR STAFF IS, THE $143,000 I HEARD ABOUT THEY ARE PAYING INSTEAD OF THE WORKFORCE HOUSING.
WHAT'S THE DETERMINATION ON THAT AS FAR AS WHY THE $143,000, INSTEAD OF ALLOWING IT SO ALL THE UNITS COULD BE SOLD INSTEAD OF A MANDATED WORKFORCE HOUSING.
I'M JUST CURIOUS ON WHAT'S THAT DETERMINATION AT 143,000.
>> IT'S A RENTAL COMMUNITY AND THE CODE SAYS IF YOU COULD PAY A LIEU FOR A RENTAL UNIT FOR REFERENCE HOUSING IS $150,000.
IF THERE A FEE, SIMPLE UNIT WOULD BE $200,000.
>> QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
THE 23 UNITS THAT YOU HAVE, WHAT ARE THE PRICES PER UNIT THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SELL THEM FOR?
>> THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN THE MID 600S.
THEY'RE JUST UNDER 1,800 SQUARE FEET.
>> WE'RE NOT SELLING THEM, WE'RE RENTING THEM, RIGHT?
>> YES [INAUDIBLE] PUT HIS HOUSE.
>> IT'S GOING TO BE A RENTAL. HE ASKED ME HOW MUCH THEY WOULD SELL FOR THE RENTALS.
I THOUGHT YOU ASKED IF THEY WERE TO SELL [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M SORRY. NOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE RENTED FOR [OVERLAPPING]
>> NO, HE DIDN'T KNOW IT FOR RENT.
>> WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO BE RENTED FOR [OVERLAPPING]
>> THERE GOING TO BE 2,750-3,000 A MONTH.
>> DO THE SILVER LEVEL GREEN BUILDING PROGRAM THAT YOU HAVE, WHAT OTHER STEPS DO YOU NEED TO COMPLY WITH TO ENSURE THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE MAINTAINED?
>> TO BE MAINTAINED AFTER CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED?
>> WELL EVERYTHING THAT'S INCORPORATED IN THE FLORIDA GREEN BUILDING CODE OR COALITION WHEN YOU ATTAIN A SILVER CERTIFICATION MOST OF THOSE ITEMS ARE ALL PERMANENT ASPECTS OF THE BUILDING.
THEY'RE WATER FIXTURES AND ENERGY-EFFICIENT APPLIANCE THOSE DON'T GET REMOVED OR OTHER THAN REGULAR MAINTENANCE, IF YOU WERE TO HAVE A NORMAL APPLIANCE COMPARED TO ENERGY-EFFICIENT APPLIANCE ESPECIALLY LIKE THE LOW-E GLASS WINDOWS.
THOSE WINDOWS ARE IN PLACE FOREVER IMPACT GLASS LOW-E WINDOWS.
>> WHAT FEEDBACK HAVE YOU GOTTEN FROM OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITIES ABOUT YOUR PROJECT?
>> I'VE REACHED OUT A FEW TIMES TO THE HLA THAT WE'RE CONCERNED AND IT SHOWED UP HERE.
IN PARTICULAR, IT WAS LAUREL OAKS THAT REALLY WAS OPPOSING THIS PROJECT.
I REACHED OUT TO THE HOA AND I WAS UNABLE TO GET A MEETING WITH THEM AND I HAVE SEVERAL SEVERAL EMAIL CHAINS FOR SEVERAL MONTHS SINCE THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING, HAPPENED IN FEBRUARY AND THEY DENIED ME FOR THE 35 UNITS.
I WENT BACK WITHIN 30 DAYS, PROPOSED THIS TOTALLY NEW PROJECT OF 23 UNITS AND SINCE THEN I HAVE BEEN REACHING OUT, HAVE NOT GOTTEN TO DO A MEETING, BUT I HAVE LET THEM KNOW IN THE EMAILS WHAT I'M PROPOSING AND A COPY OF THE SITE PLAN WAS PROVIDED.
>> NO ONE'S CALLED YOU BACK FROM LAUREL OAKS?
>> THAT'S ALL FOR NOW. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER GARCIA.
>> ONE QUESTION. YOU SHARED A PRIVATE ROAD.
IS THAT THE GATED ROAD DONE OR IS IT [OVERLAPPING]
>> NO. IT'S JUST THE ROAD THAT GOES AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD IT WON'T BE GATED.
>> SO IT'S GOING TO BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE DEVELOPMENT?
>> ONE QUESTION FOR STAFF IS OR EVEN ARE THERE 25 STANDARD BASIS OR 26,
[00:20:03]
I GET TWO DIFFERENT ANALYSIS THAT STAFF PROVIDED ON PAGE 1, DAY 7-26, AND THEN.>> I HAVE THE PARKING CHART HERE I'M NOT SURE WHY THE SCREEN WON'T.
>> THE PLANS MENTIONS 25 GUEST PARKING.
>> SHOULD IT BE 25 IN THE CONDITIONS APPROVAL SLIDE BACK PAGE BUT ON PAGE 1, DAY 7 SAYS 2016 ARE PARKING SPACES, I ASSUME THAT'S FOR GUESTS.
>> YES. THE SITE PLAN SAYS 25 GUESS PARKING SPACES THAT MAY JUST BEEN [OVERLAPPING]
>> I JUST WANTED CLARITY ON THAT, SIR.
>> THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAD.
>> YES, I GOT A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT FIRST, I GUESS.
HAD YOU CONSIDERED MORE THAN 188 SPOT? NO. I SEE WHAT THE ONE THAT YOU HAVE THERE?
>> WOULD YOU BE OPPOSED TO IT JUST SEEMS LIKE YOU HAVE A FEW EXTRA SPOTS WITH THAT.
>> I WOULDN'T BE OPPOSED TO IT.
>> IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR PLAN WHERE YOU SEE IT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROJECT MAYBE ONE JUST TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE SAME STRUCTURE SO YOU BRACKET THE BUILDING WITH 88 SPACES.
IT LOOKS LIKE YOU COULD POSSIBLY SLIDES A LITTLE OFF THAT CONCRETE.
RICHARD IT'S STICKING OUT THERE.
>> WE HAVE THE 188 NEXT TO THE LEASING OFFICE?
>> YOU'RE ASKING ME IF I WOULD BE OPPOSED TO PROVIDING ANOTHER 88 SPOT?
>> CORRECT. POSSIBLY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE LEASING OFFICE.
>> RIGHT. YOU'VE GOT A CONCRETE FEATURE, I GUESS RIGHT THERE.
>> MY CIVIL ENGINEER WAS JUST GOING FROM THE REQUIRED SPACES PER CODE, BUT I DON'T SEE WHY I'D BE OPPOSED TO IT.
>> THAT WOULD PROBABLY BENEFICIAL THERE WITH THE ADA RIGHT NOW IS MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.
IT'S ALWAYS BETTER TO GO A LITTLE BIT ABOVE THAT IF IT'S POSSIBLE.
YOU HAD SAID THAT YOU SENT ME EMAILS AT LEAST TO ONE OF THE DEVELOPMENTS. DID YOU TRY OTHERS?
>> I DID NOT BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE A NEED FOR THAT BECAUSE IN MY COUNCIL MEETING, IT SEEMED IT WAS SOLELY LAUREL OAKS THAT CAME IN HERE.
THE COUNCIL DIDN'T HAVE ANYONE SPEAK ON BEHALF OF OUR POINT OR TIMBER WALK.
>> REMEMBER, WE GOT SOME KICKBACK FROM LAST TIME FROM SOME OF THE RESIDENTS AROUND IT, BUT I DIDN'T SEE YOUR CHART NOW THAT YOU ARE MORE IN LINE WITH THE OTHER DENSITIES AROUND YOU, WHICH I GUESS IS GOOD.
>> YES, AND THAT'S THE PRIMARY GOAL HERE.
