[00:00:02]
[Call To Order]
>> WELCOME TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR JUPITER.
IT'S A LITTLE AFTER 7:00 WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.
STAFF, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL SO WE CAN ESTABLISH A QUORUM.
>> VICE CHAIR RICHARD DUNNING.
>> COMMISSIONER MICHAEL CASSATLY.
>> COMMISSIONER DAN GUISINGER?
>> COMMISSIONER DAVID THOMPSON.
>> THANK YOU. NOW THAT 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.
NEXT ARE CITIZEN COMMENTS UNRELATED TO THE AGENDA ITEMS. THE BOARD WILL NOT DISCUSS THESE ITEMS THIS EVENING, BUT 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 WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK?
>> NOW WE'RE ON TO THE MINUTES.
[MINUTES]
I'D LIKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE JANUARY 14TH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.ARE THERE ANY CHANGES TO THE MEETING MINUTES? IF NOT, MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE?
>> I MOVE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.
>> COMMISSIONER CASSATLY, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DUNNING.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST TO NOTE BOTH OF THE ALTERNATES ARE HERE TODAY, BUT SINCE YOU HAVE SEVEN REGULAR MEMBERS, THE ALTERNATES WILL NOT BE VOTING.
>> VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES ARE APPROVED. THE REGULAR AGENDA.
[REGULAR AGENDA]
STAFF, ARE THERE ANY CHANGES TO THE AGENDA? NO CHANGES. THANK YOU.COULD THE SECRETARY PLEASE SWEAR IN ANY WITNESSES, AND THIS WILL BE FOR ALL OF THE APPLICATIONS TONIGHT, AND IT IS FOR THE APPLICANTS AND STAFF WHO MAY BE PROVIDING TESTIMONY DOES NOT INCLUDE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAKING COMMENTS.
>> PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IN THIS MANNER IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?
>> THANK YOU. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS
[2. River Plaza Future Land Use and Zoning Map Amendments]
THE RIVER PLAZA FUTURE LAND USE AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS.I'D LIKE TO INVITE THE APPLICANT TO GIVE THEIR PRESENTATION.
>> GOOD EVENING. FOR THE RECORD.
I'M WITH COTLEUR & HEARING HERE TONIGHT, AND I HAVE BEEN SWORN IN, TALKING ABOUT THE 900 US HIGHWAY 1 FUTURE LAND USE AND REZONING APPLICATIONS.
THOSE ARE 24-6101 AND 25-6313.
THE OWNER AND DEVELOPER OF THE PROPERTY, RENAISSANCE JUPITER, LLC.
MR. FISCHEL AND HIS LOVELY WIFE ARE HERE TONIGHT.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THEM, MYSELF IS THE LAND PLANNER WITH COTLEUR & HEARING, AND THEN OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER IS SIMMONS AND WHITE.
AGAIN, THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION IS REQUESTING A FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE AS WELL AS A REZONING FROM C3 COMMERCIAL OFFICE TO THE US HIGHWAY 1 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SPECIFICALLY THE MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL SUB DISTRICT, WHICH IS THE REQUIRED DISTRICT FOR THIS PROPERTY AS PART OF THAT INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY OVERLAY CORRIDOR.
THE PROPERTY LOCATION, WE ARE ALONG THE WESTERN SIDE OF US 1 ADJACENT TO THE JUPITER RIVER WALK, AND HERE YOU CAN SEE THE RELATION TO WHERE WE ARE TONIGHT.
AS I STATED, THE EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE OF THE PROPERTY IS COMMERCIAL.
WE ARE PROPOSING TO GO TO MIXED USE, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPERTIES NORTH AND SOUTH.
LIKEWISE, WITH THE ZONING GOING FROM C3 TO THE ICW, MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL, CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH, FILLING IN THAT HOLE WITHIN THAT CORRIDOR.
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS WAS SUBMITTED.
THERE WAS A MINOR DISCREPANCY IN WHAT OUR CONSULTANT DID WITH WHAT THE TOWN CONSULTANT DID, THEY AGREED TO THE COMPROMISE, WHICH IS A NET DECREASE OF 253 TRIPS, AND WE HAVE RECEIVED APPROVAL FROM WELL, WE ARE WORKING ON TPS APPROVAL WITH PALM BEACH COUNTY FOR OUR SITE PLAN.
[00:05:04]
WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THAT OFFICIAL NOTICE YET.BUT THAT WILL COME FORWARD AS PART OF A FUTURE APPLICATION, NOT RELEVANT TO TONIGHT.
STAFF, IN THEIR REPORT, AS YOU WOULD HAVE NOTICED, HAVE FOUND THAT BOTH OF THESE APPLICATIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR SEVERAL REASONS.
ONE, THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING SURROUNDING LAND USES.
THE PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THAT US HIGHWAY 1 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL SECTOR.
FINALLY, THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE AND REZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES.
I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THANKS.
>> THANK YOU. STAFF, WOULD YOU LIKE TO GIVE YOUR PRESENTATION, PLEASE?
>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION. FOR THE RECORD.
AS THE AGENT STATED, THE REQUEST IS TO AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE AND ZONING MAP FOR 900 SOUTH US HIGHWAY 1.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE US HIGHWAY 1 MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL SECTOR.
THE REQUESTED FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT IS FROM COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE, AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT IS FROM COMMERCIAL OFFICE TO US HIGHWAY 1 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY CORRIDOR MIXED USED RESIDENTIAL SUB DISTRICT.
IN 2010, TOWN COUNCIL ENTERED INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WHICH PROVIDED FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF 0.26 ACRES OF UPLAND FOR THE TOWN TO BUILD A MISSING LINK OF THE RIVER WALK.
IN EXCHANGE FOR THE LAND, THE TOWN AGREED TO GRANT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, INCLUDING MAINTAINING RIGHTS UNDER THE EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE OF COMMERCIAL AND EXISTING ZONING OF COMMERCIAL OFFICE.
WHILE THE PROPERTY IS PART OF THE TOWNS, US HIGHWAY 1 MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL SECTOR, IT DOES NOT CURRENTLY HAVE THE CORRESPONDING ZONING DESIGNATION, AND IT RETAINS RIGHTS UNDER THE COMMERCIAL LAND USE.
IN 2021, THE APPLICANT ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY, OBTAINING IN 2023 TOWN COUNCIL APPROVAL TO ADD A FOUR STORY OFFICE BUILDING, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONSTRUCTED.
TODAY, THEY ARE REQUESTING THE LAND USE CHANGE AND REZONING CONCURRENT WITH THE REQUEST TO MODIFY THE APPROVED PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND SITE PLAN TO REPLACE THE APPROVED OFFICE BUILDING WITH A MULTI FAMILY UNIT COMPLEX.
STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICATION PER CRITERIA, DETAILED IN TOWN'S LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND HAVE COME TO THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS.
ONE, THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS, POLICIES, AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE US HIGHWAY 1 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY CORRIDOR MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL SECTOR, WHICH ENCOURAGES THE USE OF RESIDENTIAL AND ALLOWS FOR A MIX OF COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL USES.
THE PROPOSED MAP AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ESTABLISHED LAND USES OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AS TO THE SOUTH HAS DEVELOPED A HYBRID COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL USE OF INDEPENDENT AND ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY.
TO THE NORTH IS A HOTEL AND TO THE EAST ARE COMMERCIAL USES.
PER THE CONCURRENT SITE PLAN APPLICATION, THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PROPERTY IS INTENDED TO BE MIXED USE PROVIDING A MIX OF BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES THAT WILL TRANSITION FROM THE SOUTH TO THE NORTH.
