>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. IT'S ABOUT 7:00,
[00:00:03]
SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.THE MAY 14TH, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING COLLEGE TO ORDER.
[1. CALL TO ORDER]
VERNISA [PHONETIC], IF YOU WOULD PLEASE CALL THE ROLL SO WE CAN ESTABLISH A QUORUM.>> COMMISSIONER CASSATLY [PHONETIC].
>> COMMISSIONER BLUM [PHONETIC].
>> THANK YOU. WE'VE ESTABLISHED A QUORUM.
IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK BEFORE THE COMMISSION, PLEASE SUBMIT A GREEN COMMENT CARD TO THE SECRETARY.
SPEAKERS WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO EXPRESS THEIR COMMENTS.
TONIGHT, WE WILL DO AN ELECTION OF OFFICERS.
[3. ELECTION OF OFFICERS]
I GUESS I'LL GIVE THIS A SHOT.WE OPEN THE FLORIDA NOMINATIONS FOR EACH OFFICE?
>> I'LL OPEN THE FLOOR TO NOMINATIONS FOR CHAIR.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME? I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND FOR NOMINATION OUR PRESENT CHAIRMAN, KEVIN KIRN, FOR CHAIRMAN.
>> WE'LL DO A VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> ALL OPPOSED. FOR VICE CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO NOMINATE RICHARD DUNNING.
>> ANY OPPOSED? GOT OUR CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR RATHER, SORRY.
[4. MINUTES]
WE HAVE THE MINUTES IN FRONT OF US FROM THE MARCH 12TH, 2024 MEETING.ARE THERE ANY CHANGES TO THE MEETING MINUTES? IF NOT, CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE?
>> ANY OPPOSED? THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
NEXT SECTION IS THE CITIZEN COMMENT.
THESE ARE CITIZEN COMMENTS UNRELATED TO THE AGENDA ITEMS. THE BOARD WILL NOT DISCUSS THESE ITEMS THIS EVENING.
ANY ISSUES WILL BE NOTED BY STAFF FOR FOLLOW UP AS APPROPRIATE.
STAFF, ARE THERE ANY COMMENT CARDS FROM THE PUBLIC OR ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK?
>> WE DO NOT HAVE ANY COMMENT CARDS.
>> THANK YOU. ONTO THE REGULAR AGENDA.
ARE THERE ANY CHANGES TO THE AGENDA THAT WE SHOULD NOTE FROM TOWN STAFF?
[6.B.1. Palmwood Residential Annexation, Future Land Use and Rezoning ]
YOU'VE SEEN THAT'S BEEN NOTED ON THE UPDATED AGENDA.WE JUST HAVE ONE ITEM NUMBER 2 FOR 954 OLD DIXIE.
[6.B.2. 954 Old Dixie]
>> WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM 2, PROCEDURAL BUSINESS.
AHEAD OF THAT, FIRST OF ALL, WE'LL START WITH THE DECLARATION OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS.
LET'S START OVER HERE, PAUL OR COMMISSIONER KEENAN.
>> I DROVE BY TODAY AND LAST WEEK TO GO LOOK AT THE AREA JUST SO THAT I COULD FIND OUT WHAT. HAVEN'T TALKED TO ANYBODY.
I DIDN'T TALK TO ANYBODY ABOUT IT. COMMISSIONER LENY?
>> I DROVE BY THE SITE AND TALKED TO STAFF ABOUT IT.
>> THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY 954 IS MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR AT MY HOUSE.
I RECEIVED THE TEXT FROM HIM LAST WEEK AND WE SPOKE ON FRIDAY OF LAST WEEK.
HE GAVE ME HIS OPINION, HIS PERSPECTIVE, AND I'VE DRIVEN BY THE SITE THREE OR FOUR TIMES, SEPARATE DAYS.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER KELSO?
>> YES. I ALSO DROVE BY THE SITE AND SPOKE TO STAFF.
>> DO WE ASK FOR COMMISSIONER BLUM'S? YES. COMMISSIONER BLUM.
>> THANK YOU. WE WILL GET INTO THE REGULAR AGENDA HERE, SWEARING IN OF WITNESSES.
>> CAN YOU PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE AND THIS MATTER IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? THANK YOU.
>> WE'LL START OUT WITH THE APPLICANT PRESENTATION.
>> GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
I'M BRIAN CHECKERS. I'M A PRINCIPAL PLANNER AT I PLAN AND DESIGN.
I'M HERE THIS EVENING PRESENTING CASE PZ 245923, WHICH IS A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT TO REMOVE A CONDITION OF
[00:05:03]
APPROVAL FROM THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2021.I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER OF 954 NORTH OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY AND THE OWNER OF ONSHORE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT.
IT'S RELEVANT BECAUSE THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME HISTORY THAT WE'RE GOING TO GO OVER AND ONSHORE CONSTRUCTION COMES INTO PLAY.
WHAT WE'RE SEEKING, OUR SPECIFIC REQUEST OF YOU-ALL THIS EVENING IS TO HAVE CONDITION 5 FROM RESOLUTION 20-21 REMOVED, REQUIRING THE CONSTRUCTION OR THE PROCEEDING OF CONSTRUCTION OF A SMALL OFFICE BUILDING AT 954 NORTH OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY TO PROCEED UNTIL PARKING ON THE EAST SIDE OF NORTH OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY COMES TO FRUITION GETTING BACK TO THE HISTORY OF IT AND THE LOCATION, TAKE IT BACK A FEW YEARS TO 2021.
IN 2021, 954, WHICH IS THE SITE RIGHT HERE IN RED WAS APPROVED FOR A SMALL OFFICE BUILDING, 1,800 SQUARE FEET, TWO STORIES PICTURE A HOUSE JUST LIKE THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE OUT THERE NOW, TWO STORY LITTLE HOUSES THAT ARE USED FOR OFFICES.
IT'S LESS THAN ONE FIFTH OF AN ACRE, SO IT'S VERY SMALL SITE.
THE SITE PLAN WAS APPROVED, HAD ALL THE PARKING, MET ALL THE CODE REQUIREMENTS, SO THERE'S NO ISSUES WITH CODE REQUIREMENT OR MEETING PARKING STANDARDS FOR THAT USE AS A SMALL LITTLE BUSINESS OFFICE.
ALONGSIDE THIS APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 20-21 WAS THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR RESOLUTION 67-21, WHICH WAS THE ON-STREET PARKING PLAN THAT YOU SEE ON YOUR SCREENS RIGHT NOW.
THE PLAN IN FRONT OF YOU WAS APPROVED AND ASSOCIATED WITH 105 CENTER STREET, THE CORNER PROPERTY AT CENTER STREET IN NORTH OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY.
THAT APPROVAL, 67-21 ENACTED THIS PLAN, AND THAT APPLICATION IS THE ONE THAT HAS THE LION'S SHARE OF REGULATIONS ATTACHED TO IT.
WE WERE BUNDLED INTO THAT BECAUSE AT THE TIME THE OWNER OF ONSHORE CONSTRUCTION, MR. DAN REEDY, OWNED 938 NORTH OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY.
THAT'S THE PROPERTY THAT'S HIGHLIGHTED.
HE OWNED 946 NORTH OLD DIXIE, THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH OF IT, AND HE OWNED THIS SITE, 954, THOSE LAST THREE PROPERTIES ON THE STREET.
938 NORTH OLD DIXIE WAS ONSHORE CONSTRUCTION.
YES, THEY PARKED LEGALLY BY WAY OF A LEASE WITH FEC IN THE FEC RIGHT OF WAY.
IT WASN'T APPROVED IN THE TOWN FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL, BUT THEY PARKED PER THEIR LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE FEC REGULATED BY THE NATIONAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION, GOVERNED WITHIN THEIR RIGHT OF WAY.
THIS APPROVAL OF THEIR SITE PLAN TIED THEM TO IT BECAUSE THEY WERE PART OF THIS PARKING OUT IN THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT STAFF WANTED TO CLEAN UP.
THAT'S 2021. THEY WERE PARKING OUT THERE FOR YEARS, ALMOST A DECADE.
BECAUSE OF THE SUCCESS OF ONSHORE CONSTRUCTION AND ITS EXPANSION, THEY HAD MORE PEOPLE WORKING THERE.
IN 2022, MR. REEDY DIVESTED HIMSELF FROM THE OWNERSHIP OF 938 AND HE MOVED ONSHORE CONSTRUCTION FROM THIS STREET OVER TO INTERCOASTAL POINT, FISHERMAN'S WHARF BEHIND BOSTON MARKET RESTAURANT.
HE ALSO SOLD 946 OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY, WHICH WAS, AT THE TIME, USED AS HIS FAMILY OFFICE.
THOSE TWO USES WENT BACK TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE USES.
UNLESS STAFF CAN TELL ME DIFFERENTLY, THERE'S NO MORE ISSUES AT THE NORTH END IN TERMS OF PARKING ACROSS THE WAY THEY PARK THEMSELVES.
THEY'RE JUST OFFICE USES. THEY'RE NOT A CONTRACTOR OFFICE.
THEY'RE JUST STANDARD OFFICE USES, UNLESS SOMEONE TELLS ME DIFFERENT.
THE APPLICATION BEFORE YOU TONIGHT FOR THIS PROPERTY IS YET TO BE DEVELOPED.
IT HAS A BUILDING PERMIT WAITING TO BE ENACTED, BUT IT CAN'T BE ISSUED BECAUSE THIS CONDITION STILL SITS ON IT THAT MADE SENSE IN 2021, BUT IS NO LONGER RELEVANT.
BECAUSE IT'S NO LONGER RELEVANT, WE'RE ASKING FOR ITS REMOVAL TO ALLOW FOR 954 TO BE CONSTRUCTED AND THAT 1,800 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE TO PROCEED.
THERE'S A LOT MORE TO THE HISTORY, BUT THAT'S CLIFF NOTES AS I CAN GET FOR YOU ON THAT.
WE HAVE OUR RESOLUTION 20-21 APPROVED ON JUNE 15TH.
THAT WAS THE ONLY APPROVALS EVER FOR THE PROPERTY.
SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, IN 2023, WE ASKED FOR A STATE TIME EXTENSION TO THAT DEVELOPMENT ORDER, AND IT WAS GRANTED.
[00:10:04]
THE BASIS OF OUR AMENDMENT REQUEST STARTS WITH THE CONDITIONS CHANGING OUT ON THE GROUND ON NORTH OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY.BECAUSE OF MR. REEDY'S DIVESTMENT FROM 938 AND 946, THERE'S NO MORE TRAFFIC OR PARKING ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE TWO PROPERTIES.
THE REQUIREMENT TO CONSTRUCT THE OFFSITE PARKING WILL STAY ACTIVE.
THAT PLAN I SHOWED YOU DOESN'T GO ANYWHERE.
IT STAYS EXACTLY THE SAME THE WAY IT WAS APPROVED.