>> HOW ARE YOU GOING TO MANAGE TRAFFIC OR MANAGE DELIVERY SO AS TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF THE TRAFFIC OUT THERE?
>> JUST DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE.
>> I'M AWARE THAT USUALLY DURING CONSTRUCTION WE HAVE A WHOLE ENVIRONMENTAL ERP PERMIT.
WE HAVE TO HAVE A SILT FENCE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE WITH ROAD ROCK, SO THERE'S NO DIRT THAT TRACKS BEHIND THE TRUCKS ONTO BUSH ROAD.
WE HAVE TO HAVE STAGING AREAS FOR OUR EQUIPMENT THAT ALL HAS TO BE NOTATED ON A PLAN AND APPROVED THROUGH PLAN REVIEW BEFORE WE EVEN START CONSTRUCTION.
WE COMPLY WITH THAT AND WE'VE BUILT 19 UNITS BEFORE ON 1.5 ACRES ON A MAJOR ROAD BEFORE, VERY TIGHT AREA AND WE'RE USED TO IT.
WE KEEP OUR STUFF CONTAINED, WE DON'T SEEP OUT OF OUR BOUNDARIES.
>> I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THAT, BUT I GUESS WHAT I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT IS JUST THE MERE PRESENCE OF TRUCKS COMING IN AND WHEN IT'S BAD THERE, IT'S SUPER BAD WHEN YOU PULL IT OUT ANYWHERE ALONG THAT ROAD GOING SOUTH IS JUST A NIGHTMARE NOW.
>> IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE THAT WAY FOR A WHILE SO THE WHOLE TIME YOU'RE OVERLAPPING WITH A PROBLEM AREA ALREADY.
IF YOU COULD MINIMIZE THE TIME YOU PUT TRUCKS THERE DURING THE RUSH HOURS, THAT WOULD CERTAINLY HELP.
>> MOST CONSTRUCTION IS DONE VERY EARLY IN THE MORNING.
CONCRETE TRUCKS COME OUT EARLY IN THE MORNING THEY DON'T DRIVE THERE, BUT THEY LEAVE THE SITE BY LUNCHTIME IF WE'RE DOING CONCRETE PORES THAT DAY AND WE PLAN ON DOING MOST OF THE LAND IMPROVEMENTS AS WELL SO WE WILL HAVE A FULL OPERABLE ROAD.
IF IT DOESN'T HAVE THE FIRST LIFT, THE ASPHALT, IT'S DEFINITELY GOING TO HAVE ROADBLOCK AND ROAD BASE SO THE TRUCKS CAN PARK AROUND THIS ENTIRE AREA.
DURING CONSTRUCTION THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE PARALLEL PARKING ON BUSH ROAD WAITING TO LOAD OR UNLOAD WHATEVER THEY MAYBE LOADING.
[00:25:03]
>> IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU THOUGHT IT OUT, THAT SOUNDS GOOD.
FOR STAFF, PETER, YOU HAD MENTIONED THIS IS ONE OF THREE GREEN APPROVED, AND TWO OTHERS HAD ALREADY BEEN APPROVED UNDER THE GREEN.
>> ONE IS VILLA DEL MONTE WHICH IS, I THINK IT'S 20 TOWNHOUSE UNITS UPON OLD GPT ROAD THEN THE OTHER ONE IS BOYD MEDICAL WHICH IS ON INDIAN TOWN ROAD AND I'M NOT SURE THE SIDE STREET.
THAT'S A COMMERCIAL, LOCKS ACTION MOVIE.
>> DID YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THEM COMPLYING WITH THE CERTIFICATION THEY WERE ASKING FOR.
>> NO I DON'T RECALL ANY PROBLEMS WITH IT NOW.
>> THIS IS A TRIED AND TRUE METHODOLOGY TO ACHIEVE THIS.
I GUESS THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU.
>> THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
WHAT ARE THE MAJOR DIFFERENCES WITH THIS APPLICATION COMPARED TO THE ORIGINAL OTHER THAN THE FEWER UNITS, THERE'S NO WORKFORCE UNITS APPLIED AND THE FEE ALLOCATION, WHAT ARE THE MAJOR DIFFERENCES OTHER THAN THOSE?
>> AS HE MENTIONED IN REGARDS TO REDUCTION IN UNITS, THE MIDDLE UNIT'S LARGER THEY DOUBLE THE SIZE, THE ACCOMMODATING, YOU HAVE MORE PARKING ON-SITE.
THEY HAVE ALMOST DOUBLE THE PARKING OF WHAT'S REQUIRED.
THEY DEALT WITH SOME COMMENTS REGARDS TO TRASH AND THINGS THAT ARE ON THE SITE AND THEN REGARDS.
WORKFORCE HOUSING SAYS BEING PAID OUT INSTEAD OF BEING CONSTRUCTED.
>> WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT THERE'S IMPROVEMENTS COMPARED TO WHAT THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION WAS IN JANUARY. IS THAT CORRECT? BASED ON THE TRAFFIC IMPACT IMPROVEMENTS OUTLINED IN OUR PACKET.
DID WE INCORPORATE THE RESIDENT CONCERNS IN THOSE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WERE STATED IN JANUARY AND IN FEBRUARY TOWN COUNCIL.
WITH THE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE IMPACT STUDIES THAT WERE DISCUSSED THAT WE'RE TRYING TO PUT TOGETHER, DID WE INCORPORATE THE RESIDENT CONCERNS INTO THOSE PLANS?
>> THE PLAN WAS PROACTIVELY UNDERWAY BY THE TOWN, AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TO ADDRESS THE DEFICIENCIES THAT WERE OCCURRING THERE THAT RESULTED IN THOSE COMPLAINTS.
IT WAS ALREADY PROGRAM TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES.
I DON'T THINK THERE WAS A LOT OF AWARENESS AMONGST THE COMMUNITY THAT THE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WAS ALREADY UNDERWAY.
>> WHAT WOULD BE THE TIMING OF COMPLETION OF THAT PROJECT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR THE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT.
>> IT HASN'T BEEN LET YET, BUT IT WILL BE FUNDED ON OCTOBER 1ST, 2024, SO JUST A LITTLE OVER A YEAR OUT.
THE FUNDING WILL BE AVAILABLE TO LET THAT PROJECT.
WE WOULD HAVE TO GET WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TO BEGIN TO ESTIMATE WHEN THEY EXPECT COMPLETION.
BUT IT'S NOT A MONUMENTAL IMPROVEMENT.
>> THE CURRENT LEVEL OF EMERGENCY SERVICES BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A NURSING HOME.
THAT'S NURSING FACILITY THAT'S CLOSE BY, ACCORDING TO A COUNSELOR MAY THAT IT WAS RATED IN F AT THE TIME.
THIS WAS BACK IN FEBRUARY WITH THE IMPROVEMENTS OF WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING WHERE THE TRAFFIC AND PREFERENCE AND EVERYTHING, THAT'S WHERE DID WE CALCULATE THAT THE RATING FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES WOULD BE AVAILABLE?
>> WE WOULD HAVE TO INQUIRE WITH FIRE RESCUE FOR THAT TYPE OF INFORMATION OR OTHER SOURCES.
>> BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A CONCERN THAT COUNSEL AT THIS PROPOSED.
THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT.
WHAT WOULD BE YOUR TIMING OF COMPLETION OF YOUR PROJECT IF JUST SAY THAT EVERYTHING GETS APPROVED.
I'M JUST LOOKING FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF REALLY IDENTIFYING WITH THE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS, AND HOW THAT INTERPLAYS WITH THE IMPACT WITH THE COMMUNITY ITSELF.
>> OF COURSE, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
THAT'S BEEN A QUESTION ASKED IN EVERY MEETING, ESPECIALLY IN FEBRUARY.
I UNDERSTOOD THAT THE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS WE'RE GOING TO START IN OCTOBER 2024.