THE PROPOSED MAP AMENDMENTS WILL NOT CREATE AN ISOLATED LAND USE OR ZONING DISTRICT AS THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH ARE ALSO DESIGNATED WITH A MIXED USE LAND USE AND A US HIGHWAY MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL SUB DISTRICT.
ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPOSED MAP AMENDMENTS ARE NECESSARY TO CONTINUE TO IMPLEMENT THE POLICIES OUTLINED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE US HIGHWAY MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL SECTOR.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE ALSO NECESSARY TO ALLOW FOR THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL USE REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT.
FROM THIS ANALYSIS, STAFF HAS FOUND THE REQUESTED FUTURE LAND USE AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS, CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE US HIGHWAY MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL SECTOR AND IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES.
THANK YOU, AND PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU. LET'S SEE, COMMISSIONER KEENAN, HOW ABOUT DO WE START WITH YOU FOR QUESTIONS?
>> JUST A QUICK QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
IS IT YOUR CLIENT'S INTENTION TO CONSTRUCT RESIDENCES THAT WOULD BE THE MAXIMUM DENSITY ALLOWED UNDER THE RECLASSIFICATION REZONING?
>> IT IS. THE CURRENT PLAN IS FOR EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE, AND BECAUSE OF THIS FUTURE LAND USE CHANGE,
[00:10:01]
WE WILL BE REQUIRED TO DOUBLE THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS SO RATHER THAN A STANDARD 6%, WE'LL BE DOING 12%.>> HAVE YOU WORKED OUT ANY OF THE DETAILS ON THE WORKING HOUSING UNITS?
>> I CAN TELL YOU THE CURRENT PROPOSAL THAT WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH IS TO DEVELOP THOSE OFFSITE, SINGLE FAMILY WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS SIMILAR TO THE PROJECT AT THE INTERSECTION OF US 1 AND INDIANTOWN ROAD, AND I THINK THAT'S BEEN A FAIRLY SUCCESSFUL METHOD.
>> DO YOU HAVE A NUMBER, I BELIEVE 38 IS THE NUMBER FOR THE MAXIMUM DENSITY IN TERMS OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS?
>> THAT SOUNDS CORRECT. YES, SIR.
>> HAVE YOU MADE ANY PREPARATIONS YET IN TERMS OF LOCATION ON THE SITE WHERE THE UNITS WOULD BE BUILT?
>> WE DO HAVE AN APPLICATION IN WITH THE TOWN OF JUPITER.
THEY WOULD BE LOCATED IN THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE SITE THAT'S CURRENTLY VACANT.
THE EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING IS CLOSE TO A HISTORIC DESIGNATION, SO WE'RE NOT REMOVING THAT.
WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE ENHANCING THAT BUILDING CONCURRENT WITH THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL THAT WE HAD RECEIVED, THAT WILL REMAIN AND WE'LL BE BUILDING SOME ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION.
>> THANKS, COMMISSIONER VINSON.
>> WHEN YOU SAID THAT YOU'RE GOING TO LEAVE ONE OF THE OFFICE BUILDINGS, IS THERE TWO OFFICE BUILDINGS ON THAT?
>> CORRECT. THERE'S TWO EXISTING BUILDINGS.
THERE'S A SMALLER BUILDING, WHICH I'M NOT ACTUALLY SURE IF IT'S BEING UTILIZED RIGHT NOW.
THAT'S PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED, AND THAT AREA OF THE PARKING FIELD IS GOING TO BE REDESIGNED, BUT THAT EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING THAT'S THERE WILL REMAIN THE LARGER ONE.
>> THE LARGE ONE. THAT ONE WILL STAY.
>> HOW MANY SEPARATE BUILDINGS?
>> AT THE COMPLETION OF OUR CURRENT PROPOSED SITE PLAN, THERE WOULD BE TWO BUILDINGS.
>> WHEN YOU DID THE TRAFFIC STUDY, WAS THAT INCLUDING THAT WAS ALLOWING YOU PUT IN THERE THAT THAT WAS WHAT YOUR PLAN WAS?
>> THERE'S TWO SEPARATE TRAFFIC STUDIES, THE ONE RELATED TO THE FUTURE LAND USE CHANGE TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE MAXIMUM DEVELOPED POTENTIAL OF THE SITE, INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL AND THEN THE SPECIFIC SITE PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY INCLUDES BOTH THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL AND THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
>> THIS BETTER? COMMISSIONER KEENAN ALREADY ASKED ONE OF MY QUESTIONS SO THANK YOU FOR THAT.
IN ADDITION, WHAT PERCENTAGE THEN WOULD BE DESIGNATED THEN AS A RESIDENTIAL AREA?
>> WELL, THE BUILDING ITSELF I DON'T HAVE A NUMBER OFF HAND.
I CAN MAKE ONE UP ON THE SPOT BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE WITH THE BALLPARK.
THE BUILDING IS MAYBE 12-15% OF THE SITE.
IT'S A MAYBE HALF AGAIN AS BIG AS THE EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING THAT'S THERE.
>> FOR THE EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING THAT COULD HAVE HISTORIC DESIGNATION, FOR CLARITY'S SAKE, THAT'S THE ONE THAT'S ON THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE SITE OR ON THE EASTERN.
>> YEAH. THE EASTERN IS A ONE STORY BUILDING THAT WAS BUILT AFTER THE THE LARGER OFFICE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED.
>> THANKS. COMMISSIONER GUISINGER.
>> I HAD ONE QUESTION FOR STAFF.
MARINE STEWARDSHIP PLAN THAT'S NOT REQUIRED UNTIL THE SITE IS ACTUALLY PROPOSED AND SUBMITTED TO STAFF FOR APPROVAL, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> OKAY. ALL MY OTHER QUESTIONS ARE ANSWERED. I'M GOOD.
>> THANKS. ONE QUESTION FOR STAFF.
I KNOW THIS IS A SWITCH FROM AN OFFICE BUILDING USE TO A MULTIFAMILY.
I'M WONDERING HOW DO WE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE IMPACT ON CONCURRENCY WITH SCHOOL CAPACITY.
IF YOU COULD JUST EXPLAIN THAT MAYBE IN 60 SECONDS.
>> DURING THE SITE PLANNING PROCESS, WE DO A SCHOOL CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION REQUEST WITH THE COUNTY AND THEY'LL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE TYPE OF HOUSING THAT IT IS, THE LOCATION, THE NUMBER OF UNITS, AND THEY'LL RUN THEIR ANALYSIS TO PROVIDE A FIVE YEAR PROJECTION FOR THE PROJECT.
THEN WE CONTINUE TO TRACK THOSE.
OVER THE YEARS, WE HAVE ANNUAL COMMUNICATIONS WHERE WE TELL THE COUNTY WHICH PROJECTS ARE BEING CONSTRUCTED, WHICH ONES HAVE EXPIRED, AND WE CONTINUE TO TRACK THOSE ON AND ON.
BUT THROUGH THE SITE PLANNING PROCESS IS WHERE THAT'S ACTUALLY PERFECTED.
>> IS IT THE COUNTY THAT TRACKS THE NUMBER
[00:15:04]
OF COMMITTED SEATS THAT WE'VE GOT FOR KIDS, OR IS IT?>> PALE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT.
>> IT IS THROUGH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
>> BUT YOU GUYS TAKE A LOOK AT ALL THIS TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CONSISTENT?
>> WE RELY ON THEIR METHODOLOGY CALCULATIONS.