IT'S JUST ASSIGNED TO THE PROPER PERSON WHO SHOULD BE ENACTING THAT PLAN, THE OWNER OF 105 CENTER STREET, WHERE A LOT OF THAT PARKING IS REQUIRED IN THE SOUTH END OF THAT STREET.
THE HISTORIC ON-STREET PARKING WITHIN THE FEC RIGHT OF WAY ISN'T ASSOCIATED WITH THE CURRENT APPROVAL OR THE INTENDED USERS OF THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY 954.
THERE'S BEEN NO ISSUE WITH 954 IN THE PAST.
THERE WAS NONE PRESENT BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING DEVELOPED THERE, AND THERE'S NONE EXPECTED IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE NO ONE'S GOING TO OPEN A CONTRACTOR'S OFFICE NORTH OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY, KNOWING THE HISTORY OF WHAT'S HAPPENED ON THIS CORRIDOR FOR THE PAST 15 YEARS.
THEY'RE GOING TO OPEN UP A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE OR A FAMILY OFFICE, VERY SMALL.
THE DAYS OF THE CONTRACTOR OFFICES ARE PRETTY MUCH GONE.
STAFF HAD MENTIONED MILESTONES IN THEIR STAFF REPORT, AND ALL OF THOSE MILESTONES, ONE HAS BEEN MET IN TERMS OF PERMITS BEING ACTUALLY ISSUED FOR THE PARKING.
THE MILESTONES THAT HAVEN'T BEEN MET FALL ON THE 105 CENTER STREET APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER BECAUSE HE'S GOING TO DO A COMPREHENSIVE LEASE.
THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A SPLIT IN SMALL LEASES ALONG THE FEC.
IT'LL BE ONE LEASE THAT'LL CONTROL ALL THE PARKING.
THE WAY STAFF ASKED US TO DO IT BACK IN 2021, AND THE WAY THAT THIS OWNER OF 105 CENTER STREET WANTED TO HAVE IT CONTROL OF THE PARKING.
NOTHING CHANGES, AND ALL OF THE REGULATIONS AND CONDITIONS THAT WENT WITH THOSE APPROVALS IN 2021 WOULD REMAIN ACTIVE.
STAFF HAS SAID IN THE REPORT WITH THE CONDITION OR WITHOUT THE CONDITION, WE STILL COMPLY TO CODE, 954 CAN BE BUILT.
IT MEETS ALL OF THE CODE REQUIREMENTS.
WE'RE JUST WAITING TO START CONSTRUCTION.
IN TERMS OF THE POTENTIAL OF CREATING A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE, WE RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE.
IT'S SPECULATION, AND IT'S UNFAIR TO HOLD US TO OUR BUILDING PERMIT FOR SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T KNOW WOULD EVER OCCUR IN TERMS OF A PROBLEM OCCURRING THERE EVER AGAIN IN THE NORTH END.
SO WE'RE RESPECTFULLY SAYING WE MEET CODE.
WE HAVE A SITE PLAN THAT'S BEEN ISSUED.
WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO PROCEED WITH BUILDING WHILE YOU SOLVE THE PARKING PROBLEMS AT THE SOUTH END OF THE CORRIDOR.
WE DO APPRECIATE STAFF'S INFORMAL ON SITE OBSERVATIONS.
IT WAS MENTIONED WHERE THE CARS WERE PARKED ON THE AT&T SITE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY AT THE SOUTH END.
WE ALL KNOW WHERE THEY'RE GOING. THEY'RE GOING TO GET A DONUT IN A COFFEE.
THEY'RE NOT PARKING IN THE SOUTH END AND WALKING ALL THE WAY TO THE NORTH END OF THE CORRIDOR TO GO TO THE OFFICE USE.
THIS IS FLORIDA. NO ONE WALKS 15 FEET MORE FURTHER THAN THEY EVER HAVE TO.
SO WE KNOW WHERE THEY'RE GOING.
WE UNDERSTAND WHERE THAT TRAFFIC IS HAPPENING.
OBSERVATIONS ASIDE, WE KNOW THAT WE'RE NOT CAUSING THAT PARKING ISSUE IN 2024.
STAFF IS SAYING THAT THEY CAN MODIFY THE CONDITION.
WE'D PREFER TO HAVE NO CONDITION, HAVE IT REMOVED CLEAN SO THE SITE CAN MOVE ON AND PROCEED TO CONSTRUCTION.
IF THERE WAS A CONDITION, WE COULD AGREE THAT IT COULD SUNSET ONCE THE PARKING WAS DEVELOPED BY OTHERS, OR THAT A PROBLEM WAS IDENTIFIED AND TRULY, IDENTIFIED AND PUT BACK TO OUR SUBJECT SITE.
IF THEY CAN'T PROVE THAT, THEN WE SHOULDN'T BE PUTTING PARKING IN PLACE THAT WE'RE NOT CONTRIBUTING TO.
WE'RE SEEKING YOUR APPROVAL OF THIS AS PRESENTED THIS EVENING.
THE LAST POINT I WANTED TO MENTION FROM 2021 TO TODAY, I'M VERY HAPPY TO BE ABLE TO REPORT THIS AS OF THIS MEETING.
THE WORLD CHANGES IN JUPITER EVERY 24 HOURS.
WHAT HAPPENS ON DAY ONE IS DIFFERENT ON DAY SEVEN.
AS PART OF RECENT PURCHASES AND BUSINESS DEALINGS ON CENTER STREET IN THE IN THE AUDIENCE TONIGHT IS ONE OF MY CLIENTS, MR. EDO SULLIVAN, WHO OWNS MULTIPLE PROPERTIES IN JUPITER.
HE OWNS THE PLAZA THAT HAS BLACKBIRD.
HE OWNS THE PLAZA THAT HAS PAPICHULOS.
HE HAS MULTIPLE INTERESTS AROUND THE TOWN AND IS A FIXTURE IN THE TOWN.
HE'S JUST RECENTLY TAKEN CONTROL OF RALPH STAND UP BAR, AND I KNOW THAT HE HAS CONVEYED TO ME HIS INTEREST, AND HE'S NOT TIED TO IT, AND THERE'S NO COMMITMENT HERE TONIGHT TO YOU ALL, BUT HE'S TOLD ME THAT HE'S VERY INTERESTED IN THIS PARKING COMING ONLINE.
WE'RE GOING TO TAKE DOWN OFF THE ROLES WHO HAS NO INTEREST OR ANY IMPACT ON THE PARKING AND POTENTIALLY BRING IN PLAYERS THAT NOW HAVE AN ACTIVE USE THAT THEY WANT TO SEE THAT PARKING
[00:15:01]
COME ONLINE AND WORKING WITH THE OWNER AT 105 CENTER STREET.WITH MR. O'SULLIVAN IS THE OPERATOR OF PAPICHULOS AND BLACKBIRD, MR. CLEVE MASH, THEY'RE TEAMING UP IN TERMS OF WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH RALPH STAND UP BAR.
THIS IS THE STUFF THAT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME IN JUPITER AND EXITING OUT OF THIS AND NOT HAVING ANY MORE PLAY ON PARKING THAT HAS NO IMPACT ON IS THE RIGHT MOVE.
IT'S LOGICAL, IT'S TIMELY RIGHT NOW.
AS THEY PROCEED AND THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO WITH RALPH STAND UP BAR, I THINK WE'LL HAVE REAL PLAYERS IN PLACE TO HELP GET THAT PARKING EXECUTED SOONER THAN LATER.
WITH THAT, I THANK YOU AND I WANT TO RESERVE ANY EXTRA TIME I HAVE TO DISCUSS FEEDBACK FROM STAFF OR I TAKE ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> GOOD EVENING COMMISSION FOR THE RECORD, PETER MEYER, SENIOR PLANNER STAFF.
THE ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION TONIGHT IS A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT TO DELETE CONDITION FIVE OF RESOLUTION 20-21, WHICH WILL ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH GETTING PERMITS ENSURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE OFFSITE PARKING LOT ALONG OLD DIXIE.
THE APPROVED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TOWN CODE, SPECIFIC COMMUNITY PARKING REQUIREMENTS WITH THE APPLICANTS REQUESTED DELETION OF CONDITION FIVE.
HOWEVER, THE POTENTIAL OF CREATING A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE STILL IS VALID AS IT WAS RAISED IN 2021, APPROVAL OF THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT ORDER.
SINCE THE USE IS LIKELY TO RESULT IN OFFSITE PARKING OCCURRING IN A DISORDERLY MANNER ALONG NORTH OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY, IF THE OFFSITE PARKING AREA REQUIRED BY CONDITION FIVE IS NOT CONSTRUCTED.
THE APPLICANT AGREED TO THIS CONDITION OF APPROVAL WHEN A DEVELOPMENT ORDER WAS APPROVED BY TOWN COUNCIL IN 2021.
SOME BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF THE AREA.
THE BLOCK IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WAS ORIGINALLY ZONED RESIDENTIAL PRIOR TO 1978.
LATER A PORTION WAS REZONED TO COMMERCIAL.
SOME OF THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL HOMES WERE CONVERTED TO COMMERCIAL USES ON THE SMALLER LOTS.
TYPICALLY, A SMALLER INDIVIDUAL COMMERCIAL SITE EXPERIENCE PEAK DEMANDS THAT ARE NOT ACCOMMODATED WITH A SINGLE USE PARKING LOTS.
BECAUSE THEY OFFER NO FLEXIBILITY FOR SHARING LIKE MULTI TENANT DEVELOPMENTS DO AND SMALL DEAD END LOTS MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR LARGE VEHICLES TO MANEUVER.
THESE CHARACTERISTICS COMMON TO THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT RESULT IN EXTERNAL IMPACTS ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
SPECIFICALLY, IN THIS AREA OF NORTH OLD DIXIE, THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORS HAVE COMPLAINED ABOUT THE PARKING OCCURRING ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE ROADWAY.
PARKING ISSUES IN THIS AREA HAVE OCCURRED FOR ABOUT 17 YEARS BETWEEN MULTIPLE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNERS.
THREE OF THE OWNERS, INCLUDING THE APPLICANT, COORDINATED ON A PLAN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THE RESIDENTIAL CONCERNS.
IN 2021, A TOWN COUNCIL APPROVED RESOLUTION 67-21 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN OFFSITE PARKING LOT AREA WITH 22 PARALLEL PARKING SPACES ON THE EAST SIDE OF OLD DIXIE.
THIS PARKING LOT WAS INTENDED TO RESOLVE THE INADEQUATE PARKING ISSUES.
THE OWNER OF 105 CENTER STREET WHERE A LOCOMOTIVE COFFEE SHOP IS LOCATED, SUBMIT THAT APPLICATION IN COLLABORATION WITH ONSHORE CONSTRUCTION AND THOMAS MELHORN FORMERLY KNOWN AS CHRISTIAN THOMAS.
LATER IN THE PROCESS, THOMAS MELHORN NO LONGER AS PART OF THE COLLABORATION.
ON THAT SAME NIGHT, TOWN COUNCIL APPROVED RESOLUTION 20-21 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TWO-STOREY OFFICE BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY.