AS MARK SAID, IT'S OCTOBER 2024 IS THE FINANCING AVAILABILITY.
I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH HOW QUICKLY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CAN START THEIR IMPROVEMENTS.
THAT PROJECT, IT'S OUT OF MY CONTROL.
HOWEVER, IF THIS PROJECT WERE TO BE APPROVED, LET'S SAY IN THE AUGUST COUNCIL MEETING.
WE WOULD HAVE TO GO AND GET CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS FROM DESIGN PROFESSIONALS SINCE THESE ARE JUST PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS.
THAT WOULD TAKE ANYWHERE 3-6 MONTHS TO GET DRAWN UP.
[00:30:02]
THEN WE'D HAVE TO GO AND SUBMIT FOR A PERMANENT APPLICATION.I WOULD ASSUME THAT WE'D BE SUBMITTING FOR BUILDING PERMITS IN FEBRUARY OR MARCH OF 2024, WHICH THEN WE WOULD EXPECT AN EIGHT-WEEK TURNAROUND TIME FOR PLAN REVIEW.
WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS PROJECT BREAK GROUND SOMETIME IN THE SUMMER OF 2024 TOWARDS THE LATE SUMMER, EARLY FALL, DEPENDING ON.
OF COURSE, I'M AT THE MERCY OF DESIGN CONSULTANTS AND PLAN REVIEW.
>> I'M JUST TRYING TO SEE HOW EVERYTHING MIRRORS AND COMES TOGETHER TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF THE CITIZENS.
>> ABSOLUTELY. YOU ALSO ASKED WHAT'S DIFFERENT ABOUT THIS PROJECT.
I DO WANT TO ADD THE UNITS ARE LARGER.
THERE ARE ABOUT 17-80 SQUARE FEET UNDER 1,800 SQUARE FEET.
THEY WERE UNDER 1,500 SQUARE FEET.
THERE WERE 14-50 AND CHANGE, 1,450 SQUARE FEET WHEN THEY WERE 35 UNITS, THERE WERE 19 FEET WIDE UNITS.
NOW THEY'RE 23 FEET WIDE UNITS, WHICH ALLOWS US TO PUT THE DOUBLE CAR GARAGE, WIDER LIVING ROOMS, WIDER BEDROOMS. THAT'S A COMPONENT THAT I JUST DID NOT HERE.
I'D LIKE TO PUT THAT OUT THERE.
>> GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO US IN THE CITY OR THE TOWN COUNCIL ON THIS.
THIS IS WHAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR, THE CHANGE, THE DENSITY.
WE'RE HAPPY TO SEE THAT YOU TOOK THEM TO THIS ITERATION, WHAT WE SAID AND ALSO THE TOWN COUNCIL SAID AND INCORPORATING ALL THESE IDEAS, THAT'S MOST APPRECIATE IT.
WE HAVE A NEED FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING.
WHY COULDN'T LEAVE HAD ANY OF THIS WORK WE'RE HOUSING.
IS THAT A BUSINESS DECISION ICELAND?
>> IT'S A HARD QUESTION TO ANSWER.
IT'S A HARD QUESTION TO ANSWER BECAUSE I CAME IN HERE WITH WORKFORCE HOUSING AND I WAS DENIED.
I JUST HAVE TO LEAVE IT AT THAT.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY ON THAT.
I THINK THAT MOST OF MY COLLEAGUES.
I THINK WE'VE STATED HERE IN MY OPINION IT WASN'T FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING.
IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS, THE TRAFFIC REQUIREMENTS, AND THEN WHAT THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS SAID.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE WAS MUCH TALK ABOUT AUSTENITE BECAUSE IT WAS WORKFORCE HOUSING.
IT WAS JUST THE DENSITY AND THANKS.
[BACKGROUND] THAT'S TRUE. THAT'S TRUE.
HE'S TALKING ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL.
ON THE COUNCIL, I'M SURE WHEN YOU SET US.
OF COURSE IT WAS JUST IT WAS DENIED.
THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF A BUSINESS DECISION INCORPORATED IN ECONOMICS HAS A TOLL ON DEVELOPERS LIKE US.
WHEN WE COME DOWN TO A 23 UNIT PROJECT LIKE THIS.
IF WE GO AHEAD AND NOW WE START TALKING ABOUT PROVIDING WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS WITH SOMETHING SO SMALL IT ALMOST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE FOR US TO DEVELOP THE PROJECT AT SOMETHING SMALL LIKE THIS.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE GOING FOR THE 35 UNITS.
IF I WERE TO SHOW IT ON PAPER, YOU WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT EVERY WORKFORCE HOUSING UNIT, YOU HAVE TO SUBSIDIZE A MARKET RATE UNIT, ABOUT 1.75.
IT'S NOT A ONE-TO-ONE. YOU HAVE TO HAVE 1.75 MARKET RATE UNITS JUST TO SUBSIDIZE AND HOLD THAT ONE WORKFORCE HOUSING UNIT.
I WAS WILLING TO DO THAT WITH THE INCREASED DENSITY.
THAT'S WHY THE CODE IS WRITTEN IN SUCH WAYS ALL AROUND THE STATE.
>> I CAME IN WITH WORKFORCE HOUSING.
>> I CAN'T SPEAK FOR MY COLLEAGUES, BUT I LIKE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE DENSITY THAT WE WERE BEFORE AND I LIKE REPORTS HOUSING TOO.
>> IT BOGGLED MY MIND THAT IT GOT DENIED. THERE YOU GO.
>> BY THE WAY, MY COLLEAGUES DID A GREAT JOB OF ASKING A QUESTION LIKE TO CALL IT ONE, WHILE MY THUNDER AWAY FROM ME.
>> WE'RE STILL PAYING THE FEE OF COURSE.
WE'RE STILL PAYING THE FEE OF THE INCLUSIONARY 7%.
FOR THE WORKFORCE HOUSING WE'RE PAYING INTO THE FUND.
>> I'M NEW TO THE SCRIPT. I MISSED THE ORIGINAL PIECE.
WHAT YOU WERE ASKING ABOUT WHEN THE PROJECT WOULD START? HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE TO COMPLETE, IF STARTED IN SUMMER OF 2024?
>> WE EXPECTED TO BE COMPLETED BY FALL OF 2025, LATEST THE END OF THE FOLLOWING YEAR, 2025.
>> TWELVE TO 16 MONTHS CONSTRUCTION.
[00:35:01]
>> MY CONCERN WAS THE NORTHERN NEIGHBOR.
WHEN I LOOK AT THIS MAP, THE ONE WE HAVE UP RIGHT NOW, IT LOOKS TO ME, AM I CORRECT THAT THEY'RE ABOUT FOUR FEET AWAY FROM THE FENCE THAT YOU'RE PUTTING UP.
THAT'S THE ONLY 15 FEET FROM THE BACK OF THAT UNIT? [NOISE]
>> THAT'S AN EXISTING HOME. IT WAS BUILT QUITE SOME TIME LONG AGO.
>> I ALSO I'D LIKE TO CHECK ON A SATELLITE VIEW.
BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE, I THINK THE SURVEYOR MARKED THAT AS A HOME.
I THINK THAT MIGHT BE AN AUXILIARY BUILDING, THAT'S PART OF THAT SINGLE-FAMILY LOT.
I COULD PULL UP A GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE IF I HAVE ACCESS.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THESE DIFFERENT TOWNHOUSE.
OR THESE DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE THEY EVER SPOKEN WITH, AND WE'RE HERE AND WHATEVER.
BUT, THAT A COUPLE OF LONE NEIGHBORS THERE, I WOULD HAVE CONCERN FOR THEM THAT THEY REALLY KNOW WHAT'S COMING.
I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY'S TALKED WITH THEM, THAT I'M JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE.
ANOTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS, AS FAR AS THE COLORS, I DROVE ALL THROUGH THERE.