>> GOOD. THEN I GUESS THIS IS A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
I'M LOOKING AT PAGE 1-14 UNDER DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS.
THE FIRST LINE THERE SAYS THE OWNER DOES NOT PROPOSE TO DEVELOP THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT THIS TIME.
YOU GUYS JUST RUNNING THROUGH THIS TO GET APPROVALS READY FOR A POINT WHEN YOU DO DECIDE TO DEVELOP IT?
>> WHAT DOCUMENT ARE YOU REFERRING TO?
ABOUT A THIRD OF THE WAY DOWN THAT PAGE, IT SAYS DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS.
>> THAT WAS DEVELOPMENT LANGUAGE WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT WAS DONE BY THE PRIOR PROPERTY OWNER.
WHEN THEY GOT INTO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE TOWN FOR THE DEDICATION OF THE LAND FOR THE RIVERWALK, THEY ENTERED INTO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, BUT THEY HAD NO INTENTION AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY.
IT WAS JUST TO RESERVE THE RIGHTS FOR FUTURE USE.
>> BUT THE CURRENT OWNER IS PLANNING ON DEVELOPING THE SITE.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER DUNNING?
>> QUESTION FOR YOU. AS FAR AS HAS THERE BEEN ANY LETTERS OR ANYTHING FROM ADJOINING BUSINESSES OR PROPERTY OWNERS THAT HAVE MADE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS MATTER?
>> I THINK MY COLLEAGUES HAVE ANSWERED MOST OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I WAS ALREADY GOING TO ASK. THANK YOU.
>> THANKS. COMMISSIONER CASSATLY.
>> GREAT. THANKS. I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE.
CAN YOU JUST TELL US BRIEFLY WHAT THAT IS?
>> WE'RE VERY PROUD OF THE BUILDING.
I MENTIONED THAT BECAUSE OF OUR INTENT NOT TO DEMOLISH IT.
IT HAS NO HISTORIC DESIGNATION RIGHT NOW.
THE ARCHITECT AND RIGONZALES WOULD KILL ME FOR THIS.
I CAN'T REMEMBER HIS NAME RIGHT NOW. WHAT WAS IT?
HE HAD DEVELOPED A NUMBER OF BUILDINGS ACROSS SOUTH FLORIDA AND THIS ONE IS APPROACHING 50 YEARS OLD.
I DON'T THINK IT'S QUITE THERE YET, BUT I THINK HE'S ALREADY HAD AT LEAST ONE, IF NOT TWO BUILDINGS DESIGNATED HISTORIC THAT WERE DEVELOPED BY GENE LAWRENCE.
IT COULD ONE DAY BECOME A HISTORIC CODING.
>> THANK YOU. IN TERMS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENTS THAT YOU SAID YOU MAY DO FOR THE LANDSCAPING, WOULD THAT INCLUDE ANYTHING AROUND THAT BUILDING? I WALK THAT RIVERWALK QUITE A BIT.
IT'S ONE OF THE MORE UNSIGHTLY AREAS, PARTICULARLY WITH THE BIG I GUESS THEY'RE AIR CONDITIONING TURBINES.
IT'S AN UNPLEASANT AREA TO BE.
>> PART OF OUR PROPOSED PLAN DOES SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE LANDSCAPING SPECIFICALLY IN THAT AREA.
ALSO THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE RIVERWALK.
THERE WOULD ALSO BE AN ADDITIONAL ACCESS POINT TO THE RIVERWALK WITH AGAIN, VERY NICELY DONE LANDSCAPING AND ART SCAPE.
>> WHAT ABOUT THE INTENTIONS FOR, THERE'S SOME LOVELY TREES THERE? I WALKED THE PROPERTY YESTERDAY.
A NUMBER OF GUMBO LIMBO AND OAK TREES THAT LOOK LIKE THEY HAVE A LOT OF LIFE LEFT IN AND THEY'RE NOT NEAR THE AGE LIMIT?
>> PART OF OUR PLAN INCLUDES A TREE MITIGATION PLAN, WHICH IS PART OF THE SITE PLAN PACKAGE, AND A NUMBER OF THOSE TREES, WE'VE MANAGED TO PRESERVE IN PLACE AS WELL AS RELOCATE ON SITE.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THOSE OLDER TREES THAT YOU'LL SEE THAT LOOK TO BE RATHER MATURE, BUT THERE'S FATAL FLAWS IN A BUNCH OF THEM JUST OVER THE YEARS, INCLUDING BARK AND THE BRANCHES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE THAT PROHIBIT THEM FROM EITHER BEING PRESERVED OR RELOCATED.
SOME OF THE TREES WILL GO, BUT WE'RE PRESERVING A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF IT.
>> I THINK THAT'S IT FOR ME. THANK YOU.
>> THANKS. COMMISSIONER KELSO.
>> YES. MY MAIN POINT TOO IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENTS AS RELATING TO THE RIVERWALK, SO THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT AS YOU'RE GOING BY THERE, YOU DON'T SEE THOSE STRUCTURES.
>> VERY IMPORTANT. I WANTED TO ASK STAFF JUST TO CLARIFY BECAUSE THERE WERE SOME CONFLICTING WORDING.
THE RIVERWALK, WHO IS GOING TO BE MAINTAINING THE STRUCTURES THAT ARE PUT ON THAT EASEMENT?
>> THAT SECTION OF RIVERWALK WAS DEEDED TO THE TOWN, SO IT'S THE TOWN'S PROPERTY CURRENTLY.
>> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. THAT'S MY ONLY QUESTION.
[00:20:03]
>> I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR ATTENTION TO THE ENVIRONMENT AS WELL AS TO THE HISTORIC POTENTIAL FOR THAT HISTORIC DESIGNATION.
>> THANK YOU. SECRETARY, ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON THIS?
>> ANY COMMENTS OR DELIBERATION BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION? WE'LL START AGAIN FROM THE LEFT OVER HERE, COMMISSIONER KENAN.
>> I DO HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.
YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE ACCESS TO THE RIVERWALK THERE.
IS THAT ONLY GOING TO BE COMMUNITY WIDE OR IS THAT GOING TO BE PUBLIC? IS THERE GOING TO BE A PUBLIC ENTRANCE TO ACCESS THE RIVERWALK THERE?
>> IT WILL BE PUBLIC. IT'S ACTUALLY A REQUIREMENT, I BELIEVE, OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT WE PROVIDE A PUBLIC ACCESS POINT TO THE RIVERWALK, AND IT'S BEEN DESIGNED TO BE VERY OPEN AND INVITING.
>> IT'LL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER TO CONSTRUCT THE ACCESS.
>> OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY?
>> DO YOU KNOW WHERE IT'LL BE?
>> PRETTY MUCH DEAD CENTER ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
IT'S GOING TO BE IN BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS.
SO YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING BUILDING ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY.
JUST SOUTH BELOW THAT BUILDING CONNECTING INTO THE RIVERWALK WAS WHERE THE ACCESS WILL BE.
>> WILL THAT ENTAIL A SPECIFIC PARKING AREA TO BE ADDED FOR PUBLIC, OR IS THAT GOING TO BE INCLUDED IN THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING AND WILL THERE BE A WALKWAY ACCESS?
>> THE CONNECTION WILL LEAD OUT TO US 1.
WE'RE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PARKING SPECIFIC FOR THE USE OF THE RIVERWALK.
WE DO HAVE SOME EXCESS PARKING, AND THE SURFACE LOT OF THE PARKING FIELD IS NOT RESTRICTED ACCESS.
>> THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAD.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, ANYTHING SPECIFIC REGARDING COMMENTS?
>> WELL, I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SENSITIVITY TO OUR TREASURE, THE RIVERWALK, AND ALL THAT YOU'RE DOING FOR THAT AND MAKING IT VERY NICE AND SUSTAINABLE FOR ALL THE RESIDENTS AT JUPITER.
I APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS THERE.
>> THIS IS BROKEN UP INTO TWO PIECES.
WE NEED SEPARATE MOTIONS FOR EACH ONE.
THE FIRST ONE IS THE FUTURE LAND USE REQUEST.
COULD I HAVE A MOTION, PLEASE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF THE FUTURE LAND USE REQUEST?
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE.
>> WE HAVE A FIRST AND WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THAT PASSES.
THE SECOND ACTION ITEM IS APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF THE REQUEST FOR REZONING.
WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THAT?
>> COMMISSIONER VINSON, SECOND.
>> COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THAT PASSES. THANK YOU.
THE TOWN ATTORNEY, I FORGOT. DO I NEED TO DO EX PARTE DISCLOSURES ON ANY OF THESE?
>> WELL, THAT WAS NOT A QUASI-JUDICIAL ITEM, SO YOU DON'T DO DISCLOSURES ON THAT.
THIS NEXT ITEM ON THE SITE PLAN.
>> THIS IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL ITEM.
>> THANK YOU. THE NEXT ITEM FOR DISCUSSION IS 1352 SOUTH US 1.
[3. 1352 S. US1]
A SITE PLAN APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR-STORY MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING ON 1.35 ACRE PLUS OR MINUS PROPERTY.IT IS QUASI-JUDICIAL, SO LET'S HAVE EX PARTE DISCLOSURES.
LET'S START WITH COMMISSIONER BLUM.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER KELSO.
>> I WALKED BY THE SITE WHEN IT CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION IN 2024 AND YESTERDAY, I DROVE BY, BUT I COULDN'T GO AROUND IT BECAUSE OF THE CONSTRUCTION. DEMOLITION.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER DUNNING.
>> THANKS. I DROVE BY THE SITE AND I SPOKE WITH STAFF ABOUT THE PROJECT.
>> I WENT TO THE SITE, EXPECTING TO GO ON IT, BUT IT WAS IN DEMOLITION, SO I COULD NOT GO ON OR WALK IT, BUT I DID TALK TO STAFF ABOUT IT.
[00:25:05]
>> I GOT THAT. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
>> I'VE DRIVEN BY THE SITE AND WALKED IT.
>> THANKS. COMMISSIONER KENAN.
>> THANK YOU. AT THIS POINT, WE'LL HAVE THE APPLICANT GIVE THEIR PRESENTATION.
>> GOOD EVENING AGAIN FOR THE RECORD, GEORGE MISSIMER WITH COTLEUR & HEARING, AND I HAVE BEEN SWORN IN.
TALKING TONIGHT ABOUT 1352 SOUTH US HIGHWAY 1, OUR PROPOSED SITE PLAN APPLICATION 24-5894.
WE DO HAVE A GOOD PRESENCE FROM OUR DEVELOPMENT TEAM HERE TONIGHT.
JUPITER LAND, LLC IS THE PROPERTY OWNER, WHICH IS MADE UP OF A GROUP OF LOCAL DOCTORS WHO ARE LOOKING TO DEVELOP THIS MEDICAL OFFICE SITE FOR THEIR OWN PRACTICE.
MYSELF WAS THE LAND PLANNER AND DONALDSON HEARING FROM OUR OFFICE, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
CAUFIELD AND WHEELER, WERE THE SURVEYORS, THE TRAFFIC AND CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT WITH SIMMONS AND WHITE, AND OUR ARCHITECT WAS BLOC3 DESIGN, AND CHRIS SABLE IS HERE THIS EVENING.
AGAIN, OUR APPLICATION TO SUMMARIZE, WE'RE REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A NEW MEDICAL OFFICE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS THREE STORIES, ROUGHLY 16,000 SQUARE FEET.
THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF DISCREPANCY IN EXACTLY THE NUMBER OF STORIES, THAT IS TWO USABLE FLOORS OF MEDICAL OFFICE, THE GROUND FLOOR BEING PARKING UNDERNEATH THE BUILDING.
THE FOURTH FLOOR, WHICH THE TOWN REFERENCES IS THE MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE ON THE ROOF.
IT'S NOT USABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE.
IT'S JUST AN ENCLOSED SPACE TO HOUSE THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT FOR THE FACILITIES.
THE PROJECT LOCATION, AGAIN, ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF US 1 ALONG THE RIVERWALK TOWARDS THE SOUTHERN PORTION, AND ITS RELATION TO WHERE WE ARE THIS EVENING AND SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF INDIAN TOWN ROAD AND US 1.
A LITTLE BIT CLOSER VIEW OF THE PROPERTY.
YOU CAN SEE THERE IS EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ON THAT SITE.
MANY OF YOU WILL BE FAMILIAR WITH THE RESTAURANT THAT WAS THERE BEFORE.
THE SITE EXISTING LAND USE IS COMMERCIAL, AND WE DID REZONE THE PROPERTY RECENTLY TO THE REQUIRED US HIGHWAY 1 INTERCOASTAL WATERWAY DISTRICT MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL.
BUT A SUBSECTION OF THAT CODE PERMITS PROPERTIES OF A CERTAIN SIZE OR UNDER A CERTAIN SIZE TO BE DEVELOPED, 100% COMMERCIAL WITH NO RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING.
THERE IS EXISTING RESIDENTIAL NORTH AND SOUTH.
THE EXISTING DEVELOPED CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY HAD VERY MINIMAL LANDSCAPING, VERY MINOR GREEN SPACE.
THE PERIMETER BUFFERS WERE QUITE NARROW, TOTALING FIVE FEET ALONG US 1, AND THEN ROUGHLY FOUR TO SIX FEET ON THE OTHER SURROUNDING PROPERTY BOUNDARIES.
WE ARE PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE THAT WE HAVE BEGUN DEMOLISHING THAT OLD BUILDING, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO PAVING WAY FOR THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT.
WE HAVE DESIGNED THE OFFICE BUILDING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTERCOASTAL WATERWAY REGULATIONS FOR DESIGN, REPRESENTING A COASTAL VERNACULAR WITH MANY OF THOSE ELEMENTS PRESENT.
THERE ARE TWO QUITE LARGE LIVING GREEN WALLS INCORPORATED AS PART OF THE ARCHITECTURE, WHICH ARE ON THE TWO STAIRWELLS ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
REALLY SOME WONDERFUL DESIGN AND GREAT COLLABORATION WITH THE TOWN OF JUPITER.
WE REALLY APPRECIATED THE PROCESS.
THE TOWN HAS ALWAYS DID A GREAT JOB REPRESENTING THE COMMUNITY AND MAKING SURE WE BRING FORWARD THE BEST PROJECT POSSIBLE.
A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE SITE PLAN HERE.
YOU CAN SEE THE GENERAL LAYOUT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT, BUT WE'VE SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED THE PERIMETER BUFFERS, THE GREEN SPACE, THE FOUNDATION PLANTINGS, AND WE'RE REALLY ABLE TO DO THAT UTILIZING SOME OF THOSE NEW BUILDING TECHNIQUES, RAISING THE BUILDING ABOVE THE PARKING FIELD AND INCORPORATING MORE GREEN SPACE BECAUSE OF IT.
MINE ARE A FEW DETAILS ABOUT THE SITE PLAN.