AT THAT TIME OF THE APPROVAL, THE APPLICANT ALSO OWNED A TWO ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH, WHICH ALSO MET THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS ON SITE, BUT FREQUENTLY UTILIZED THE FEC AREA FOR ADDITIONAL OFFSITE PARKING.
IN 2022, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING WHICH COULD NOT BE ISSUED SINCE CONDITION FIVE HAS NOT BEEN SATISFIED.
THEY ALSO SOLD THE TWO EXISTING BUILDINGS WHERE ONSHORE CONSTRUCTION WAS LOCATED WITHIN THAT SAME YEAR.
IN 2022, THE OWNER OF 005 CENTER STREET WAS ISSUED A ENGINEERING PERMIT FOR THE ON-SITE PARKING LOT, REQUIRED TO BE CONSTRUCTED PURSUANT TO CONDITION FIVE.
AT SOME POINT SINCE THE APPROVAL IN 2021, FEC HAS CHANGED OWNERSHIP AND PER THE OWNER OF 005 CENTER STREET, THEIR REQUIREMENTS FOR PARKING WITHIN THE FEC RIGHT OF WAY HAS CHANGED.
PROCEEDING WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF OFFSITE PARKING LOT HAS NOT MOVED FORWARD IN A TIMELY MANNER SINCE THE APPROVAL.
STAFF HAS PERFORMED TWO SITE INSPECTIONS THIS YEAR AND OBSERVED THAT ISSUE OF INADEQUATE PARKING STILL CONTINUES.
WHEN THE OFFICE BUILDING APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED,
[00:20:03]
IT WAS EVIDENT BASED ON THE FLOOR PLAN AT THE PEAK PARKING DEMAND WOULD LIKELY EXCEED THE PROPOSED PARKING ON SITE.TO ADDRESS THIS CONCERN, CONDITION FIVE WAS THE REQUIREMENT OF 2021 APPROVAL TO ADDRESS TOWN CODE, SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA NUMBER FIVE, REGARDING PUBLIC SAFETY.
THE APP HAS NOT REVISED THE FLOOR PLAN OR REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING TO ADDRESS CONCERNS RAISED AND SUBMITTED THIS REQUEST TO ELIMINATE THE COMPLETION OF THE PROFIT PARKING LOT.
STAFF LIKE TO STAY REMAIN TIME FOR REBUTTAL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. LET'S START WITH COMMISSION QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT AND STAFF. PAUL DO YOU WANT TO START?
>> QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
IS THERE A KNOWN TENANT FOR THE PROPERTY AT THIS TIME?
>> THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WILL MOST LIKELY BE DEVELOPED BY MR. REEDY AND BECOME HIS FAMILY OFFICE.
>> IT WILL BE A FAMILY OFFICE?
>> WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE FEC AND THEY'VE LEASE INTEREST, WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THAT BECAUSE OVER TIME, IT SEEMS TO CHANGE A LITTLE BIT?
>> MR. REEDY AND THOMAS MELHORN OR CHRISTIAN THOMAS BACK IN THE DAY HAD SEPARATE LEASE AGREEMENTS WITH THE FEC TO PARK IN THEIR RIGHT OF WAY.
MR. REEDY HAD SOLD THE BUILDINGS, SO HE NO LONGER HAS AN ACTIVE LEASE.
THE PLAN THAT'S BEEN PUT INTO PLACE WOULD HAVE BEEN PUT INTO ONE ACTIVE LEASE.
WHAT MR. MYERS HAD INDICATED IN TERMS OF FEC CHANGING OWNERSHIP AND WHATNOT, THAT'S NOT FOR ANYTHING THAT WE'RE CONCERNED WITH.
IF THE OWNER OF 105 NEEDS TO REWORK LEASES OR REWORK HIS PLAN WITH FEC, THAT'S WHAT HE NEEDS TO DO.
BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S CHANGED BECAUSE ALL THE WORK I DO IN THE FEC IN WEST PALM BEACH HAS NO IMPACT.
THE OWNERSHIP HAS NO IMPACT ON PLANS THAT HAVE BEEN IN PLACE IN LEASE AGREEMENTS.
WE DO LEASE AGREEMENTS DOWNTOWN WEST PALM BEACH ALL THE TIME.
>> IT'S NOT LIKE ANY AGREEMENT HAS EXPIRED FOR THE LEASE?
>> NO. NOT AT ALL, BECAUSE TIME EXTENSIONS HAVE BEEN GRANTED FOR BOTH SITE PLAN APPLICATIONS.
THEY'RE VESTED IN TERMS OF, THEY HAVE THEIR EXTENSIONS.
BUT TO ADD TO THAT, THERE'S NOTHING PREVENTING 105 FROM GOING FORWARD AND GETTING AN FEC LEASE AND STARTING CONSTRUCTION BECAUSE WHAT MR. MYERS HAD INDICATED WAS THAT NOTHING WAS DONE IN A TIMELY MANNER.
BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO 2021, AND THAT'S WHEN THEY WERE DOUBLE TRACKING FEC LINES FOR THE BRIGHT LINE.
THERE WAS GOING TO BE NO PARKING CONSTRUCTION IN THE NEAR TERM ANYWAY.
FROM THE TIME OF OUR APPROVAL, WE ALL KNEW AND EVERYONE AGREED, STAFF, ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, WE WERE ALL WORKING WITH FEC AROUND THEIR TIME FRAME.
THE INTERSECTION WAS BEING WORKED ON, THE TRACKS WERE BEING DOUBLED, AND THEY WERE STAGING IN THAT RIGHT AWAY WHERE THE PARKING WOULD HAVE BEEN AND WHERE PEOPLE WOULD HAVE BEEN COMING AND GOING.
THEY HAD PARKING THERE FOR THEMSELVES TO GO UP AND DOWN THE LINE.
THERE WAS NO, THE APPLICANTS DIDN'T DO THEIR JOB, IT WAS JUST A FACT THAT THEY HAD TO WAIT FOR FEC TO FINISH WITH THAT DOUBLE TRACKING AND IT'S VERY CLOSE.
IT'S OBVIOUSLY IN OPERATION NOW, BUT THAT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE SOME STAGING AREA FOR THEM.
IT WON'T IMPACT THE PARKING BECAUSE IT'S ON THE ROADSIDE, BUT AT THE TIME IT DID, BECAUSE I REMEMBER THEM HAVING PILES AND PILES OF ROCK POURED THERE ALL THE TIME.
THERE WASN'T ANY DELAY ON THE APPLICANT'S PART FROM 105 EVEN BECAUSE THEY JUST COULD NOT GET INTO THE CORRIDOR.
>> THANKS. COMMISSIONER VINCENT.
>> WHEN WAS THE TIME OF THE RAIL, WHEN THEY WERE DOING THE RAIL WORK? WHAT TIME FRAME?
>> I DON'T KNOW WHEN IT STARTED, BUT IT WAS IT PROCEEDED THROUGH 2021 AND ENDED SOMETIME AT THE END OF 2021 OR EVEN INTO 2022.
THEY WERE DOING FURTHER NORTH, BUT THEY WERE STILL STAGING STUFF ON THAT SITE TO DO WORK PAST THE INTERSECTION.
THE INTERSECTION WAS COMPLETED SOMETIME IN 2022.
MAYBE EARLY '23, I COULDN'T GIVE YOU THE EXACT TIME, BUT IT WAS COMPLETED RIGHT THERE.
THE ISSUE WAS THEY WERE STILL DOING WORK UP THE LINE, AND THEY WOULD STAGE AT THIS SITE BECAUSE THIS WAS THE LAST BEND BEFORE THE STRAIGHTAWAY TO GO UP NORTH.
THERE WAS ACTIVITY ON THAT SITE STILL.
NOT EXCUSING 105 CENTER STREET FROM NOT PULLING A PERMIT,
[00:25:01]
THE SECOND HE COULD HAVE PULLED THE PERMIT.AND THAT CONDITION REALLY FALLS ON THE OVERALL PLAN, AND IT SHOULDN'T FALL ON THE THREE SPACES THAT STAFF IS LOOKING FOR AT THE NORTH END.
IT SHOULD FALL ON THE OVERALL PLAN THAT NEEDS TO BE ENACTED FOR THE WHOLE 22 SPACES, AND THAT REALLY PUSHES IT TOWARDS WHERE THE PARKING IS NEEDED AT THE SOUTH END WHERE 105 CENTER STREET.
THAT'S WHERE THE HEAVY PARKING IS.
STAFF'S REPORT SAYS THE SAME THING THAT PEOPLE ARE PARKING ON THE AT&T SITE.
AGAIN, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO THE OFFICES.
THEY'RE GOING COFFEE AND DOUGHNUT.
>> HOW MANY PERSONNEL OR PEOPLE DO YOU THINK ARE GOING TO BE AT THE NEW BUILDING THAT YOU'RE DOING?
>> WELL, AS A FAMILY OFFICE, IT'S EVEN LESS.
>> I HONESTLY DON'T HAVE THE FLOOR PLAN.
STAFF HAS INDICATED THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF OFFICES IN THERE.
IT'S GOING TO BE LESS IMPACTFUL BECAUSE IT'S NOT A 9:00-5:00 OPERATION.
THEY'LL BE THERE EVEN AT ODD TIMES DOING STUFF FOR FAMILY BUSINESS, AND THAT INCLUDES TRAVEL, IT INCLUDES BUSINESS, AND IT'S THEIR OWN PERSONAL STUFF.
THEY'RE NOT A 9:00-5:00 OFFICE OPERATION.
HAVING SAID THAT, WE DON'T CALCULATE PARKING BY THE NUMBER OF OFFICE SPACES OR COUNT CHAIRS IN AN OFFICE.
WE DO BY SQUARE FOOTAGE. THAT'S THEIR CODE, AND THAT'S THE WAY THE CODE HAS ALWAYS BEEN ENACTED, AND WE MEET THAT CODE. THERE'S NO DEFICIENCIES.
BUT TO COUNT CHAIRS IN OFFICE SPACES, IT'S PUSHING BEYOND ANYTHING THAT WE'VE EVER ENCOUNTERED. WE'VE NEVER HAD TO DO THAT.
IT'S NOT TO SAY THAT SOMEONE CAN'T PUT SIX OFFICES, THEY PUT 10 OFFICES IN THERE.
THE FACT IS THAT WE'RE PARKING PER SQUARE FOOTAGE AND WE MEET THAT REQUIREMENT, AND THAT'S THE CODE.
IF THEY WANT TO CHANGE THAT, STAFF CAN AMEND THEIR PLAN, BUT THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT'S GOING TO GO.
THE ISSUE THAT WE HAD HISTORICALLY WAS THAT THERE WAS A CONTRACTOR'S OFFICE HERE AT 9:38.
THAT CONTRACTOR'S OFFICE WAS SO SUCCESSFUL THAT THEY HAD MORE AND MORE PARKING DEMAND THAN THEIR LITTLE OFFICE COULD HANDLE.
THEN MOVING OVER TO INTER-COASTAL POINT WAS THE BEST THING THEY COULD HAVE DONE.