IT'S PRETTY MUCH ALIKE, BUT THERE ARE DIFFERENT TOWNHOUSES.
THEN YOURS IS COMING IN WITH A LOT OF COLOR, WHICH I THINK IS BEAUTIFUL.
I LIVE IN ABACOA, BELIEVE ME I KNOW COLOR.
BUT WHILE IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S BEAUTIFUL, IT SEEMS LIKE IT MIGHT STICK OUT A LITTLE BIT.
I WOULD WONDER ABOUT HAVING ONE COLOR INSTEAD OF THE THREE COLORS, JUST SO THAT IT WOULD BE NOT SO STICKING OUT FROM WHAT'S ALREADY THERE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED.
WHEN I PRESENTED IT TO STAFF, I WAS TOLD THAT DIVERSITY IS, ENCOURAGED IN THE ELEVATIONS OF BUILDINGS.
THEY WANTED THE BUILDINGS TO NOT LOOK SO SIMILAR.
IT'S TOUGH TO CHANGE THE ACTUAL ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS OF THE BUILDINGS, WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO BUILD BUILDINGS IN A 12-MONTH PERIOD.
WE DECIDED TO CHANGE THE COLORS.
SOME WALLS ON SOME BUILDINGS HAVE LAP SIDING.
SOME WALLS ON SOME BUILDINGS HAVE SMOOTH STUCCO.
WE INCORPORATED COLORS WITH THE LAP SIDING IN THE STUCCO TO CREATE THE DIVERSITY.
>> MAY I ASK PETER, CAN YOU ADDRESS THAT PART OF WHY STAFF FEELS THAT WAY ABOUT THE DIVERSITY OF BUILDINGS? I'M SORRY. [LAUGHTER]
>> WELL, YOU WANT DIVERSITY INTO THAT BUILDINGS.
SOME OF THE SURROUNDING BUILDINGS ARE ALL ONE COLOR.
YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW, WHERE YOU'RE GOING.
YOU WANT TO HAVE BUILDINGS LOOK DIFFERENT.
SOME OF OUR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
ADD SOME DIFFERENT DETAILS TO EACH BUILDINGS. TO ME THEY STAND OUT.
THEY ARE DIFFERENT. THEY COULD CHANGE COLORS TO BE A LITTLE BIT LIGHTER IF YOU WANT TO.
BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT PROVIDE MORE [NOISE] DIVERSITY TO HAVE DIFFERENT COLORS.
MORE THAN ONE COLOR AS ON A PALETTE.
>> BUT I DID NOTICE DIVERSITY IN THE LAP SIDE [NOISE] IN STUCCO.
THE FACT THERE'S TWO CAR GARAGES, WHICH MOST PLACES THERE DON'T HAVE.
THE TRELLISES OR THE PERGOLAS WITH THE SHED ROOFS.
I THOUGHT A GREAT IDEA FOR HOW TO DEAL WITH THE WAY THE FRONT DOORS ARE SET BACK SO FAR.
BUT I JUST FEEL THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO REALLY STAND OUT [NOISE] FROM THE REST OF EVERYTHING THERE.
IT'S GOING TO MAKE THOSE LOOK OLDER AND PERHAPS LOSE VALUE.
>> [NOISE] THE TOWN DOES HAVE MONOTONY STANDARDS THAT ARE IN OUR ARCHITECTURAL COMMUNITY APPEARANCE, SECTION OF THE CODE.
THAT DOES INCLUDE COMPATIBILITY AND BEING COMPLIMENTARY TO ADJACENT BUILDINGS.
THOSE ARE THINGS YOU CAN TAKE IN CONSIDERATION AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON.
I THINK LIKE PETER SAID, IF YOU CAN THINK THE COLORS ARE TOO STRONG, THEY COULD BE MUTED IF THAT'S A RECOMMENDATION.
WE COULD WORK WITH THE APPLICANT AND IF THEY'RE OPEN TO THAT TO, DEVELOP NEW COLORS OR BRING NEW COLORS BEFORE COUNCIL.
>> I WOULD RECOMMEND GOING WITH ONE OF THE COLORS.
I'M USING IT THROUGHOUT NOT ALL THREE, WHICH PROBABLY WOULD A LITTLE BIT EASIER FOR YOU GUYS.
BUT THAT IT JUST WOULDN'T STAND OUT SO MUCH FROM THE NEIGHBORING DEVELOPMENTS.
>> I WOULD SAY MY REACTION TO THAT IS JUST THAT, THE THINKING IS NOT TO HAVE EVERYTHING SO COOKIE CUTTER AND EVERYTHING THE SAME.
IF IT [NOISE] CAN BECOME TOO MUCH LIKE THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS, SO IT ALL LOOKS COOKIE CUTTER.
OR WHERE YOUR POINT TO YOUR POINT IT'S
[00:40:03]
MAY BE A LITTLE BIT TOO OUT OF THE BOX FOR THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.BUT THAT'S LIKE JOHN SAID, YOU CAN MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THAT.
>> YES. AT THIS POINT, THIS PART OF THE DELIBERATION.
OR THIS PART OF THE MEETING, WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO ASK THE APPLICANT PERHAPS IF THEY'RE OPEN TO CHANGING SOMETHING.
THEN DURING DELIBERATIONS FOR THE COMMISSION TO DISCUSS THAT.
>> SORRY, SHOULD I ASK NOW? [LAUGHTER]
>> YEAH. IF YOU WANT TO GET THAT INPUT FROM THE APPLICANT.
THIS IS YOUR TIME TO SOLICIT INFORMATION FROM STAFF AND THE APPLICANT.
>> WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO CHANGING TO ONE COLOR INSTEAD OF THE THREE ACROSS THE TOP?
I PICKED UP THE COLORS MYSELF.
I WENT THROUGH A LOT OF APPROVED COLORS.
I WAS GIVEN A SUPPLEMENTAL ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS.
I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS PROJECT MAINTAIN ITS INDIVIDUALITY, AND DIVERSIFICATION BETWEEN BUILDING AND BUILDING.
I DO WANT TO SAY ONE BUILDING WILL HAVE ONE CONSTANT ACCENT COLOR.
I'M OPEN TO NEW COLORS, BUT I STILL WANT TO SEE THE BUILDINGS BE A LITTLE DIVERSIFIED.
BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S WHAT COUNCIL LIKES TOO AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS TOLD BY STAFF.
>> I THINK FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC, IF THEY'RE SEEING THE RENDERING ON THE SCREEN, THE GREEN IS MUCH STRONGER THAN WHAT WE'RE SEEING ON THE COLOR PALETTE THAT'S IN THE ROOM.
>> YEAH. [OVERLAPPING] THE ACTUAL COLORS ARE SOFTER THAT ARE ON THE BOARD.
>> IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY THEN WE HAVE PAINT SAMPLES ON THE LAST ONE THAT THEY WEREN'T AS INTENSE.
>> THESE ARE THE BENJAMIN MOORE PAINT SAMPLES.
>> YEAH. I THINK THE CHIPS LOOKED A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT WHEN WE LOOKED AT THEM.
THERE WAS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT WAS ON THERE.
THEN THE ACTUAL PAINT CHIP WHERE IT WAS A LITTLE BIT MORE SUBTLE.
I DON'T KNOW, IT WAS FOUR MONTHS AGO. [LAUGHTER]
>> I REMEMBER JUST BRINGING THIS MATERIAL BOARD.
>> DO I, I'M THINKING OF SOMETHING ELSE?
>> YEAH. I'VE ALWAYS BROUGHT THIS SAME MATERIAL BOARD.
IT WAS NEVER BROUGHT UP IN EITHER MEETING.
THIS COMMISSION MEETING OR THE TOWN COUNCIL MEETING ABOUT MATERIAL BOARD.
>> UNLESS [LAUGHTER] IT WAS STAFF PROVIDED.