WE ARE NOT REQUESTING ANY SPECIAL WAIVERS OR VARIANCES AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION.
WE ARE MEETING OUR DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS.
WE ARE MORE THAN DOUBLE OUR REQUIRED GREEN SPACE AND WE ARE MEETING OUR BUILDING HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF AN AVERAGE OF 35 FEET.
WE HAVE RECEIVED CONCURRENCY APPROVAL FOR THE TRAFFIC FROM PALM BEACH COUNTY AND THE TOWN OF JUPITER TRAFFIC ENGINEER.
A LITTLE BIT ABOUT ACCESS AND CIRCULATION.
WE DO HAVE TWO ACCESS POINTS, VEHICULAR ACCESS POINTS TO THE SITE, ONE ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY AND ONE, THE EASTERN BOUNDARY.
THE EASTERN ACCESS POINT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING CONNECTION TO US 1.
THERE IS AN EXISTING TURN LANE.
THE NORTHERN ACCESS POINT IS VIA AN ACCESS EASEMENT PROVIDED BY
[00:30:03]
THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES PLATE AS A CONDITION OF THEIR APPROVAL TO PROVIDE THAT CROSS ACCESS.>> OUR CIRCULATION INTERNAL FOR VEHICLES.
WE DO HAVE CONTINUOUS COUNTERCLOCKWISE CIRCULATION AROUND THE BUILDING, AND WHAT THAT HAS DONE REALLY, HAS FORCED US TO MAKE THIS FOUR-SIDED ARCHITECTURE.
WE MOST LIKELY WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO DO THAT ANYWAYS, BUT THERE IS NO BACK OF HOUSE TO THIS BUILDING.
EVERY FACADE ELEMENT OF THIS BUILDING HAS BEEN DESIGNED CONSISTENTLY TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS NO UGLY SIDE TO THIS BUILDING FROM ANY VIEWPOINT.
WE DO HAVE ALSO VEHICLE ACCESS GOING CLOCKWISE TO THE REAR OF THE BUILDING, WHICH WOULD TERMINATE AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE ONE-WAY AISLE THERE NEXT TO THE LOADING ZONE.
ADDITIONALLY, WE HAVE A DRIVE AISLE DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THE BUILDING PROVIDING ACCESS TO COVERED PARKING AREAS FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES.
AS WELL, WE DO HAVE ADA PARKING SPACES UNDER THE BUILDING.
RATHER THAN PUT THE ADA OUT IN THE PARKING FIELD, WE LOCATED THEM ALL UNDERNEATH THE BUILDING.
THERE ARE TWO COVERED DROP-OFF LOCATIONS FOR PATIENTS.
FOR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS, WE HAVE OUR REQUIRED 10-FOOT SIDEWALK ALONG US-1.
THERE'S THE EXISTING JUPITER RIVERWALK TO OUR WEST, AND WE HAVE AN INTERNAL PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK THAT CONNECTS US-1 TO THE RIVERWALK AS WELL AS TO THE SIDEWALK ON THE NORTHERN PROPERTY, WHICH IS PART OF AN EASEMENT CONNECTING PEDESTRIANS FROM US-1 TO THE RIVERWALK.
LOOKING AT THE ELEVATION, AGAIN, THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT PERMITTED IS 35 FEET, AND THAT'S AN AVERAGE HEIGHT.
OBVIOUSLY, OUR BUILDING IS ALL ONE HEIGHT.
THE ELEMENTS ABOVE THAT LINE, AGAIN, ARE THE MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE AND THE STAIR TOWER, WHICH ARE ELEMENTS WHICH ARE NOT REQUIRED TO MEET THAT HEIGHT DUE TO SCREENING PRIORITIES TO MAKE SURE THAT ROOFTOP MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT YOU CAN'T SEE.
IT REALLY INTEGRATES ITSELF INTO THE DESIGN OF THAT BUILDING.
LOOKING AT THE ARCHITECTURE, AGAIN, THAT COASTAL VERNACULAR VOCABULARY OF THE BUILDING, THE INTEGRATION OF THOSE LIVING GREEN WALLS.
MANY OF THOSE ELEMENTS ARE CONSISTENT.
THIS IS A VIEW FROM THE NORTHEAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
IF YOU WERE DRIVING DOWN US-1 TO THE SOUTH, THIS WOULD BE YOUR VIEWPOINT TO THE BUILDING.
THIS IS THE VIEW FROM THE MAIN ENTRANCE AS YOU WOULD COME IN OFF US-1.
AGAIN, THERE IS NO UGLY SIDE OF THIS BUILDING, AND THE ARCHITECT DID A REALLY GREAT JOB WORKING WITH TOWN STAFF TO MAKE SURE WE BROUGHT FORWARD THIS GREAT DESIGN.
AGAIN, WE TALKED A LITTLE ABOUT SOME OF THOSE COMPONENTS, THE KEYSTONE, THE LIGHTER COLOR PALETTE, SOME OF THE WOOD ACCENTS.
IT'S REALLY GREAT DESIGN ELEMENTS WITHIN THAT BUILDING.
LOOKING AT THE LANDSCAPE, AGAIN, AS I MENTIONED, WE'VE SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED OUR PERIMETER BUFFERS.
ALONG US-1, WE HAVE A 29-FOOT US-1 SCENIC CORRIDOR, AS YOU RECALL, IT'S EXISTING FIVE FEET, SO SUBSTANTIALLY MORE LANDSCAPE ALONG THAT FRONT BUFFER.
WE ARE PRESERVING MANY OF THE EXISTING PERIMETER TREES.
THERE ARE SOME EXISTING OAKS AROUND THE BUILDING.
SOME OF THEM WERE ABLE TO PRESERVE AND MOVE, BUT SOME OF THEM ARE JUST REALLY IN BAD CONDITION, AND THEY WERE THAT WAY WHEN THE DEVELOPER PURCHASED THE PROPERTY.
BUT YOU CAN SEE THESE PERIMETER TREES, ESPECIALLY ALONG THE RIVER WALK, WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO PRESERVE THOSE IN PLACE.
AGAIN, WE'VE DOUBLED NEARLY THE REST OF THE PERIMETER LANDSCAPE BUFFERS AROUND THE SITE.
NOW, WE DID HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, AND THEY REQUESTED US PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE LANDSCAPING WITHIN THAT NORTHERN BUFFER.
WE'VE SPOKEN WITH STAFF, AND WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE A REVISED LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THAT NORTHERN BOUNDARY.
WE'RE NOT REQUIRED TO, BUT WE WANT TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS AND REALLY DO THE MOST THAT WE CAN TO MAKE THIS A QUALITY DEVELOPMENT.
WE'RE GOING TO COMMIT TO DOING THAT.
AS NOTED IN THE TOWN STAFF REPORT, STAFF HAS DEEMED THE APPLICATION IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE TOWNLAND DEVELOPMENT CODES.
THERE ARE SEVERAL MINOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
WE ARE NOT OBJECTING TO ANY OF THOSE, AND IN FACT, WE'VE ALREADY LOOKED AT INCORPORATING SOME OF THEIR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL INTO OUR PLAN PACKAGE FOR FINAL PLAN APPROVAL.
THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
I'M SURE THERE'S SOME MORE DETAILS THAT I COULD HAVE TOUCHED ON, BUT LOOK FORWARD TO ANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU. I'LL RESERVE ANY OF MY TIME THAT'S LEFT FOR REBUTTAL.
FOR THE RECORD, PETER MEYER, SENIOR PLANNER STAFF.