THEY SHOULD HAVE DID IT 10 YEARS AGO.
BUT INSTEAD, THEY HELD ON, THEY GOT MORE SUCCESSFUL AND THEY HAD MORE PARKING NEEDS.
THEY'RE GONE NOW, THE PARKING ISSUE IS GONE IN THAT PART OF THE CORRIDOR.
I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SOUTH, I'M TALKING ABOUT WHAT ONSHORE WAS PRODUCING.
IT'S EVAPORATED. 2024 IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT SCENARIO THAN 2021.
>> WHAT HAPPENED TO THE TWO BUILDINGS HE SOLD, ARE THEY OCCUPIED NOW?
>> THEY ARE. ONE'S A DEVELOPER, NOT A CONTRACTOR, BUT A DEVELOPER, AND ONE IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL FIRM, AND SO THEY ARE A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE, 9:00-5:00.
>> IN YOUR OPINION, SHOULD THERE BE PARKING ALONG THERE?
>> WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY SHOULD IT BE?
>> 105 CENTER STREET. [LAUGHTER] ADD THAT IN THE CAN.
SORRY. THE REASON WHY I'M SAYING THAT IS BECAUSE 105 CENTER STREET IS SO POPULAR, IS GENERATING SO MUCH ACTIVITY THAT WE KNOW THAT WHY PEOPLE ARE PARKING THERE.
THE HISTORIC PARKING THAT WAS HAPPENING WITH CHRISTIAN THOMAS, AS ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAS A LEASE WITH FEC.
THAT WAS THE SAME TRAFFIC THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR THE PAST 10 YEARS AS WELL.
BUT THE SUCCESS OF 105 CENTER STREET, FERRO VIA IS WHAT'S GENERATING A LOT OF THE PARKING.
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PARKING ON THE AT&T SITE AND ACROSS THE WAY THAT AREN'T FEC RELATED ARE GOING TO 105 CENTER STREET.
>> IN ANY WAY IF THIS PARKING IS PUT UPON YOUR CLIENT, HOW BIG OF A BURDEN IS IT TO HIM WITH HIS PROJECT?
>> I'M GOING TO TELL YOU THAT IF YOU WANTED SOMEONE TO HAVE IN YOUR BACK CORNER TO GET A PROJECT DONE, IT'S THIS CLIENT HERE.
THIS IS THE CLIENT WHO'S GOING TO GET IT DONE, NOT THE 105 BECAUSE HE'S OBVIOUSLY NOT GOTTEN IT DONE TO THIS POINT.
BUT THE OPPORTUNITY THAT WE HAVE NOW, THIS INTEREST THAT IS NOW DEVELOPED, JUST AS I EXPLAINED THIS EVENING, IS THE BEST, I PUT MY MONEY ON THAT HORSE.
>> IN THE CURRENT PROPOSAL WITH THE PARKING FOR THE NUMBER OF SPACES, WOULD THAT ADEQUATELY SOLVE THE PARKING ISSUE THAT IS ON THE SOUTHERN PART OF THE CORRIDOR?
>> 105 CENTER STREET IS VESTED.
IT WAS VESTED. HE HASN'T HAD A SQUARE FOOTAGE.
HE DOESN'T CHANGE HIS USES. HE PARKS THE WHAT HE HAS TODAY.
IF HE WANTS TO DO ANYTHING ELSE, IF THOSE 22 SPACES COME ONLINE, HE SHOULD BE FINE.
HE SHOULD BE IN GREAT SHAPE. DID WE ADD MORE? ABSOLUTELY, BECAUSE THERE'S MORE THAN JUST 105 OBVIOUSLY.
I THINK THAT'S WHERE THIS OPPORTUNITY LIES IN THE RECENT PURCHASE OF RALPH STANDUP BECAUSE WE NOW HAVE
[00:30:02]
TWO PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE WANTING THOSE SPACES.THE OPPORTUNITIES ARE MUCH BIGGER NOW TO RESOLVE THIS WITH THIS APPLICANT IN THIS CLIENT, THAN THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN WITH 105 CENTER STREET.
>> QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT AND STAFF.
WHAT IF ANY INPUT OR HAVE YOU HAD FROM THE NEIGHBORS OR LOCAL BUSINESSES AROUND THERE? ANY INPUT AT ALL?
>> I'LL START. STAFF ASKED US, WOULD YOU REACH OUT TO THE NEIGHBORS BECAUSE YOU'RE TAKING THIS CONDITION OFF YOUR PLAN? I SAID, NO, WE DON'T HAVE TO MEET THE NEIGHBORS BECAUSE THE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2021 IS UNAFFECTED.
IF THEY TAKE CONDITION 5 OFF OF OUR RESOLUTION, THE NEIGHBORS AREN'T GOING TO SEE ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THEY ALREADY HAD SHOP TO THEM AND THEY SAW AND THEY UNDERSTOOD IN 2021, NOTHING CHANGED.
NOTHING GOT COMPLICATED ON THIS.
IT'S JUST INSTEAD OF THIS GUY AND THIS GUY, IT'S THIS GUY.
NOW, IT MIGHT BE THIS GUY AND THIS GUY.
THE REALITY IS IT'S NOT GOING ANYWHERE, AND NOTHING CHANGED.
THERE'S NOTHING TO SHOW THE NEIGHBORS TO GIVE THEM ANY, THINGS ARE UP IN THE AIR NOW.
THEY'RE NOT. 105 NEEDS THE PARKING, AND THEY HAVE TO.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
HOWEVER, WE HAVE A PLANNING AND ZONING SIGN OUT THERE THAT THEY DON'T KNOW EXACTLY EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING ON.
I WAS WONDERING IF YOU'VE HAD ANY COMMENTS ON THAT.
NO BUSINESSES OR SAID ANYTHING.
>> I DON'T THINK STAFF HAS EITHER.
>> STAFF, HAVE YOU HEARD ANYTHING?
>> FOR STAFF, ANY CONDITIONS THAT NEED TO BE MET THAT HAVEN'T BEEN TALKED ABOUT ALREADY?
>> I WANT AWARE THE ONE CONDITION, WHICH IS CONDITION 5 FOR THIS OFFICE BUILDING.
>> YOUR ANSWER TO CONDITION 5?
>> WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH STAFF, WE PREFER TO SEE THE CONDITION GO AWAY.
IF STAFF INSISTS THAT A CONDITION HAS TO BE PUT ON THE APPLICANT, THEN WE WOULD CRAFT THAT CONDITION TO COUNCIL TO ESSENTIALLY SAY IF TOWN HALL DETERMINES BY WAY OF A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, PARKING ANALYSIS THAT THERE'S PARKING GOING ON AND THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH THE INTENSITY OF THE USE THAT'S BEEN PUT ON 954 NORTH OLD DIXIE, THE APPLICANT WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO COMPLY WITH GETTING THE PARKING BUILT.
NOT HOLDING UP WE'RE PERMITTED, BUT ONCE THEY IDENTIFY A PARKING SITUATION. THIS HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE.
STAFF HAS AGREED TO CONDITIONS.
IF A PROBLEM OCCURS, WILL YOU COME AND BUILD THESE PARKING SPACES? ABSOLUTELY. WE DON'T WANT THAT CONDITION BECAUSE WE DON'T THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE A PROBLEM.
>> WITH CONDITION APPROVAL, YOU WOULD GO AHEAD AND MAKE THAT CONDITION.
>> I COULD LIVE WITH SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
>> THIS QUESTION IS FOR EVERYONE.
HAVE THERE BEEN ANY ACCIDENTS THERE BECAUSE OF THE WAY PEOPLE ARE PARKING, CAR ACCIDENTS, MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS?
>> I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
>> ALSO, WHEN I DROVE BY I SAW A FOR SALE SIGN ON THE PROPERTY.
WOULD THIS BE SOLD AND POTENTIALLY USED AS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF BUILDING USE SPACE?
>> FOR SALE SIGN IN THE FRONT LEFT HAND CORNER.
>> I THINK THAT'S A STANDARD PROCEDURE WHEN YOU HAVE A PIECE OF DIRT THEY JUST PUT A SIGN UP.
>> IT'S KICKING TIRES. AS FAR AS I'M UNDERSTANDING, MR. REEDY IS GOING TO BE BUILDING THAT BUILDING.
>> AS HE JUST ALLUDED TO, PROPERTIES CAN CHANGE OVER AT ANY TIME.
I UNDERSTOOD YOU TO SAY THAT THE FEC PARKING LEASE WOULD NOT RUN WITH THE LAND, SO IT WOULD HAVE TO BE RENEGOTIATED EVERY TIME, AND WITH A NEW PROPERTY OWNER?
>> THE FEC LEASE WILL BE SET BY WHOEVER COVERS THE PARKING AREA.
THEY'LL BE PAYING FOR THAT AREA.
IT'S JUST A BASIC BIG BLOB AND THEN THEY PAY FOR THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF AREA.
BECAUSE DAN REEDY DOESN'T USE IT ANYMORE.
HE LET HIS LEASE EXPIRE AND HE NO LONGER HAS A LEASE.
STAFF HAD MENTIONED THAT CHRISTIAN THOMAS CONSTRUCTION HAS SIGNS OUT THERE, NOTHING TO DO WITH US.
BUT THEY HAVE SIGNS OUT THERE, AND APPARENTLY, THEY SAY, YOU CAN'T PARK ANYWHERE OUTSIDE THE SIGNS.
I CAN ONLY ASSUME THAT THEY HAVE A LEASE WITH FEC, OTHERWISE, THEY WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO PUT SIGNS IN THERE RIGHT AWAY AND PUT CARS OUT THERE.
BUT WE'RE ALL ASSUMING BECAUSE NO ONE HAS ANY INFORMATION ON THOMAS.
[00:35:01]
>> THAT'S MY QUESTION IS, SO IT DOESN'T RUN WITH THE LAND?
>> HOW THIS WOULD WORK IS, IF THE OVERALL PLAN COMES INTO PLAY AND THOSE SPACES GET BUILT, CHRISTIAN THOMAS' PARKING THEY WOULD HAVE TO LET THAT EXPIRE.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO CANCEL THAT LEASE AND GO WITH THE OVERALL ONE, BECAUSE THEY CAN'T HAVE COMPETING PLANS AND THE OTHER PLAN IS A FULL IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
RIGHT NOW THEY'RE JUST PARKING THERE. THERE'S NO IMPROVEMENTS.
THEY'RE JUST PARKING IN THE DIRT, AND IT'D BE A CONFLICT OF THE APPROVED PLAN WITH THE IMPROVEMENTS VERSUS JUST A LEASE PLAN WHERE THEY JUST PARK WILLY-NILLY, AND THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE WORKED OUT WITH FEC.
I'M ASSUMING THOMAS MELHORN OR CHRISTIAN THOMAS WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT BECAUSE THEIR VEHICLES WILL BE PARKING IN NICE NEW PARKING SPACES VERSUS ON THE DIRT ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD.