>>.OKAY. YOU'RE CORRECT. [LAUGHTER]
>> I THOUGHT I WAS MAY BE ALZHEIMER'S SETTING IN OR SOMETHING.
YOU STILL HAVE THE FLOOR. DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?
>> I JUST HAD SOME ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
IS THIS PROJECTS OTHER THAN DESIGN ESSENTIALLY USEFUL FOR USING IN JACKSONVILLE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT?
NO. I'VE DONE ANGLO CARIBBEAN BEFORE, IN THE CITY OF LAKE WORTH.
I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE ASPECTS OF IT.
BUT THIS WAS COMPLETELY DESIGNED FROM SCRATCH WITH MY ARCHITECT.
>> WE DO NOT HAVE AN EXACT DATE.
IT'S FUNDED IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR OCTOBER 1ST, 2024 FOR THE FUNDS TO BECOME AVAILABLE, AND IT'LL DEPEND ON THE SCHEDULING OF THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND WHATEVER CONTRACTOR THAT MAY GET A SUCCESSFUL BID TO DO THAT PROJECT BEFORE WE'LL KNOW EXACTLY.
BUT IT IS PRACTICE IF AN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IS FUNDED, IT CAN BE RELIED ON SO FAR AS MEETING THE LEVEL OF SERVICE.
>> NOW, I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT THAT EVERYTHING IS GOING TO HIT AT THE SAME TIME.
>> WHAT BECOMES OF THE COORDINATION? [OVERLAPPING]
>> CAN PRIORITY BE GIVEN TO THE CAPITAL PROJECT?
>> I'M JUST FOLLOWING UP YOUR QUESTION.
YOU'RE QUESTIONING WHETHER OR.
[00:45:02]
>> WELL, BUT NOT OUTSIDE THE PREVIEW OF THE SITE PLAN COUNCIL DECIDES BUDGETS AND IMPROVEMENT SCHEDULE FOR IT.
>> I WAS JUST THINKING OF WHAT PRIORITY GETTING ME GIVEN.
>> NO, YOUR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO REVIEW THE COURT'S CRITERIA FOR SITE PLAN.
WE'RE LIVING IN A TWO-YEAR AREA WITH A MAJOR BRIDGE CLOSURE.
A COUPLE OF MONTHS ON A SERVICE ROAD, I KNOW IT'S INCONVENIENT, BUT I LIVE IN THE MIDDLE OF ALL THE TRAFFIC COMING OFF THE BRIDGE BEING CLOSED SO IT'S MIGHT NOT BE AS BAD AS WE THINK IT IS BECAUSE THE BRIDGE ISN'T AS BAD AS I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE.
>> I HAVE NO REAL ISSUES WITH THIS PROJECT.
I DIDN'T HAVE MANY ISSUES WITH THE FIRST PROJECT AND I WAS LIKE I SAID, FOGGLED THAT IT GOT DENIED BY COUNCIL.
BUT MY QUESTION IS FOR STAFF, IF THERE'S A TWO-YEAR RULE, AND YOU CAN JUST GO BACK AND MAKE CHANGES, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE IN BEING DENIED AND WITHDRAWING YOUR APPLICATION? IF YOU WITHDRAW YOUR APPLICATION, YOU CAN GO BACK AND MAKE CHANGES AND COME BACK TO COUNCIL ANYTIME YOU WANT.
BUT IF THE TWO-YEAR RULE IS THAT YOU'RE DENIED BY COUNCIL AND YOU HAVE TO WAIT TWO YEARS AND YOU CAN MAKE CHANGES.
>> THE TWO-YEAR RULE IS NOT IF YOU'RE DENIED, IT'S IF YOU CAN COME BACK IF YOUR PROJECT IS SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT.
IT SAYS THE APPLICATION IF IT'S DENIED BY COUNCIL, THEY HAVE TO WAIT TWO YEARS, AND IT'S THE SAME APPLICANT ON THE SAME PIECE OF PROPERTY.
>> MR. SACKLER CAN ADDRESS IT, BUT THAT'S NEVER BEEN MY UNDERSTANDING.
>> THEN EVERY COUNCIL THAT I'VE EVER SPOKEN TO IN THE EIGHT YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN TALKING TO THEM, HAS ALWAYS SAID THAT IF THEY DENY THEY CAN'T COME BACK FOR TWO YEARS.
>> THE STAFF HAS ACCEPTED THE APPLICATION.
>> I'M SEEING THAT. I'M ASKING THE QUESTION, WHAT MAKES THE DIFFERENCE?
>> I DON'T. THEN THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING DENIED IF YOU CAN CHANGE IT AND THAT WAS A MAJOR ISSUE WITH LOVE STREET WHEN THAT WAS GETTING DENIED, SO THAT'S MY ONLY QUESTION.
>> THE LANGUAGE IS ON PAGE 4 OF THE STAFF REPORT, IN THE MIDDLE PARAGRAPH.
IT SAYS PURSUANT TO SECTION 27- 264, ANY APPLICATION WHICH HAS BEEN DENIED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL MAY NOT BE RESUBMITTED FOR A PERIOD OF 24 MONTHS AFTER THE DENIAL.
THE APPLICATION THAT WAS DENIED HAS BEEN CHANGED OR ELIMINATED.
THE WORKFORCE HOUSING DENSITY INCENTIVE REDUCE THE DENSITY BY A THIRD AND MAY THE OTHER CHANGES HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED TONIGHT.
WE DID FEEL THAT THOSE WERE MATERIAL CHANGES.
CERTAINLY THE COUNCIL WOULD BE THE ULTIMATE DECISION-MAKER ON THAT CIRCUMSTANCE, AND THEY DID FILE A NEW APPLICATION, NEW FEES, AND PAY ALL THAT FOR A NEW APPLICATION NOT TO BRING BACK THE SAME.
>> I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE CLEAR TO THE COUNCILORS THAT I KNOW AND HAVE SPOKEN TO OVER THE YEARS BECAUSE THAT'S NOT HOW THEY INTERPRET THAT RULE AT ALL.
THAT BEING SAID, IF NOBODY ELSE HAS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, I'LL GO TO THE PUBLIC.
DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENT CODES FOR THIS APPLICATION?
>> WE DO NOT HAVE ANY COMMENTS.
WELL, I DO HAVE JANE SNELL, WHO SHE DIDN'T WISH TO SPEAK BUT WAS OPPOSED TO THE DEVELOPMENT ON BUSH ROAD DUE TO THE TRAFFIC CONCERNS.
>> THANK YOU. WE'LL GO TO DELIBERATIONS.
COMMISSIONER BLUM YOU WANT TO START WITH ANY CONVERSATION YOU WANT TO HAVE ABOUT IT?
>> I STILL HAVE CONCERNS WITH THAT NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH TO BE FOUR FEET FROM WHERE THIS FENCE IS GOING.
I THINK IT'S BEAUTIFUL PROJECT, BUT I DO THINK THAT THAT NEIGHBOR NEEDS SOME CONSIDERATION AND THEN THE COLORS, I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT JUST BECAUSE I THINK IT'S GOING TO MAKE IT SO DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHERS AROUND IT, AND THOSE ARE NOT RENTALS, THOSE ARE PEOPLE WHO OWN THOSE, AND THAT IT COULD DECREASE THEIR PROPERTY VALUES AND PROCESS.
>> WELL, I APPRECIATE. LIKE I SAID BEFORE, YOU LISTENING TO WHAT THE COUNCIL HAS SAID AND THEN WHAT WE HAVE SAID IN TRYING TO MEET OVERCOME OUR OBJECTIONS, AND I THINK YOU'VE DONE A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF THAT AND THE TRAFFIC AND OBVIOUSLY, ONE OF THE CONSIDERATIONS WAS THE LARGE TURNOUT THAT WE HAD BEFORE FROM THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTS THAT WERE OPPOSED TO IT AND I DON'T SEE THAT HERE.