THE APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION TONIGHT IS A SITE PLAN APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR-STORY BUILDING WITH 15,995 SQUARE FEET OF MEDICAL OFFICE.
[00:35:03]
THAT INCLUDES UNDER-BUILDING PARKING.STAFF REVIEWED THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST AND DETERMINED THE APPLICATION IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TOWN CODE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND EXHIBIT 1.
IN DECEMBER 2024, TOWN COUNCIL APPROVED THE REZONING OF THIS PROPERTY FROM C3 TO MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL.
THE PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE USE IS PERMITTED WITHIN THE ZONING DISTRICT.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A POSTMODERN MIX OF CRACKER OR FLORIDA WOOD VERNACULAR STYLE.
THE APPLICANT'S ARCHITECT WORKED WITH STAFF, AND GIVEN THE SCALE AND MASS OF THE BUILDING, A POSTMODERN MIX, THE PROSE BUILDING IS GENERALLY COMPATIBLE WITH ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH.
STAFF RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE WATERPOINT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION TO THE NORTH.
STAFF HAS E-MAILED THAT LETTER TO THE COMMISSION AND ALSO PROVIDE ON THE DAIS FOR YOU TONIGHT.
THE LETTER HAD INCLUDED TWO THINGS CONCERNS OF CROSS ACCESS AND THE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING.
AS GEORGIA SAID, HE HAS TALKED REGARDS TO THE LANDSCAPING AND INCREASING THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER WITH THAT TO THE NORTH.
IN REGARDS TO THE CROSS ACCESS, PROVIDING CROSS ACCESS IS A REQUIREMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO PROVIDE INTERCONNECTIVITY BETWEEN DEVELOPMENTS.
WATER POINT WAS APPROVED WITH A CONDITION TO PROVIDE CROSS-ACCESS EASEMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH, WHICH IS SHOWN ON THE APPROVED PLATE.
STAFF HAS ALSO PROVIDED YOU THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR WATERPOINT AND THE PLAT THAT WAS APPROVED, SHOWING DEDICATION LANGUAGE.
THE APPLICANT SITE PLAN SHOWS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CROSS-ACCESS CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO DEVELOPMENTS AND PROVIDING A RECIPROCAL CROSS-ACCESS AGREEMENT, AND THAT SAID, GIVING YOU TIME FOR YOUR REBUTTAL. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, PETER. LET'S START ON THE RIGHT SIDE THIS TIME.
COMMISSIONER BLUM, CAN YOU START WITH QUESTIONS?
>> YES. I CAN'T IMAGINE THE CHALLENGES OF KEEPING THAT LIVING WALL ALIVE, BUT IT LOOKS BEAUTIFUL.
>> I CAN TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT IT.
I CUT IT OUT OF MY PRESENTATION UNINTENTIONALLY.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO HEAR A LITTLE BIT MORE.
I WENT OVER THIS WITH STAFF A LITTLE BIT.
BUT THE GREAT THING ABOUT THIS GREEN WALL DESIGN IS THAT RATHER THAN A TRADITIONAL TRELLIS, WHERE YOU HAVE JUST A FRAMEWORK UP ON THE BUILDING AND YOU PLANT ON THE GROUND FLOOR, THIS SYSTEM IS MADE UP OF INDIVIDUAL PANELS WITH SMALLER PLANTINGS IN EACH ONE.
I THINK IT'S LIKE 20 PER PANEL.
IF THERE'S EVER A SECTION THAT NEEDS MAINTENANCE, YOU CAN POP IT OFF THE WALL AND REPLACE IT RATHER IF YOU HAVE A ROW OF PLANTS DIE ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND THE WHOLE THING DIES, AND THEN IT TAKES A YEAR TO GET IT BACK TO WHAT IT WAS.
>> THEN THERE'S IRRIGATION TO IT AS WELL.
>> THERE'S BUILT-IN IRRIGATION AS PART OF THE SYSTEM.
>> MY ONE CONCERN IS, THIS IS FOR PHYSICIANS OFFICES.
A MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING, AND DEPENDING ON WHAT TYPE OF MEDICAL OFFICE IT IS, FOUR HANDICAPPED SPACES SEEMS NOT THAT MANY DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF PHYSICIANS WHO ARE COMING IN.
>> YEAH, SO IN HONESTY, THE PARKING DEMAND, THE TOWN'S RATE FOR PARKING FOR MEDICAL OFFICE FOR THIS SPECIFIC USE IS MUCH MORE THAN WHAT THEY NEED.
PROBABLY A GOOD PORTION OF THESE PARKING SPACES WILL BE EMPTY.
BUT THE CONVENIENCE OF PARKING AROUND THE BUILDING IS A BIG ELEMENT.
AGAIN, I THINK WE'RE PROVIDING ONE MORE THAN WE'RE REQUIRED IN TERMS OF ADA SPACES.
STAFF CAN CORRECT ME ON THAT IF I'M WRONG.
BUT PROVIDING THEM UNDER THE BUILDING, AGAIN, WE DO HAVE THE PATIENT DROP-OFF LOCATIONS.
WE FEEL LIKE A LOT OF THE PATIENTS THAT WILL COME TO THIS FACILITY WILL BE DROPPED OFF.
WE HAVE TWO COVERED ACCESS POINTS FOR THAT PURPOSE.
>> IT'S BASED OFF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES PROVIDED.
IS HOW MANY REQUIRED ADA SPACES ARE PUT.
>> THAT DOESN'T CHANGE BASED ON THE TYPE OF BUILDING THAT'S GOING IN.
>> NO. IT'S PURELY BASED ON THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES PROVIDED.
>> OKAY. CAN YOU SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE? I CAN'T REALLY UNDERSTAND.
>> YEAH. SHE'S TRIED BOTH WAYS, AND IT'S NOT WORKING.
>> NO, IT SEEMS ODD TO ME THAT WE DON'T CALCULATE DIFFERENT FOR MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS FOR HANDICAPPED SPACES.
>> LIKE GEORGIA SAID, IT'S STANDARD ACROSS THE BOARD FOR ALL USES BASED ON THE NUMBER OF SPACES PROVIDED.
[00:40:01]
>> [INAUDIBLE] SO, THEREFORE, THERE IS IR PLAN HERE.
>> DO WE KNOW WHAT TYPE OF PHYSICIANS ARE PLANNED TO USE THIS, OR IS THAT SOMETHING CAN BE SHARED?
>> THERE THERE'S ACTUALLY MULTIPLE.
THIS FACILITY IN PARTICULAR IS GOING TO BE USED FOR PRIMARILY OUTPATIENT SURGICAL OPERATIONS, BUT THERE'S A HEART SURGEON.
>> YES, I WAS SWORN IN. THANK YOU.
HELLO, FOLKS. I'M AN ELECTROPHYSIOLOGIST.
WE'RE TYPE OF HEART SURGEONS THAT DO BASICALLY VERY MINIMALLY INVASIVE AMBULATORY PROCEDURES ON THE HEART.
NONE OF OUR PATIENTS THAT ARE GOING TO COME TO THIS FACILITY, WE HAVE OFFICE SPACE, OF COURSE, SO THEY'RE GOING TO BE ALL PATIENTS WHO ARE GOING TO BE WALKING TO THE OFFICE.
THE PATIENTS WHO NEED THE PROCEDURES ARE GOING TO BE PATIENTS WHO BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT WE'RE DOING IT IN AN AMBULATORY CENTER ARE GOING TO BE AMBULATORY.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE DOING PATIENTS WHO NEED STRETCHERS OR WHO ARE SICK.