AS MR. MYERS HAD MENTIONED, WHEN THE LIST FIRST STARTED IN 2021, WHEN WE CAME AFTER SEVEN YEARS OF APPLICATION AND GOT TO A COMMISSION HEARING, HEADING INTO THAT, THERE WERE THREE APPLICANTS, CHRISTIAN THOMAS, ONSHORE CONSTRUCTION, AND 105 CENTER STREET.
AS WE GOT TO THE END, STAFF WANTED ONE APPLICATION, ONE PLAN, MADE SENSE, BUT AS THEY SAID, THERE WERE GOING TO BE OTHER ACTIVE PLAYERS BECAUSE THEY NEEDED THE PARKING.
THOMAS MELHORN, CHRISTIAN THOMAS, APPARENTLY STILL PARKING OUT THERE.
I DON'T KNOW THAT, BUT THAT'S THEIR OBSERVATIONS, AND WE'RE NOT ANYMORE.
WE'RE COMPLETELY OFF THE GRID IN TERMS OF PARKING ACROSS THE WAY.
WE DON'T NEED IT AND THE OFFICE USERS ARE JUST TYPICAL OFFICE USERS.
WHEN THE PLAN COMES IN AND IT'S ONE COMPLETE LEASE, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO EITHER LET SUNSET OR CANCEL THE LEASE, AND FEC CAN DO THAT ON THE DIME.
IN 30 DAYS THEY CAN CANCEL YOUR LEASE, THEY OWN AND CONTROL THE RIGHTS OF WAYS.
>> BASICALLY THOUGH, IF WE HAVE 105 PUT IN THE ENTIRE PARKING PLAN AND THAT PROPERTY GETS SOLD AND YOU'RE SAYING THEN THE NEW OWNER IF THEY DON'T WANT TO RENEW THE LEASE OR GET A NEW LEASE, THEN WHAT HAPPENS?
>> WHEN YOU SAY 105 BEING SOLD? NO. WHENEVER USE GOES IN, RIGHT NOW, HIM PUTTING THAT PARKING IN HELPS WITH WHATEVER HE'S DOING, IT JUST CLEANS UP THE CORRIDOR.
HE DOESN'T NEED THE PARKING. HE'S NOT BOUND BY IT BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN VESTED BY WHAT HE HAS IN FRONT OF HIS 105 CENTER STREET.
HIM PUTTING THAT IN IS JUST TO GET ALL HIS PATRONS CLEANED UP AND OUT OF THERE RIGHT AWAY.
WHAT STAFF IS INDICATING IN TERMS OF THIS MESS OF PARKING IN THE SOUTH AND IN MY OPINION, IT IS UNFETTERED.
BUT THAT LEASE WILL HAVE TO BE RENEGOTIATED AS EVERY PERSON COMES THROUGH IF HE SOLD THAT BUILDING, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT HAS TO BE RENEWED WITH THE NEW OWNERS, YES.
>> NOW THE ORIGINAL CONDITION 5 WAS A JOINT PROJECT WITH ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS ON THAT SIDE OF THE STREET, INITIALLY, AM I CORRECT?
[OVERLAPPING] THERE WAS THREE PEOPLE THAT WERE INTERESTED INVOLVED AND THEY WERE WILLING TO COME TO THE TABLE TO WORK ON IT.
AT THE TIME OF THE APPROVAL, MR. REEDY HAD HIS THREE PLACES, AND YES, IT MADE SENSE.
IT TIED IN EXACTLY WHAT WHAT STAFF IS SAYING.
WE'RE NOT CONTESTING THAT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.
HE WAS GOING TO BE A PART OF THIS.
BUT AS SOON AS HE SOLD OFF HIS BUSINESS INTERESTS AND THERE WAS NO MORE PARKING PROBLEM FOR THEM, THE NEW BUILDING THAT'S GOING TO GET BUILT IS BEING BUILT TO CODE.
WE CAN'T PROJECT OR PRETEND THERE'S GOING TO BE A PARKING PROBLEM.
IF WE MET THE CODE AND EVERYONE ELSE GETS APPROVED AND GETS BUILT UNDER THE CODE, WE'RE BEING HELD TO A HIGHER STANDARD BECAUSE OF THE HISTORY OF WHAT WAS THERE THAT WE DON'T THINK IS EVER GOING TO COME BACK BECAUSE NO ONE WANTS TO FIGHT CITY HALL.
>> APPRECIATE THAT. QUESTION FOR STAFF.
YOU HAD ALLUDED TO A MODIFIED CONDITION 5. WHAT IS THAT?
>> WE HAD JUST OFFERED THAT AS A CONCEPT THAT THE COMMISSION MAY WANT TO CONSIDER.
IT WASN'T A RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF, IT WAS JUST UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE'S A LARGER PARKING PLAN THAT WAS INTENDED TO BE A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT BETWEEN AT LEAST THREE PROPERTY OWNERS.
IF FOR ANY REASON THOSE THREE PROPERTY OWNERS CAN'T STILL GET TOGETHER TO MOVE THAT FORWARD, IT JUST SEEMED REASONABLE TO CONSIDER CREATING A PATH FOR THIS APPLICANT JUST TO DO ENOUGH PARKING THAT WOULD APPEAR TO ACCOMMODATE THE USES THAT THEY'VE PROPOSED ON THEIR FLOOR PLAN, AND RECOGNIZING THE LIMITED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES AND THE SINGLE USE THEY HAVE THERE.
AS YOU MENTIONED, THAT WHILE THEY OWN THE PROPERTY
[00:40:04]
TODAY AND THEIR INTENT MAY BE TO OPERATE A FAMILY BUSINESS, THERE'S NOTHING TO REQUIRE THAT TO BE FOREVER FORWARD REQUIRED.IT COULD TURN OVER INTO OTHER USES THAT COULD HAVE DIFFERENT DYNAMICS.
THEN WE WERE LOOKING AT THE FLOOR PLAN, MADE OBSERVATIONS THAT WERE MADE IN 2021, AND AS A RESULT, THAT CONDITION WAS RECOMMENDED AT THAT TIME, AND IT WAS PUT INTO THE APPROVAL.
THERE WAS NO OBJECTION BY THE PROPERTY OWNER.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS BECAUSE IT WOULD ULTIMATELY HAVE TO BE REMOVED BY THE COUNCIL.
>> COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. [NOISE] I WENT BY THE SITE FRIDAY ABOUT 10 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING AND THERE WAS 12 CARS CLOSE TO CENTER STREET, TO LOCOMOTIVE, BUT THERE WAS ALSO FOUR CARS CLEARLY GAPED THAT WERE IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING AT 9:36.
PART OF THE ISSUE, I THINK IS 936 IN THE DRIVEWAY HAS A BOAT, A CONSTRUCTION TRAILER, AND AN AIRBOAT.
THERE'S NO PLACE FOR THAT PERSON TO PARK THEIR CARS.
I GUESS MY FIRST QUESTION FOR STAFF, IS THERE SOME CODE VIOLATION WHERE I THINK THAT PROBLEM MIGHT BE SOLVED POTENTIALLY IF WE CAN GET THAT PERSON TO STORE THEIR STUFF SOMEWHERE ELSE SO THEY'VE GOT ROOM FOR THEIR CARS.
>> I THINK THAT IS ONE THING THAT HAS COME TO THE ATTENTION THAT THAT PROPERTY HAS SIMILAR ISSUES THAT THE PROPERTIES IN THIS BLOCK HAVE HAD HISTORICALLY.
WE'VE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH CODE COMPLIANCE TO BRING TO THEIR ATTENTION, THE NEED TO START MAKING OBSERVATIONS.
I HAVE AUTHORITY IN THE CODE AS THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING TO REQUEST PARKING ANALYSIS AND PLAN TO MITIGATE THEIR ISSUES.
IF WE DETERMINE THAT THEY HAVE INADEQUATE PARKING, MEANING THAT THEY HAVE A SHORTAGE OF PARKING THAT RESULTS IN PARKING IN RIGHT OF WAYS AND OTHER PROPERTIES ONCE DURING SEVEN DAYS AND RE-OCCURRING FOR THE FOLLOWING WEEK.
THAT IS SOMETHING WE CAN PURSUE.
>> THEN I GUESS THE QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
WITH REGARD TO THE NEW PLAN, WHAT'S THE TYPICAL COST OF PER SPACE OF THIS TRUE GRID OR WHATEVER YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO BUILD? JUST AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE.
>> THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT COST TO PUT THE TRUE GRID IN AND PUT IN THE BASE ROCK THAT'S NEEDED TO SUPPORT IT.
THE LITTLE CHAMBERS ARE FILLED WITH ROCK.
IT'S NOT AS EXPENSIVE AS IF YOU WENT IN [INAUDIBLE] BUT IT'S CERTAINLY A MAGNITUDE MORE EXPENSIVE BECAUSE OF ALL THE BASE WORK HAS TO GO IN UNDERNEATH IT.
>> TEN THOUSAND SPACE? DO WE HAVE ANY BALLPARK?
>> I'M GOING TO SPIT BALL THIS BECAUSE YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO BE NORTH OF 250,000 FOR 22 SPACE, SO YOU'RE PROBABLY ABOUT 10,12 THOUSAND MAYBE.
>> THAT'S HELPFUL AND FORGIVE ME.
I THINK MAYBE ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS DOWN HERE ASKED, WERE THE PURCHASERS OF THE BUILDING THAT OFFSHORE SOLD AWARE OF THIS 23 PARKING SPACE OBLIGATION? DID THAT GO WITH THEIR BUILDING OR WAS THAT ALWAYS PERSONAL?
>> HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THOSE BUILDINGS.
THOSE BUILDINGS HAVE NO CONDITION ON THEM FOR OFF STREET PARKING.
THE ONSHORE CONSTRUCTION BUILDING THAT WAS GENERATING THE ISSUE WITH PARKING FOR 938.
THE ONLY ACTIVE THING THAT STAFF COULD HAVE DONE WAS WHEN DAN CAME IN TO DO A THIRD BUILDING, THEY TIED THIS TO THE THIRD BUILDING BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T TIE IT TO THE APPROVED USES THAT WERE THERE.
>> BECAUSE IT WAS THE OWNER OF ALL THOSE [INAUDIBLE]
>> DO YOU HAVE TO BE THE OWNER OF ALL THREE?
>> GOT IT. THEN DO WE KNOW DOES THE FEC ALLOW IMPROVEMENTS LIKE THIS ON A TEMPORARY PARKING? LEASE. YEAH. THEY DO.
>> YEAH, ALL DAY LONG. WE HAVE 75 PARKING SPACES GOING IN WEST PALM BEACH ALONG IN THE FEC BEHIND A LARGE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, AND THEY HAVE NO ISSUE WITH WHATEVER YOU DO INSIDE YOUR LEASE AREA.
WE NEGOTIATED THIS OUT WITH TOWN COUNCIL IN TERMS OF HOW THESE IMPROVEMENTS.
WE DIDN'T WANT TO BURDEN THE BUSINESS OWNERS FOR PARKING LOT BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT AT ANY TIME, FEC CAN COME IN AND ROLL A TRUCK OVER IT.