WE ARE NOT HAVING THE DENSITY THAT WE HAD BEFORE, WHICH IS ALL GOOD.
I THINK IT'S GOING ON A POSITIVE NOTE AND I APPRECIATE THAT.
[00:50:06]
>> YOU KNOW THE TWO MAIN CONCERNS THAT WE DO KNOW IS DENSITY AND THE TRAFFIC FROM THE RESIDENTS.
CONCERN I DO HAVE NOW JUST HAVING MORE INFORMATION OF THE EXPANSION OF WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO ADDRESS THE RESIDENTS IS THE TIMING OF THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT AND WITH OUR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS.
BUT WHEN I'M DOING THE CALCULATION, GIVE OR TAKE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT POSSIBLY 12 MONTHS AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE AS A COUNCIL NEED TO HAVE AS IN CONSIDERATION FOR THIS PROPOSAL. THANK YOU.
>> THE 12 MONTH, I'M JUST GUESSTIMATING IN-BETWEEN WITH THE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE PROJECT ACTUALLY GETTING INITIATED AND THEY ARE ANTICIPATING A COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT TO FALL 2025.
I'M JUST LOOKING AT WHAT THAT BUFFER IS BETWEEN THIS PROJECT BEING COMPLETED AND US BEING ABLE TO HAVE AN IMPROVEMENT ON OUR TRAFFIC IMPACT IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA.
>> I APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT COMING BACK WITH THE SILVER LEVEL GREEN BUILDING PROGRAM.
I THINK THE PROJECT HAS A LOT OF BENEFITS, BUT I DO HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS WITH MYSELF AND OTHER COUNCIL COMMISSIONERS HAVE RAISED.
THE TRAFFIC IS GOING TO BE A BIG ISSUE, AND I'M STILL CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
I'M ALSO, AS I RAISED EARLIER, CONCERNED ABOUT THE NON HAVING NEW WORKFORCE HOUSING.
I GUESS THE FIELDS IT IS THE FLORIDA STATUE, WHATEVER IT IS, YOU CAN PAY A FEE, BUT IT BOTHERS ME IN THAT SENSES.
I HAVE SOME MIXED FEELINGS ABOUT THIS ISSUE. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU THE APPLICANT FOR COMING HERE AND PRESENTING YOUR PRESENTATION AND ALSO FOR THE THOROUGH ANALYSIS THAT STAFF PROVIDED FOR THE PROJECT.
ONE OF THE THINGS I LIKED ABOUT THE ENTIRE PROJECT WAS DIVERSITY OF COLOR.
I COMMEND BOTH THE STAFF AND THE APPLICANT FOR THE SELECTION OF COLORS AND THE AGREEMENT ON IT AND ALL THE OTHER ARCHITECTURAL CHANGES, EXTERIOR THAT AGREED TO.
WITH THAT, I'M ON BOARD AND I SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER FOURIER.
>> I SPENT JUST A SECOND LOOKING UP ON GOOGLE TO SEE WHAT THAT STRUCTURE IS AND IT APPEARS TO BE A HOUSE FIVE FEET AWAY, WHICH IS ODD, BUT IT'S BEEN GRANDFATHERED IN.
THERE'S BEEN OTHER PLACES IN TOWN WHERE YOU'LL FIND A NEW DEVELOPMENT UP AGAINST SOMETHING THAT'S FIVE FEET AWAY, BUT THEY'RE THE ONES VIOLATING THE SETBACK, NOT THE APPLICANT.
IT'S THE EXISTING STRUCTURE THERE.
I GUESS IT'S GRANDFATHERED INTO THE SETBACK THAT IT'S CURRENTLY SITTING IN.
BUT IT REALLY SHOULD NOT REFLECT ADVERSELY, I THINK, ON THE APPLICANT.
IT'S NOT HIS FAULT THEY VIOLATED THE SETBACK.
BUT I SUSPECT IT'S AN OLD STRUCTURE, BEEN THERE FOR A WHILE.
IT APPEARS TO BE A HOUSE SO THAT IS PROBLEMATIC.
IT IS RIGHT THERE ON THE BORDER.
BUT I DON'T SEE THAT AS A PENALTY FOR THAT.
OBVIOUSLY, THE TRAFFIC'S THE BIGGEST PROBLEM OUT THERE.
IT HURTS THAT WE CAN'T TURN THE BUSH INTO A THREE-WAY STOP.
BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY SAID WHEN THEY SAY IT'LL BRING THIS TO A C, BUT IT WILL FAIL TONY BENNETT.
IT'S ALMOST A NO WIN SITUATION.
NOW, YOU'VE GOT TO LOOK AT VOLUME.
IT'S GOING TO HURT BUSH CLEARLY, BUT IT'S ALSO WITHIN THE PARK, WHICH HAS MORE TRAFFIC ON IT.
I AGREE, THE BEST OF ALL WORLDS, IF WE COULD SOMEHOW CONVINCE THEM, SPEEDING UP OF THAT PROJECT TO PUT A TIMELINE DOWN HERE.
HAVING SAID THAT, IT APPEARS THAT THE DENSITY NOW HAS BEEN BROUGHT DOWN TO A SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER LEVEL, WHERE IT'S NOW GOING TO BE THE SECOND LOWEST DENSITY AREA OF DEVELOPMENT IN THERE.
IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE NUMBERS, IT ACTUALLY REALLY IS COMPARABLE TO WHAT'S IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I LIKE THAT A LOT.
DIVERSITY OF COLOR HAS ALWAYS BEEN AN ISSUE FOR US WHEN WE TOSSED THAT AROUND ON THE BOARD A LOT.
THAT'S WHAT THE APPLICANT WAS ALLUDING TO.
IT HAS BEEN AN EXERCISE FOR US TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS DIVERSITY IN SOME OF THESE PROJECTS SO THEY DON'T LOOK ALL EXACTLY THE SAME.
THERE'S SOME HISTORY THERE THAT WE ALL ARE ADHERING TO AND TRY TO MAKE IT AS DIVERSE AS POSSIBLE.
AS LONG AS IT'S NOT COMICAL OR BOHEMIAN OR ANYTHING, BUT THAT LOOKS GOOD.
I LIKE THE PAINTED LADY. THINGS SEEM CISCO.
THOSE ARE COOL BUILDINGS, WHERE THEY'RE CRAZY OUT OF DIFFERENCE.
BUT I THINK THREE PRIMARY COLORS ARE PROBABLY LIKE THE MAGIC NUMBER OF DIVERSE COLORS SCHEMES AND THAT.
ONE OF THE CONCERNS WE HAD BEFORE ON
[00:55:02]
THE PRIOR BOARD MEETING OF THIS IS THE ABILITY FOR THE APPLICANT TO DECERTIFY THIS BY TAKING OUT WATER EFFICIENT FIXTURES OR REMOVING SOME OF THE THINGS THAT MAKE IT ADHERE TO A SILVER STANDARD.IF YOU LOOK AT THE COLUMNS AND HOW THEY ACHIEVED IT, THERE ARE MORE THAN 40 POINTS OVER IT.
IT LOOKS LIKE YOU CAN COMPLETELY ELIMINATE THE ENERGY REQUIREMENT, THE POINTS, AND YOU'RE STILL ON A PASSING ZONE.
THE WAY IT'S CONFIGURED NOW, IT ALMOST LOOKS LIKE IT'D BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO DECERTIFY THROUGH EASY MEANS.
>> I HAD A LITTLE BIT OF ISSUE TOO BECAUSE IT'S INSIDE AND YOU'RE THINKING, OH, WELL, IT CAN GET CHANGED OUT FOR SOMETHING THAT'S NOT.
BUT THE WAY THAT THE INDUSTRY IS GOING, EVERYTHING'S GOING TO MORE ENERGY EFFICIENCY ANYWAY.
>> IT'S PART OF THE TOILET THAT DOESN'T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS.