THEY GET DONE IN THE HOSPITAL.
IN FACT, BASICALLY, IT'S THE AVERAGE PERSON WE DO.
IT'S NOT AN ORTHOPEDIC FACILITY.
WE DON'T DO PATIENTS WHO HAVE JOINT PROBLEMS. SOMEBODY HAS DIFFICULTY WITH AMBULATION, WE DON'T DO THEM. WE DO THEM IN THE HOSPITAL.
WE SELF-SELECT ONLY PATIENTS WHO ARE, WE CALL THEM WALKIE-TALKIES IN MEDICINE, WHICH ARE PEOPLE WHO CAN WALK AND TALK AND ARE OTHERWISE HEALTHY.
I DO NOT ANTICIPATE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH HANDICAPPED.
WE HAVE VERY FEW PATIENTS WHO REALLY, AT LEAST FOR AMBULATORY USE, WE'RE GOING TO REQUIRE HANDICAPPED PARKING. THANK YOU.
>> YES. FIRST, LET ME SAY, I'M GLAD WE'RE CHANGING THE USE ON THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE THE EXISTING USE HAS BEEN TRIED SO MANY TIMES AND IT'S NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL.
I THINK THIS IS A GOOD CHANGE.
I ALSO LIKE YOUR IDEA OF THE TWO EMPLOYEE PARKING SPOTS BY THE LOADING ZONE.
I THINK THAT WILL GO A LONG WAY IN HELPING THAT IDEA.
THE LIVING GREEN WALL IS GOING TO BE A WONDERFUL EXPERIMENT.
BUT I DO HAVE A QUESTION FROM THE STAFF.
WHY DO WE FEEL IT'S BASICALLY JUST VERTICAL LANDSCAPING? WHY DO WE NEED TO HAVE A MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR THAT?
>> FOR ALONG US-1 IN THE RIGHT OF WAY? FOR THE GREEN WALL.
>> GREEN WALL, WE JUST WANT TO ENSURE THAT IT'S MAINTAINED.
SOMETIMES IN THE PAST, WE'VE HAD GREEN WALLS, NOT TO THIS LEVEL AND THEY'VE NOT BEEN MAINTAINED.
BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S MAINTAINED AND KEPT UP, THAT'S IT.
>> IT'S MORE OF A DOCUMENT THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT CAN GO TO IN THE FUTURE, IF THERE IS A PROBLEM AND SAY, HEY, YOU NEED TO BE MAINTAINING THIS, IF THERE'S A PROBLEM, IF THEY'RE NOT MAINTAINING IT.
IT'S MORE PAPERWORK REALLY FOR US.
I DON'T THINK IT'LL CAUSE A PROBLEM.
IT'S PRETTY MUCH JUST GOING TO BE OUTLINING HOW IT WILL BE MAINTAINED IN THE FUTURE.
>> WELL, SINCE IT'S YOUR CALLING CARD AT THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, I'M SURE THE DOCTORS WILL GET TO YOU FIRST IF IT STARTS TO LOOK BAD.
>> WE DON'T MIND. WE CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN.
>> THE ROOFTOP MECHANICAL ROOM, AS YOU'RE SAYING FOUR STORIES.
IN THE PACKAGE, IT TALKS ABOUT IT DOESN'T APPLY THE 35-FOOT MAX BECAUSE SCREEN ROOFTOP MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT DOESN'T COUNT.
BUT IN OTHER PROJECTS WE'VE LOOKED AT, THIS ISN'T SCREENED IN.
THIS IS ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY ENCLOSED.
WHY IS IT BEING TREATED AS JUST SCREENED-IN?
>> IT'S ENCLOSED ALSO BY WALLS AND A ROOF.
BASED ON OUR DEFINITION OF STORY, YOU HAVE A FLOOR AND A CEILING ABOVE IT. BECAUSE OF THAT.
IF IT WAS OPEN AIR TO THE TOP, THEN IT WOULD NOT BE COUNTING TOWARDS STORIES, AS ROOFED ON THE TOP IS COUNTING TOWARDS STORY.
>> WELL, THAT'S WHAT I MEAN. IT'S COUNTING TOWARD THE STORY AND WE HAVE A 35-FOOT MAX, BUT YET THE BUILDING IS MUCH HIGHER THAN THAT GIVEN THAT FOURTH FLOOR.
>> WELL, OUR CODE ALLOWS FOR THE MECHANICAL ROOM AS LONG AS LESS THAN 20% OF THE SQUARE FOOT OF THE SIZE OF THE ROOFTOP, AND THEY'RE NOT COUNTED TOWARDS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OR THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING.
I GUESS THE REVISION TO THE CODE THAT IS IT.
>> ALSO, JUST FOR CLARITY IN THIS DISTRICT, IT'S AN AVERAGE OF 35 FEET, SO IT'S NOT A STRAIGHT 35 FEET.
THEY DON'T HAVE A LOT OF VARIATION OTHER THAN THAT TOP LEVEL, BUT IN SOME CASES, BUILDINGS HAVE MULTIPLE TIERS AND LEVELS THAT AVERAGE OUT TO THE 35.
>> OKAY. THEN ON ONE OF THE CONDITIONS, YOU WANT TO CHANGE TO THE SIGN MAX BEING SEVEN FEET FROM 12 FEET.
WHY DOES THE TOWN WANT TO DO THAT?
>> IT WAS A CODE REQUIREMENT THAT THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A SIGN IS AT 25 FEET ON THE BUILDING OR THE CORNERS LINE.
>> NO. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE OUT-FRONT SIGN.
[00:45:01]
IT WAS 12 FEET IN THAT TYPE OF DISTRICT, BUT YOU WANT TO MAKE THIS ENTITY HAVE ONLY SEVEN FEET.>> IT'S A STANDARD ACROSS THE BOARD FOR SIGNS TO BE SEVEN FEET IN HEIGHT.
WE TYPICALLY REQUIRE THEM TO BE SEVEN FEET IN HEIGHT.
>> YOU'RE SAYING IN THIS WHOLE DISTRICT THAT IT'S REQUIREMENT BECAUSE IN THE DOCUMENTS, IT SAYS THAT IT'S A MAXIMUM OF 12 FEET AND SQUARE FOOT OF 60.
>> RIGHT, IT IS A MAXIMUM OF 12 FEET.
>> THE COMMUNITY STANDARD HAS BEEN TO LOWER THOSE HEIGHT OF SIGNS, AND IN CASES WHERE IT'S A VERY LARGE DEVELOPMENT THAT MIGHT WARRANT THE ADDITIONAL SIZE BASED ON SITE CHARACTERISTICS.
SOME SIGNS HAVE BEEN ALLOWED UP TO THAT MAXIMUM OF 12, BUT SEVEN IS THE MOST STANDARD AND TYPICAL SIGN HEIGHT, [OVERLAPPING] SO TO KEEP IT IN UNIFORMITY.
>> WITH A SMALLER TYPE OF PROJECT.
>> WITH THE SIGNS THAT ARE THROUGHOUT THE TOWN, WE CONTINUE TO USE THAT AS THE BENCHMARK.
THERE ARE PROVISIONS IN THE CODE THAT ALLOW FOR CONDITIONS TO BE PLACED ON SIGN SIZE.
>> GOT YOU. LAST THING, ARCHITECTURE.