NOW YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE TO FIX IT.
FOR GOODS EASY TO FIX. ASPHALT AND CURBING. NOT SO MUCH.
>> I THINK THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAD.
>> YOU MAY HAVE MISSED. I DON'T KNOW IF COMMISSIONER BLUM HAD COMMENTS.
I KEEP GETTING CONFUSED BECAUSE I KNOW YOU'RE NOT VOTING.
[00:45:03]
I DIDN'T KNOW SHE STILL CAN ASK QUESTIONS.SORRY. GO AHEAD. COMMISSIONER BLUM.
I WAS THERE 4 O'CLOCK YESTERDAY AND THERE WERE FOUR CARS SOUTH END. THAT WAS IT.
BUT MY CONCERN WAS THAT I SAW THE FOR SALE SIGN, LIKE YOU SAID, AND I THOUGHT, WELL, WHAT COMES IN HERE NEXT AND WILL THEY INHERIT THE POTENTIAL PROBLEM OF PARKING?
>> NO, FOR SALE SIGNS IS A STANDARD.
IF YOU HAVE A VACANT PIECE OF LAND, YOU THROW A FOR SALE SIGN ON, IF A TIRE KICKER COMES AND IT'S A STANDARD OF PRACTICE.
IF HE COULD BUILD THIS BUILDING TOMORROW, HE WOULD BUILD THE BUILDING TOMORROW, BUT HE'S BEING HELD UP.
THIS CONDITION IS STOPPING HIM FROM PROCEEDING AND IF WE HAD THE CONDITIONS OF 2021, I WOULDN'T BE HERE BECAUSE WE'D BE PART OF THE PROBLEM.
BECAUSE THAT PROBLEM HAS VANISHED IN THE NORTH END OF THE THING.
WE'RE HERE TO SAY, LET'S GET THE BUILDING BUILT IN A SMALL LITTLE OFFICE IN THERE, CLOSE IT OUT. THAT'S THE END.
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE ANY MORE CONTRACTOR STORAGE IS THERE.
JOHN'S RIGHT, THOUGH, I WILL NOT DISAGREE.
ANYTHING CAN GO THERE THAT'S ALLOWED IN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL OR IN THIS SMALL COMMERCIAL SETTING.
WE WERE LUCKY IN THE FACT THAT WE HAVE AN END USER WHO RECOGNIZED THAT, MOVED HIS BUSINESS OUT OF THERE.
HE'S NOW AT FISHERMAN'S WHARF IN THAT PLAZA AND INTERCOASTAL POINT AND SOLD IT OFF TO REGULAR BUSINESS OWNERS AND THERE'S NO ISSUES ANYMORE.
YEAH, THERE'S A PARKING PROBLEM AT THE SOUTH END, BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH US ANYMORE.
WE'RE TRYING TO MOVE ON FROM IT AND GET THE BUILDING BUILT AND CALL IT A DAY.
WE CAN'T SAY THERE MAY BE A PROBLEM, SO WE CAN'T PLAN, WE MIGHT AS WELL GO HOME.
WE UNDERSTAND WHAT IS REASONABLE THERE BECAUSE IT'S SO SMALL, AND WE THINK THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO END UP THERE. GUYS BUSINESS OFFICE.
>> I CAN APPRECIATE THAT, BUT WHAT IF IT DID GET SOLD? THEY SOLD TWO OTHER PROPERTIES.
WHAT IF THEY DID GET SELL DOWN THE ROAD, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU KNOW ABOUT PARKING AT THAT POINT?
>> THE PROCESS THAT I HAD MENTIONED ABOUT THE 936 THAT THE CHAIR BROUGHT UP HAVING SOME PARKING ISSUES, THAT SAME APPROACH COULD BE TAKEN, BUT AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, IT HAS NOT BEEN A VERY EFFECTIVE TOOL FOR US TO GET RESOLVED.
>> I CAN APPRECIATE YOUR DILEMMA.
YOU CAN SEE THIS OTHER PIECE TO IT OF WHAT DO YOU DO IF THAT HAPPENS?
>> STAFF HAS ALL THE REGULATORY AUTHORITY TO GO AFTER THEM UNDER CODE COMPLIANCE AND SEEK RELIEF IF IT'S CAUSING PROBLEMS. I'M GOING TO SAY THAT, I THINK PETER ALLUDED TO IT.
NO ONE CAME OUT ON THIS, NO ONE CARES.
IN TERMS OF THIS CONDITION, I'M SORRY.
I'M NOT SAYING NO ONE CARES ABOUT THE PARKING, DON'T GET ME WRONG.
I'M JUST TRYING TO SAY IN TERMS OF US PULLING AWAY FROM HAVING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PARKING BECAUSE THE PLAN STILL ACTIVATED AND THEY'RE GOING TO GET WHAT THEY HAD SEEN BACK IN THE DAY.
STAFF HAD TO REACH OUT TO THE MOST VOCAL PERSON OF THAT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RESULT WAS, BUT ULTIMATELY HAS [INAUDIBLE] OURSELVES FROM HAVING TO COMPLY OR BUILD THE PARKING, IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE PLAN.
THEY'RE STILL GOING TO GET THE PARKING, IT'S COMING, AND I'M HAPPY THAT IT'S POTENTIALLY COMING JUST BASED ON THE THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING IN 2024.
WE'RE NO LONGER A PROBLEM THERE, AND WE'VE GOT A LOT OF ACTION HAPPENING UP ON CENTER STREET THAT'S GOING TO, I THINK GET US THE PARKING SOONER THAN LATER.
I CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT FOR YOU, BUT I'LL CERTAINLY BE HAPPY TO REPORT THIS TO YOU BECAUSE AGAIN, THAT'S [INAUDIBLE] WAY TODAY AND THE WORLD CHANGES.
>> THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC?
>> THANK YOU. DELIBERATION. LET'S SWITCH THINGS AROUND.
CAN I START ON THIS END WITH COMMISSIONER BLUM?
>> I THINK WHAT THEY'RE PRESENTING IS VERY REASONABLE.
LIKE I SAID, AT THE TIME I WAITED AT 4 O'CLOCK, CARS CERTAINLY WERE NOT AN ISSUE.
THERE WERE FOUR AT THE SOUTH END. THAT WAS IT.
MY ONLY CONCERN WOULD BE WHAT CAN IT BE SOLD TO? THEREFORE, WHAT MIGHT THE FUTURE LOOK LIKE?
>> I GUESS LOOKING IN FUTURE IN THE SENSE OF THE CENTER STREET OVERLAY.
I THINK THIS WHOLE DISTRICT IS GOING TO GET MORE IMPACTED AS TIME GOES ON.
BUT DO WE PUT THAT ON THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT'S HERE BEFORE US TONIGHT.
I AM OPEN TO THE CONCEPT OF THE AMENDED FIVE,
[00:50:01]
THAT MAYBE THEY HAVE TO DO THE THREE PARKING SPACES, SO THEY DO THEIR SHARE.BECAUSE THE DAY THAT I WENT THERE, THERE WERE CARS PARKED ALL THE WAY UP TO THE NORTH END.
I SAW CARS PARKED UP THROUGH THERE.
IT'S NOT JUST A SOUTH END ISSUE. THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS.
>> I'M OPEN TO THE REVISED AMENDMENT, AND IF A TRAFFIC STUDY NEEDS TO BE DONE IN THE FUTURE, I THINK THE PREVAILING PARTY COULD BE THE ONE TO BEAR THE FINANCIAL BURDEN OF THAT.
THE FOUR TIMES I'VE GONE BY, THERE WAS ONLY ONE TIME WHERE THERE ARE LESS THAN 20 CARS.
BUT AGAIN, THEY DID NOT GO UP TO THIS PROPERTY OF 954.
>> I WOULD FEEL CONFIDENT WITH APPROVING THIS MEASURE WITH THE CONDITION 5 BEING MET AS THE STAFF HAS PUT TOGETHER ALREADY.
I THINK THAT'S THE PRUDENT WAY TO GO.
YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT IT, AND I THINK THIS WILL GO FORWARD AND WHOEVER THE OWNER IS GOING FORWARD.
>> THE FULL 23 SPACES. COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE]
>> I THINK THE LEAD. I THINK THAT PARKING IS ASKED BEFORE THE AGENDA.
I SIMPLY WON'T GO OVER THERE FOR COFFEE BECAUSE I'LL GO DOWN TO A PLACE WITH A PARKING LOT INSTEAD.
PARKING IS AN ISSUE. I JUST DON'T THINK THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PARTICULAR [INAUDIBLE] HAPPEN.
>> THAT'S THE AMENDED THE THREE PARKING SPACES.
>> BURIED OR COVERED AND THERE ARE FREQUENTLY DERAILMENTS, NOT CATASTROPHIC DERAILMENTS, MUNDANE DERAILMENTS.
EVERY DERAILMENT IS GOING TO REQUIRE A STAGING AREA FOR THE REPAIRS FOR THAT.
FORCING ONE PROPERTY OWNER TO EVEN DO THREE SPOTS ON SOMETHING THAT'S REALLY AT WILL IT COULD CHANGE IN THE HEARTBEAT. IT'D BE DIFFERENT.
IT WAS A DIFFERENT KIND OF LAND, A DIFFERENT PLACE.
BUT WHERE THIS IS AND WHERE THOSE TRACKS ARE A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH IT, AND I'M SYMPATHETIC TO THE APPLICANT.
I KNOW THE IDEA. IT SEEMS LIKE THE RIGHT AND EQUITABLE THING TO DO TO AT LEAST HAVE THEM DO THEIR FAIR SHARE AND BUILD THOSE THREE SPOTS, BUT I'M ALSO WORRIED THAT FEDERAL FOOD BUILDS HOW MANY SPOTS ON. IT'S A DIFFERENT ANIMAL.
>> MY THOUGHT, I'M SYMPATHETIC TO THIS OWNER BEARING THE FULL COST, BUT IT WAS A CONDITION THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL, SO I THINK WE HAVE TO BE MINDFUL OF THE PRECEDENT THAT WAS SET.
IN MY MIND, I'M THINKING, THREE SPACES FOR NOW IS A MINIMUM COMMITMENT THAT I THINK THE STAFF IS COMFORTABLE WITH.
MY THOUGHT IS, I THINK IT WOULD BE GREAT
[00:55:03]
IF LOCOMOTIVE OR WHATEVER THAT'S CALLED ENDS UP SAYING, YEAH, WE WANT TO BUILD 20 SOMETHING SPACES HERE, BUT WE DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.MY THOUGHT WOULD BE HAVE THE CURRENT OWNER BUILD THE THREE SPACES NOW.
IT'S NOT A HUGE COST TO DO THAT, AND ALSO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE A CONTINUING LIABILITY TO BUILD THESE EXTRA SPACES UNLESS TWO THINGS HAPPEN.