>> BUT THEY'VE GOT ENOUGH OF A MARGIN.
>> THAT'S NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO UNCERTIFY THIS, SO I LIKE THAT AS WELL.
I'M JUST HOPING THAT THAT TRAFFIC SITUATION IS FIXED DOWN AT THE OTHER END.
OTHERWISE, I LIKE THE PROJECT AS IT IS.
>> I THINK THIS IS AN EXCELLENT PROJECT.
I THINK IT'S A NICE ADDITION TO WHAT WE HAVE IN JUPITER.
IT'S JUST IN A TOUGH LOCATION.
JUST NOODLING THIS AROUND, IF THERE WAS A WAY THAT WE COULD APPROVE THIS SUBJECT TO GROUND NOT BEING BROKEN UNTIL THE ROAD EXPANSION PROJECT HAS BEEN COMPLETED.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN DO THAT.
>> THAT WOULD BE A COUNCIL DECISION.
>> WE CAN MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION, BECAUSE THAT'S ALL WE DO HERE IS REALLY RECOMMEND THINGS TO THE COUNCIL, BUT THAT WOULD BE UP TO THEM WHETHER THEY WOULD DO THAT OR NOT.
BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT I'VE EVER HEARD THEM DELAY A PROJECT BECAUSE OF ROAD IMPROVEMENTS. HAVE YOU, JOHN?
>> ONLY CASE WOULD BE AS IF THE PROJECT WAS RELIANT ON THE CAPACITY AND IT DIDN'T MEET CONCURRENCY.
BUT IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT HAS MET THE CONCURRENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR ACTUALLY THE 35 UNITS AND THEY'VE REDUCED IT SINCE THEN.
>> NO. IT'S GOING TO BE A HELL OF A PROBLEM, WHERE THE CONSTRUCTION IS GOING ON THE ROAD PROJECT IS GOING ON AT THE SAME TIME.
>> I WILL SAY THAT I'M HOPEFUL, AS I SAID, WITH THE BRIDGE CLOSURE.
I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE A NIGHTMARE, WHERE I LIVE ON CENTER STREET TRYING TO GET IN AND OUT AND IT HASN'T REALLY BEEN AS BAD AS I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE.
I WILL HOPE THAT THIS ALSO IS NOT AS BAD AS WE ARE PROJECTING IT TO BE WITH THE TRAFFIC ON THERE.
DID YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS.
>> NO. [BACKGROUND] WE HAD ANOTHER CARD?
>> I'LL JUST GET MY COMMENTS IN THIS ONE TIME.
BUT TYPICALLY ONCE WE CLOSE THE COMMENTS, WE DON'T. IS THAT OKAY, JOHN?
>> IT'S JUST ONE COMMENT. LIKE I SAID, I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS PROJECT PER SE.
I VOTED TO RECOMMEND THE APPROVAL OF THE OTHER ONE WITH THE WORD WORKFORCE HOUSING.
IT IS SAD THAT WE'RE NOT GETTING ANY WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS IN THIS PROJECT AND JUST A FEE.
ANOTHER ONE THAT I WILL HOPE AND PRAY FOR THAT COUNCIL GETS ON A MORE EFFECTIVE WORKFORCE HOUSING PROGRAM THAT ACTUALLY BUILDS SOMETHING BECAUSE THAT'S THE MOST DISTRESSING PART ABOUT THIS IS THAT THERE'S NO WORKFORCE HOUSING AND WE HAD FIVE UNITS AT 1,300 SQUARE FEET IN THE OTHER PROJECT AT WHICH I THOUGHT WAS FANTASTIC GIVEN THE MARKET TODAY BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AROUND IT, ANYTHING THAT'S BEING PROPOSED FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING IN WEST PALM OR PALM BEACH GARDENS, IT'S 800 SQUARE FEET FOR $2,000, AND I'M LIKE, THIS WAS A MUCH BETTER PROJECT, BUT ANYWAY, SO I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH IT.
>> CAN I JUST SAY ONE OTHER THING?
>> YES. WE'RE IN DELIBERATION. YOU CAN SAY ANYTHING YOU WANT.
>> I KNOW WE HAVE A DIFFERENT BOARD MAKEUP RIGHT NOW THAN WE HAD LAST TIME.
BUT WHEN THEY CAME BEFORE US LAST TIME, WE SAID THAT EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD A FAR GREATER DENSITY THAN THEY HAVE NOW, WE KNEW ABOUT THE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS AND EVERYTHING.
ALL THE COMMISSIONERS APPROVED IT EXCEPT FOR ME.
I SAID NO, I DIDN'T LIKE THE DENSITY REQUIREMENT.
BUT NOW WE HAVE ASKED THEM TO DO WHAT WE WANTED,
[01:00:04]
AND I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE THAT IN CONSIDERATION WHEN WE GO FORWARD HERE.WE TOLD HIM WHAT WE EXPECTED AND I THINK HE'S ACHIEVED THAT IN MY OPINION.
>> I AM NOT PERCHING HIM AT ALL.
I AM SAYING THAT WE NEED AN EFFECTIVE WORKFORCE HOUSING PROGRAM SO THAT WE ACTUALLY BUILDS UP.
>> THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE APPLICANT AT ALL.
DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING THEY WANT TO ADD, PUT IN QUESTIONS, CONCERNS? LET'S ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
THE CURRENT CARD. I'M SORRY. THAT'S RIGHT.
I THINK I MISPRONOUNCED HER LAST NAME.
>> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD PLEASE.
MY ADDRESS IS 348 LAUREL OAKS WAY, JUPITER.
I'M THE TREASURER OF THE LAUREL OAKS HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION.
I HEARD THAT THE DEVELOPER TRIED TO CONTACT OUR HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION.
IT WAS THE ONLY TIME I EVEN KNEW THAT ANYTHING WAS GOING ON WAS WHEN I SAW THE SIGN, WHICH IS THE BEGINNING OF JUNE.
THEY DID NOT TRY TO CONTACT US.
>> OKAY. WAS THAT ALL YOU WANTED TO LET US KNOW?
I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S NECESSARY.
HE CAN ADDRESS THAT ON HIS OWN.
WE'RE AT THE POINT WHERE WE CAN CRAFT A MOTION.
>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE APPLICANT.
>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE APPLICANT.
>> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE].
JOHN, DO YOU WANT US TO PULL THE DICE INSTEAD OF DOING AYE AND NAY.
>> DO YOU WANT US TO PULL THE DICE SO THAT INSTEAD OF AYE AND NAY.
>> I'M SURE THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
>> ALL RIGHT, SO IF YOU WANT TO CALL THE ROLL AND THEY'LL VOTE HOW THEY WANT.
>> WE HAVE A UNANIMOUS VOTE, AND SO THE MOTION PASSES.
>> THANK YOU. MR. CHAIR APPROVED GO ONTO THE COUNSELOR AGAIN.
>> NEXT UP WE HAVE THE [BACKGROUND] WHAT ARE WE DOING NOW? I'M SO CONFUSED WHERE ARE WE? WHERE IS MY THING? WHERE IS MY AGENDA?
>> NO, IT'S THE [OVERLAPPING].
>> EXCUSE ME. THERE IS NURSE OUTSIDE THERE FURTHER BUSINESS TO TAKE CARE OF. THANK YOU.
>> YES, IT IS THE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT.
[2. Mixed Use Development (MXD) Zoning District]
WHO'S GIVING THIS PRESENTATION TO TONIGHT, OH JOHN SACKLER.[LAUGHTER] I JUST SWORN IN FOR THIS PART OF THE MEETING.
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, JOHN SACKLER, PLANNING AND ZONING FOR THE RECORD.
THIS IS A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT THAT IS STAFF INITIATED.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO CLARIFY THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS IN THE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT AND TO DELETE THE RESIDENTIAL ESTATES SUB-DISTRICT.