ONE, THE TRAFFIC STUDY TRIGGERS IT AND THEY'VE GOT TO BUILD IT SOONER, OR IF THEY GET ANOTHER OWNER TO TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR BUILDING THOSE SPACES, BECAUSE I WANT TO BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU SAID, IT WOULD BE GREAT IF LOCOMOTIVE TOOK THE RESPONSIBILITY.
BUT I DON'T WANT TO RELEASE THE OWNER THAT'S CURRENTLY OBLIGATED TO THAT NOW.
DOES THAT SOUND LIKE AN APPROACH THREE NOW? PLUS THE CONTINUING OBLIGATION TO BUILD UP TO 23 UNLESS A NEW OWNER TAKES ON THAT OBLIGATION TO FILL THOSE EXTRA 20 SPACES.
>> HOW DOES THAT CORRELATE WITH CONDITION 5?
IT JUST REQUIRE THE THREE FOR NOW, AND THEN WE'VE GOT TO PUT SOME OTHER VERBIAGE IN IT.
>> YOU COULD HAVE BEEN CONDITION 5 TO REQUEST THAT.
>> JUST A TOUCH ON SOMETHING IF YOU DON'T MIND.
YOU TOUCH ON SOMETHING REALLY IMPORTANT.
IF A NEW OWNER COMES ON AND WANTS TO TAKE ON THAT RESPONSIBILITY, WE'RE MORE THAN HAPPY, AGREE TO THAT KIND OF MODIFICATION BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S THE WAY IT'S GOING TO GO.
BUT AGAIN, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE NOT COMPLETELY OFF THE HOOK, AND IF THE TRAFFIC STUDY DOES BEAR SUPPORT THAT THERE IS AN ISSUE, WE GOT TO BUILD ON NOW, THEN THE CURRENT OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE TO DO THAT.
>> WOULD THAT BE CONDITION 5 WITH THREE SPACES?
>> CAN YOU CLARIFY. IT WOULD BE MODIFYING CONDITION 5 TO REQUIRE THREE SPACE TO BE BUILT NOW AND THEN THE REMAINDER IF A TRAFFIC STUDY OR PARKING STUDY REQUIRES IT?
>> OR IF ANOTHER OWNER TAKES ON THE RESPONSIBILITY TO CONSTRUCT THOSE 20 SPACES IN THE FUTURE.
>> JUST A QUICK QUESTION. I ASSUME THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD BE ABLE TO PUT SOME SIGNAGE ON THE SPOTS LIMITING IT TO PARKING.
>> IT SOUNDS LIKE IT SINCE MELHORN THOMAS DID THAT WITH SOME OTHER SPACES THERE.
>> THAT'S RIGHT. SEEMS LIKE THE RIGHT THING TO DO IF WE'RE GOING TO BUILD.
>> YEAH. HAVE THE RIGHTS TO IT?
>> IF YOU DON'T MIND, NO, WE CAN'T ASSIGN THE SPACES, THEY'RE OUT FOR THE PUBLIC.
IF YOU BUILD THE THREE SPACES, NOT GUARANTEED SPACES.
YOU'RE COMMITTING TO SPACES THAT HE CAN'T PUT A SIGN ON.
THOMAS MELHORN CAN DO IT NOW BECAUSE HE'S PARKING IN THE FEC UNDER LEASE.
I THE PARKING SPACES. THEY'RE LEASED WITH FEC.
THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO PUT SIGNS ON AND SAY, THESE ARE PARKING SPACES.
UNDER THE TOWN'S PLAN, YOU CAN ASSIGN THOSE SPACES.
SOMEONE COULD TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEM, BUT THEY'RE TECHNICALLY OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
HE'S GOING TO BUILD THREE SPACES, ANYONE COME ALONG IN THE PARKING.
>> WOULDN'T HE HAVE TO GET A LEASE WITH FEC TO BUILD IT ON THEIR PROPERTY?
>> THEN AT THAT POINT, HE COULD PUT THE SIGNS ON.
>> I WILL LET HIM DO THAT. THAT'S PART OF IT.
>> YOU WANT TO MAKE IT SO THAT ALTHOUGH HE HAS THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF SPACES NOW, AND WE'RE NOT SURE IF HE'S GOING TO BE CROWDING THERE, HE STILL HAS TO DO THREE SPACES REQUIRED RATHER THAN WAITING TO SEE IF THERE'S CONGESTION?
>> THE LEASE WITH FEC, WHICH THEY SHOULD HAVE ANYWAY.
>> THE AUDIO FOR ME IS TERRIBLE SO I'M SORRY, I REALLY CAN'T PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSION.
>> PETER, ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT, WHAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT.
>> SORRY, IF YOU COULD JUST CLARIFY FOR US REAL QUICKLY.
IF A PARKING DEMAND STUDY RECOGNIZES A FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PARKING, IT WOULD BE THE REMAINDER OF THE SPACES.
THIS OWNER WOULD BE OBLIGATED TO EXECUTE A LEASE THEN THROUGH FEC TO MEET THAT OBLIGATION.
>> OR WHOEVER IN THE FUTURE OWNS IT.
>> WHOEVER TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR THOSE ADDITIONAL 20 SPACES.
IF 105 SAYS, I NEED THEM, I'LL PAY FOR THEM, I'LL GET THE LEASE.
THEN THIS CURRENT APPLICANT IS RELEASED OF THAT FUTURE OBLIGATION TO BUILD THOSE ADDITIONAL 20 SPACES.
>> UNDERSTAND. FIRST ONE TO THE DOOR TO SOLVE.
>> I HAVE JUST A CONCERN HERE.
I'M NOT SURE HOW WE CAN PUT A CONDITION THAT REQUIRE SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE IF THE BUILDING PERMITS ARE ALREADY ISSUED?
[01:00:01]
IT WOULD BE SOMEWHAT OF A CONTINUING CONDITION.LET'S SAY THEY DO THE THREE SPACES, THEY GET THE BUILDING PERMIT.
I'M NOT SURE HOW THE TOWN IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO ENFORCE THE OBLIGATION AFTER THE TRAFFIC STUDY IS DONE.
>> DON'T WE HAVE THAT, THOUGH, STAFF LIKE WE JUST APPROVED JUPITER CHRISTIAN OR JUPITER PRICE FELLOWSHIP.
SAID IF WE DO A PARKING STUDY, THEN THEY'VE GOT TO DO CERTAIN THINGS TO ALLEVIATE THAT PARKING ISSUE.
AREN'T THERE WAYS WE CAN DO THAT?
>> WAS AS IT RELATES TO TRAFFIC ISSUE, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN POTENTIALLY IDENTIFIED BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT THROUGH THOSE OPERATIONS, BUT I BELIEVE WHAT THE ATTORNEY IS REFERRING TO IS THAT ONCE WE'VE ISSUED THE BUILDING PERMIT, THERE'S NO FURTHER CHECK BEYOND IF THE TOWN WERE TO NOTICE AN ISSUE WITH INADEQUATE PARKING AND ENACT THAT CLAUSE.
SO IT MAY BE DIFFICULT IN THE FUTURE, DEPENDING UPON HOW THINGS MATERIALIZE TO ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO ENFORCE THAT.
>> CORRECT. THAT'S MY CONCERN.
THERE'S NO TEETH TO IT AFTER BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED.
LET ME THINK. NOT A SPECIFIC ABOUT.
WE ISSUED A ZONING CHANGE TO CHRIST FELLOWSHIP FOR THEIR NEW LOCATION BASED ON THE EXISTING PARKING PLAN, AND IT SAID IF WE DO A STUDY 6-9 MONTHS FROM NOW THAT SHOWS THAT THE PARKING IS INADEQUATE, YOU HAVE TO GET ADDITIONAL SPACES., I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT.
>> I'M NOT AWARE, SO I CAN'T COMMENT EITHER WAY.
I'M JUST EXPRESSING MY CONCERN IF STAFF IS NOT HEAR THAT? THAT'S FINE.
I'M JUST LOCALIZING WHAT I COULD SEE IS POTENTIALLY A FUTURE ISSUE.
IF IT'S BEEN ADDRESSED BEFORE.
>> SO IF THE COMMISSION HAS A RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU'D LIKE US TO EVALUATE AND WORK WITH THE TOWN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE BETWEEN NOW AND THE TIME THIS GOES TO THE TOWN COUNCIL, WE'D BE HAPPY TO DO THAT.
WE MIGHT NOT HIT THE MARK OR MAY BE ABLE TO DO IT.
BUT I DO THINK YOU BRING UP SOME POINTS.
I MEAN, THERE ARE APPROVALS OUT THERE WHERE THERE HAD TO BE MONITORING CONDITIONS RELATED TO SUSPECTED ISSUES IN THE FUTURE, [INAUDIBLE] HAD THEM FOR I THINK A TURN LANE TO BE CLOSED IF IT CAUSED A HAZARD, THERE'S BEEN A FEW
>> WE'D BE HAPPY TO GO BACK AND EVALUATE IT.
>> I'M JUST A LITTLE WORRIED ABOUT THE BURDEN THAT WE PUT ON SOMEBODY WHO MEETS A NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES IN THE REQUIREMENT, AND WE'RE MAKING THEM DO THREE MORE SPACES BEFORE WE KNOW IF THEY'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO OVERFLOW THE PARKING LOT.
AS OPPOSED TO WAITING FOR THE THREE TO SEE IF THEY OVERFLOW? THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN.
I'M HAVING BEING A BUSINESS OWNER IN TOWN.
IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S A LITTLE BIT BURDENSOME FOR THE PERSON TO GO THROUGH THAT AN EXTRA EXPENSE.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, TOO.
IS THERE ANY PRECEDENCE OF ANY OTHER PRIOR APPLICANT OR PROPERTY OWNER IN THE TOWN THAT'S HAD TO DO ADDITIONAL PARKING WHEN THEY'RE ALREADY EATING OR FULFILLING WHAT THE CODE REQUIREMENT IS FOR PARKING FOR THEIR OWN SPOT.
>> I WE'VE HAD THAT ISSUE COME UP WITH, LIKE, RESTAURANTS THAT HAVE HIGHER PARKING NEEDS.
>> I DON'T KNOW RIGHT OFF. IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE SETTING UP A STRANGE INSTEAD TO TIE THIS TO ONE PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
>> I ASKED A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT EXACTLY TO YOUR POINT, THEY WERE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CODE, BUT WE WANTED TO PUT SOMETHING TO PROTECT THE TOWN, SOME ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM THAT IF REALITY BECAME WHAT I'VE KNOWN AT THE OTHER CAMPUSES, AND WE HAD SOME WAY OF CREATING SOME ENFORCEMENT OR SOME ACTION ON BEHALF.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY OTHER EXISTING ONES.
THAT'S THE ONLY ONE I'VE BEEN AWARE OF SINCE I'VE BEEN ON THE PLAN ZONING.
>> I SEE A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CHRIST FELLOWSHIP AND A FAMILY OFFICE.
YEAH. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE INFLUX OF TRAFFIC ON SUNDAY MORNING VERSUS A FEW [INAUDIBLE].
I THINK THEY'VE GOT THEIR PERMITS ALREADY.
I WOULD IMAGINE THEY'RE READY TO GO.
THAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. CAN WE DO?
[01:05:01]
>> THEY PERFORMED A TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THAT OFFICE USE.
I UNDERSTAND STAFF ANALYSIS AT THE ARCHITECTURAL LEVEL, WHICH ISN'T VALID IN TERMS OF HOW WE GET CAUGHT UP APPROVED, BUT WE HAVE A TRAFFIC STUDY.
IT WAS APPROVED. WE HAVE TPS FROM PALM BEACH COUNTY.
THIS OFFICE USE 800 SQUARE FEET PARKS ITSELF AND IT DOESN'T GENERATE EXCESS OF TRAFFIC BECAUSE IT'S IT'S A 9-5 USE AND FIRST THING IN THE MORNING END OF THE DAY, THAT'S WHEN THE ACTIVITY IS AND THAT'S IT.
THE PARKING NEEDS OF IT SPECIFICALLY, THERE'S NOTHING TO THE SIZE OF IT THAT'S GOING TO CALL ON ANYTHING ABOVE AND BEYOND.
THE UNIQUES AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT.
THERE'S NOT ANYTHING MORE TO SAY.
WE'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH MODIFYING THE CONDITION.
WE DON'T WANT A CONDITION, BUT IF WE HAVE TO MODIFY A CONDITION, WE CAN DO THAT. I AGREE.
HAVING THE BURDEN OF PUTTING THREE SPACES IN AUTOMATICALLY WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING THAT WE HAVE A PROBLEM IS OVERBURDENING US TO PUT SOMETHING IN PLACE THAT MAY NEVER COME TO FRUITION.
IT SEEMS LIKE WE'VE BACKED OUT OF SOMETHING THAT SAID, LET'S PUT A CONDITION ON THAT SAYS, IF YOU HAVE A TRAFFIC PROBLEM, WE'LL RECOGNIZE IT, WE'LL SAY WHAT THE TRAFFIC PROBLEM IS, AND THIS IS WHAT'S GOING TO FIX IT.
THAT WE CAN AGREE TO BECAUSE WE KNOW IF THERE'S A PROBLEM OUT THERE AND THEY FEEL CODE ENFORCEMENT CAN'T SOLVE IT, THEN IT'S ON US TO BASICALLY SAY WE NEED FOUR MORE SPACES OR THREE MORE SPACES, WHATEVER THAT ANALYSIS SHOW.
I CAN'T INCLUDE THEM ON THIS, BUT YOU RAISE SOMETHING PERFECT THAT WAS, IF SOMEONE ELSE COMES ALONG AND PICKS UP THE BURDEN AND WANTS TO DO IT, I KNOW THEY WILL DO THAT.
IF WE CAN CREATE A CONDITION LIKE THAT, I'LL FULFILL IT.
I CAN'T COMMIT TO THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD IT TOMORROW.
BUT IT'S THE RIGHT PEOPLE COME ON BOARD TO DO IT AND GET IT DONE.
STAFF WILL GET WHAT THEY WANT.
PARKING CLEANED UP ON NORTH DIXIE.
THESE FOLKS WILL HAVE PARKING FOR THE BUSINESS THEY JUST BOUGHT IN THE SOUTH END OF CENTER STREET IN NORTH DIXIE, AND THE GUY WHO HAS NO PLAY IN THIS ANYMORE CAN GET HIS BUILDING BUILD.
WE CAN CRAFT THAT CONDITION FROM NOW TO TOWN COUNCIL. WE DO IT ALL TIME.
>> THANK YOU. OTHER DISCUSSION?
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME? I WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE MOVING AHEAD WITH CONDITION 5 WITHOUT THE THREE SPACES THERE.
>> NO IMMEDIATE REQUIREMENT TO DO THE THREE SPACES AND IT WOULD JUST BE SUBJECT TO FUTURE TRAFFIC STUDY OR IF THERE'S ANOTHER OWNER THAT TAKES UP THE OBLIGATION. OTHER DISCUSSION?
>> [INAUDIBLE] STIPULATION ON A FUTURE OWNER?
>> CAN WE PUT THAT STIPULATION [OVERLAPPING].
>> I GUESS ANYBODY. WELL, JUST A PERMIT.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THESE CONDITIONS RUN WITH THE LAND.
[OVERLAPPING] ON THAT PURCHASED SUBJECT.
>> IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE EITHER NOT THREE SPACES NOW, BUT WE'RE OKAY WITH THE DOWNSTREAM OF IF TRAFFIC STUDY TRIGGERS THE 20 SPACES, THEY'RE OBLIGATED UNLESS I GUESS IT'S 20 OR 23, OR IF ANOTHER OWNER TAKES ON THAT OBLIGATION.
THE QUESTION IS, DO WE ASK THEM TO DO THE THREE SPACES NOW OR NOT DO ANY SPACES NOW?
>> I FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH NOT HAVING HIM DO ANY SPACES RIGHT NOW, WE'LL JUST HAVE TO FIND OUT HOW IT GOES.
SEE HOW IT GOES AND WE'LL GO FROM THERE.
LIKE YOU SAID, IT IS AN ONEROUS REQUIREMENT TO PUT ON.
>> DOES SOMEONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION?
>> I THINK ANYTHING WOULD BE TRIGGERED BY A PARKING STUDY OR A TRAFFIC STUDY WHERE IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT THERE WAS OVERFLOW TRAFFIC PARKING IN THAT SEGMENT ON THE EAST SIDE OF DIXIE HIGHWAY.
>> CODE ENFORCEMENT IS ONE WAY THAT WE CAN POLICE THAT.
IS THERE SOMETHING WE CAN PUT IN THERE THAT IF THEY HAVE A CITATION REGARDING PARKING THAT THAT WOULD TRIGGER?
>> JOHN, I'M NOT SURE WHAT WOULD TRIGGER ADDITIONAL PARKING?
>> PER THE CODE AND THE PROVISION FOR INADEQUATE PARKING, IT WOULD BE IF IT'S DEMONSTRATED BY VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE SPACES OR ALL OF THE SPACES ON SITE BEING USED AND THEN HAVING ADDITIONAL OFF SITE IMPACTS.
THE EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN WITH SOME OF THE OTHER BUSINESSES THERE.
THEY WILL RESERVE THEIR PARKING IN THEIR PARKING LOT THAT'S CONVENIENT FOR CUSTOMERS, JUST FOR CUSTOMERS.
THEY'LL HAVE VACANT SPACES IN THEIR PARKING LOT AND THEN THEIR EMPLOYEES AND CONTRACTORS AND WHATEVER WILL PARK ON THE STREET.
[01:10:01]
IT'S NOT PERFECT BECAUSE THE CODE IS WRITTEN, IT DOESN'T REALLY ADDRESS THE SITUATION THAT'S BEEN GOING ON.LIKE I SAID, IT'S NOT BEEN AN EFFECTIVE TOOL FOR US.
BECAUSE IF YOU GO OUT THERE WHEN ONSHORE WAS IN FULL OPERATION, THEY WOULD HAVE EMPTY SPACES IN FRONT OF THEIR BUILDING RIGHT UP FRONT.
BUT ACROSS THE STREET, THEY'D HAVE A NUMBER OF VEHICLES PARKED THERE ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR BUSINESS.
IT DIDN'T TECHNICALLY MEET THAT STANDARD IN THE ZONING CODE FOR INADEQUATE PARKING.
>> WE SEE CHRISTIAN THOMAS THAT HAPPENS THERE TOO.
THEY WILL HAVE PEOPLE PARKED AT THOSE SPACES THAT ARE MARKED ON OLD DIXIE, AND THEY'LL HAVE EMPTY SPACES ON THEIR ONSITE PARKING LOT.
>> YEAH, AND FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, I THINK I TOLD YOU ALL THAT WENT THERE 10 O'CLOCK OR WHATEVER ON FRIDAY MORNING.
THERE WERE THOSE FOUR CARS PARKED IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING ON THE CORNER, BUT THE NEXT TWO BUILDINGS HAD PLENTY OF SPACES AVAILABLE ON THEIR SITES.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY NEED THE THREE SPACES NOW OR NOT.
I JUST THOUGHT OF IT AS A WAY TO BELT AND SUSPENDERS THIS THING.
WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION?
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION. MOTION TO DELETE CONDITION 5 RESOLUTION FROM 20-21.
>> DO I HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION? ANYONE WHO WANT TO MAKE A SECOND MOTION OR A DIFFERENT MOTION?
>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO INCORPORATE CONDITION 5 AS STAFF AS RECOMMENDED.
BUT WITH THE DOWNSTREAM OBLIGATION? OKAY. THAT'S WITHOUT ANY SPACES NOW, BUT WITH AN OBLIGATION TO CONSTRUCT THE 23 SPACES IF A PARKING STUDY REQUIRES OR UNTIL A NEW OWNER TAKES ON THAT OBLIGATION.
WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION? OKAY. SECOND. I THINK THAT'S RIGHT.
THAT WOULD BE DONE BY THE PROPERTY OWNER.
>> THE STAFF WOULD OBLIGATE THE OWNER TO PRODUCE THE PARKING STUDY.
>> THE MOTION IS NO PARKING SPACES NOW, 23 IF THE TRAFFIC STUDY WARRANTS OR IT'S RELIEVED IF A NEW OWNER TAKES ON THE OBLIGATION. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> CAN I PLEASE PULL THE [INAUDIBLE]?
>> [INAUDIBLE] TWENTY THREE SPACES.
>> THERE'S A TRAFFIC STUDY THAT THERE'S OVERFLOW 22954 OR JUST OVERFLOW IN GENERAL?
>> IN GENERAL, ON THAT PART OF DIXIE HIGHWAY, ACROSS FROM THOSE BUILDINGS.
>> THE WHOLE STREET, YOU MEAN?
>> WELL, I THINK NORTH OF WHAT'S THE STREET.
>> NORTH OF SEMINOLE. BECAUSE ANYTHING SOUTH OF THERE IS GOING TO BE LOCOMOTIVE OR.
>> [INAUDIBLE] PROPERTY OWNERS VARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OTHER RATHER THAN JUST OVER FOUR.
>> WELL, THEY AGREED TO IT ORIGINALLY BECAUSE IT WAS THE BUILDINGS THAT THEY OWNED AND OPERATED.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, CORRECT?
>> WE'RE GOING TO DO A ROLL CALL ON THAT?
>> YES. COMMISSIONER KERN, HOW DO YOU VOTE?
>> MOTION CARRIES, I THINK I HAD 4-3.
>> VERY GOOD. THANKS EVERYONE FOR YOUR INPUT ON THAT.
>> THANK YOU. WE'LL GO ON TO THE STAFF UPDATE.
[STAFF UPDATE]
>> I WILL PROVIDE YOU THAT LIKE I DID LAST MONTH LAST MEETING AFTER THE MEETING.
>> WOULD SOMEONE MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN?
[01:15:01]
>> AYE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF AYE?
>> NO OPPOSE. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.