THE SPECIFIC CHANGES ARE INCLUDED IN YOUR AGENDA PACKET ON EXHIBIT 1, AND THEY INCLUDE THREE REFERENCES, TWO DENSITY.
DENSITY RELATED TO CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
MAKING SURE ALSO THAT THE MASTER PLANS FOR AN MXD DEVELOPMENT MEET THAT MAXIMUM DENSITY, AND ALSO TO DELETE
[01:05:01]
THAT RESIDENTIAL ESTATE SUB-DISTRICT REFERENCE THAT'S IN THE ZONING DISTRICT.IN REGARDS TO THE LAST ITEM, THAT'S DEVELOP OUR HOUSEKEEPING TO THE LARGEST EXTENT.
BUT THE RESIDENTIAL ESTATE MUST HAVE BEEN A SUB-DISTRICT THAT WAS CONTEMPLATED EARLY IN THE PROCESS OF ADOPTION, BUT IT DIDN'T GET ADOPTED YET.
THERE WAS A REMNANT REFERENCE IN THE ZONING DISTRICTS, SO WE'RE JUST REMOVING THAT.
THEN FURTHER FOR INFORMATION IN THE MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICT, THERE ARE 10 SUB-DISTRICTS, EXCLUDING THE RESIDENTIAL ESTATE, WHICH MADE 11 AND ONE OF THE LISTS.
THERE ARE 10 SUB-DISTRICTS AND THEY HAVE VARYING DENSITIES AND ARRANGE THAT ARE ALLOWED FOR EACH OF THOSE SUB-DISTRICTS.
HOWEVER, THE OVERALL MASTER PLAN NEEDS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
BASED ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, LAND USE OF MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT.
THIS PROJECTS OR ALL PROJECTS THAT ARE IN THE MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE OVER 100 ACRES.
THE MIXED-USE CLASS C LAND-USE LIMITS THE DENSITY OF THESE MIXED-USE DISTRICTS THAT ARE OVER 100 ACRES, TO A MAXIMUM OF FOUR UNITS PER ACRE.
WE'RE PROPOSING TO MAKE THAT SPECIFIC REFERENCE IN THE ZONING DISTRICT TO PROVIDE FOR THAT CONSISTENCY.
I WOULD NOTE THAT ABACOA IS THE ONLY LAND AND THE TOWN THAT HAS THE MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICT.
THAT THE MASTER PLAN FOR ABACOA DOES SET THE DENSITY BELOW FOUR UNITS PER ACRE, SO THERE'S NO CONFLICT BETWEEN WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED BECAUSE ALL OF THIS AS BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
REALLY, THAT'S IT. IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, I'D BE HAPPY TO ADDRESS THEM.
>> THANK YOU. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
>> I THINK YOU HIT ON THIS SETS UP FOUR PER UNIT OR WHATEVER THE DISTRICT SAYS, WHICHEVER IS LOWEST.
>> NO IT'S THE OVERALL MASTER PLAN, WHICH IN THE CASE OF ABACOA IS APPROXIMATELY 2,000 ACRES, HAS TO HAVE A GROSS OVERALL DENSITY OF FOUR UNITS PER ACRE.
THERE CAN BE PIECES WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT IN INDIVIDUAL SUB-DISTRICTS THAT CAN HAVE HIGHER DENSITY.
THAT'S BALANCED OUT BECAUSE THERE'S A MIX OF USES WITHIN ABACOA, THERE'S SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF LAND THAT'S IN A CONSERVATION DESIGNATION FOR THE GREENWAY THAT RUNS FOR ABACOA.
OBVIOUSLY THERE'S NO DENSITY THAT COMES OFF OF THAT.
THAT'S HOW IT BALANCES OUT DOWN TO THE FOUR MAXIMUM.
>> IT'S EITHER FOUR MAXIMUM OR WHATEVER DISTRICT IT IS THAT THE PROJECT HAPPENS TO BE IN.
>>THE EACH SUB-DISTRICT HAS A SPECIFIC DENSITY MAXIMUM, BUT EVERYTHING HAS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE MASTER PLAN.
THE MASTER PLAN HAS TO ILLUSTRATE THAT THEY'RE MEETING THE FOUR UNITS PER ACRE, EVEN THOUGH THERE MAY BE NET PARCELS THAT HAVE A HIGHER DENSITY.
>> THIS IS STRICTLY HOUSEKEEPING THEM?
>> YES. WE DID PUT THE DEVELOPER OF ABACOA, NOTICE OF THE CHANGE.
>> OKAY. THEY HAD NO PROBLEMS WITH IT?
>> NO. [OVERLAPPING] THEY DIDN'T GET THE TIME I SPOKE TO THEM, SO.
>> AL RIGHT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
>> OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS? WHO WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE?
>> CONSIDER THE PUBLIC IF THERE'S ANY PUBLIC [OVERLAPPING].
>> ANYBODY OUT THERE WHO WANT TO SPEAK? [LAUGHTER]
>> DO WE NEED TO DELIBERATE ON THE NO QUESTIONS?
>> NO. I JUST WANTED TO THANK GARETH.
I HAD A LONG CONVERSATION WITH THEM.
HE GAVE ME A REALLY GOOD CONTEXT OF EVERYTHING.
THAT'S WHEN I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT ALL.
BUT HE HELPED ME UNDERSTAND THAT AND I APPRECIATE HIS COMPLEMENT.
>> ABSOLUTELY. WHO WANTS TO [OVERLAPPING].
>> MOTION TO APPROVE BY [OVERLAPPING]
>> COMMISSIONER PINTEL MOTION AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GUISINGER.
DO YOU WANT TO CALL THE ROLL AGAIN?
>> I THINK WE ARE GOOD. THANK YOU.
>> WHO ELSE SAY AYE. ANYBODY SAYING NAY. [OVERLAPPING].
>> I'M JUST TRYING TO GO BY THE RULES.
>> JUST DON'T INCLUDE THE POLLING IN THE COUNCIL MEMBERS.
>> WELL, OKAY THEN. THANK YOU.
[LAUGHTER] YOU COULD HAVE WRITTEN THAT IN MY DESCRIPTION HERE.
>> I'VE WRITTEN IT IN IF IT REQUIRED POOLING.
>> ALL RIGHT. ARE WE DONE? DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FOR US?
>> JUST FOR THE NEW MEMBERS, WE ARE WORKING ON YOUR EMAIL ADDRESSES FOR YOUR TOWN OF JUPITER EMAIL ADDRESSES.
YOU MAY BE GETTING CONTACTED BY OUR INFORMATION SYSTEMS OFFICE TO COORDINATE THAT PASSWORD PROCESS.
[01:10:04]
OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ADDITIONAL, ALTHOUGH FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC, WE DID PUBLISH HEARING DATES FOR THE TOWN COUNCIL FOR THE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT ITEM OF JULY 18TH AND AUGUST 3RD, THAT MAY BE ALTERED DUE TO A HEAVY AGENDA LOAD ON THE JULY 18TH MEETING.ANYONE INTERESTED IN THAT ITEM WILL ALSO WANT TO CHECK THE JULY 6TH MEETING AS THE FIRST READING MAY BE MOVED UP TO THAT EARLIER DATE.
>> SURE YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO VOTE ON THAT MOTION.
>> NO, WE DIDN'T [OVERLAPPING]
>> THE AYES HAVE IT. THE MOTION PASSES.
>> UNANIMOUSLY. MR. BEER, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE FOR US BEFORE YOU JUMP OUT OF YOUR CHAIR AND LEAF? I CALL THE MEETING 2.
>> NO. I DON'T. I'VE BEEN IN COMMISSIONER MEETING FROM NINE O'CLOCK TO SIX O'CLOCK AND NOW THIS SO I'D LIKE TO GO HOME.
>> WE ARE GOING HOME NOW, MEETING ADJOURNED AT 08:11. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.