YOU HAD STATED THAT THIS IS SUCH A BEAUTIFUL BUILDING, AND I AGREE FOR THE MOST PART, BUT BOTH ON THE SOUTHWEST AND THE NORTHEAST, THE LONGER ELEVATIONS, IT'S PRETTY REPETITIVE OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, AND THERE'S NOT REALLY BREAKING UP OF THAT ELEVATION, SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING MORE VISUAL ADDED THERE, WHETHER SOME COLOR VARIATION SOMETHING BECAUSE IT JUST LOOKS LIKE A SOLID WALL OF JUST [NOISE] WINDOWS ALL THE WAY DOWN, LOOKS LIKE A BUNKER.
I'D LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING THERE.
IT'S A BEAUTIFUL BUILDING, YES, BUT THOSE TWO LONG SIDES.
>> I'LL SAY ON TOTAL, IT'S NOT A VERY LARGE BUILDING.
I WILL SAY THE PICTURE'S A LITTLE WASHED OUT, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THIS IMAGE IN PARTICULAR, THERE ARE SEVERAL VERTICAL ELEMENTS THAT TIE DOWN TO THE SUPPORT COLUMNS UNDERNEATH THE BUILDING THAT GO ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP AND IT BREAKS UP THAT ELEVATION.
IT'S A GREAT COMMENT. IT'S SOMETHING THAT WAS FOCUSED [OVERLAPPING] ON PRETTY HEAVILY BY THE TOWN IN THEIR REVIEW, AND WE WENT THROUGH SEVERAL ITERATIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE ADDRESSING THAT ARCHITECTURALLY, AND I COULD HAVE CHRIS COME UP AND TALK MORE ABOUT THAT, BUT I CAN TELL YOU IT WAS LOOKED AT AND ADDRESSED, AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE ELEMENTS THAT WE USED TO BREAK UP THAT FACADE AS YOU GO.
>> I JUST CAN'T SEE IT ON THE PICTURE THEN.
>> [BACKGROUND] THAT'S SHADOWS.
IT GOES ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE SUPPORT COLUMN IN THOSE LOCATIONS.
>> BUT IT'S ALL THE SAME COLOR? IS IT 3D?
>> IT EXTENDS FROM THE BUILDING IN THOSE LOCATIONS, AND THERE'S FOUR OF THEM WITHIN THAT CENTER SECTION AS WELL AS ON THE CORNERS.
IT TIES DOWN ALL THE WAY TO THE COLUMNS THAT GO TO THE GROUND.
>> I DON'T THINK YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE THAT FROM THE STREET EITHER. [LAUGHTER]
>> WELL, AGAIN, THIS VIEW IN PARTICULAR IS ON THE INSIDE OF THAT 29 FOOT OF LANDSCAPE, AS WELL AS THE DENSE VEGETATION BORDERING THE PROPERTY TO OUR NORTH AND OURS.
REALLY, FROM THIS ANGLE, IF YOU'RE DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE IT AT ALL.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CASSATLY.
>> I ENJOYED YOUR PRESENTATION.
YOU ANSWERED A LOT OF MY QUESTIONS.
BETH AND CYNTHIA ALSO ASKED A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS I HAD.
JUST FOR MY EDUCATION, DOES THE LIVING WALL COUNT AS GREEN SPACE?
>> IT DOESN'T. IT'S JUST AN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ELEMENT ON THOSE SIGNIFICANT CORNERS OF THE BUILDING.
WE ARE REQUIRED FOUNDATION PLANTINGS.
WE DO HAVE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE UNDER THE BUILDING, WHICH IS MORE SHADE TOLERANT SPECIES, BUT WE DIDN'T ACTUALLY COUNT THAT TOWARDS OUR REQUIREMENTS.
>> ALSO, THE DUMPSTER LOCATION, IS THAT WHERE YOU CAN BEST PLACE IT NEAR THE ACCESS POINT?
>> IT IS THE BEST LOCATION FOR ACCESS FOR THE FACILITIES AS WELL AS FOR SCREENING TO MAKE SURE IT'S THE MOST HIDDEN POSSIBLE.
>> I GUESS THIS LAST ONE IS FOR THE TOWN.
I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT THE ACCESS POINT THAT COMES IN FROM WATER POINTE.
THE CONTROVERSY WITH THAT, AND IS IT OWNED BY THE TOWN, IS IT NOT, THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THIS?
>> IT'S NOT OWNED BY THE TOWN. JUST A MINUTE.
WE'VE PROVIDED YOU SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE IN ADDITION TO WHAT THE OBJECTOR HAD PROVIDED, MOSTLY FOR CLARITY, SO YOU CAN SEE THE DEDICATION LANGUAGE.
ON THE SECOND PAGE OF THE SECOND HANDOUT,
[00:50:01]
LOOKS LIKE A COURIER FONT.IT'S IN A LANDSCAPE FORMAT THAT PROVIDES FOR THE DEDICATION OF THE ACTUAL EASEMENT IS WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER TO THE SOUTH, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OWNER, AND THEN THE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT RUNS TO THE BENEFIT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER TO THE SOUTH.
I BELIEVE IT REFERENCES THE TOWN OF JUPITER SOMEWHERE.
>> IT IS A PRETTY STANDARD REQUIREMENT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, THOUGH, IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS IS ACCEPTABLE.
>> THERE WILL BE MORE DISCUSSION ABOUT IT, I'M SURE.
THE DEDICATION IS FOR PUBLIC VEHICULAR ACCESS ACROSS THE TWO PROPERTIES, AS WELL AS PROVIDING CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ACCESS TO BUILD THE CONNECTION.
IT IS A FAIRLY STANDARD REQUIREMENT FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS TO PROVIDE CROSS ACCESS OPPORTUNITY TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES WHERE POSSIBLE, SO THIS WAS ONE THAT WAS REQUIRED AS PART OF THAT NORTHERN PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT WHEN THEY GOT APPROVAL.
WE'VE HAD TO DO THEM ALL OVER THE TOWN TO WHERE WE HAVE TO PROVIDE FOR THAT CROSS ACCESS, AND IT'S REALLY TO PROMOTE THE CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN DEVELOPMENTS, CUTTING DOWN ON TRAFFIC CONFLICTS WITH GOING OUT ON MAJOR ROADWAYS. THAT'S THE INTENT.
>> JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS IS A CLEAR AND CUT POINT THAT THIS CAN BE DONE.
WE SHOULD HAVE A CONVERSATION, I THINK, BASED ON MY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE TOWN ATTORNEY AND WITH JOHN, THAT THERE IS SOME QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THIS IS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT.
WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT POTENTIALLY, DOES THIS PROJECT WORK WITHOUT THAT?
>> THANK YOU. LASTLY, I NOTICED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THIS PROPERTY, THERE'S A GREEN TRIANGLE BECAUSE THE WAY THE PROPERTY IS SHAPED, IS A GREEN SPACE.
IS THERE ANY THOUGHT ABOUT USING THAT FOR EMPLOYEES, THE NURSES, THE ASSISTANTS TO USE IT FOR LUNCH, OR COULD BE DEVELOPED THAT MAYBE WE PUT THE PATHWAY IN THERE, THE EGRESS AND INGRESS TO THE RIVER WALK BECAUSE IT'S A NICE LITTLE GREEN SPACE TO LEAVE.
THE PEOPLE DON'T GET TO ENJOY.
>> THERE'S REALLY NO CONVENIENT ACCESS TO IT.
IT WILL BE ACCESSIBLE BY EMPLOYEES, BUT ALSO WE HAVE ACCESS TO THAT GREAT JUPITER RIVER WALK THAT'S RIGHT THERE, THE GREAT WALKING TRAIL, AND THERE'S A NUMBER OF BENCHES AND OTHER FACILITIES PROVIDED.
THERE'S NO SPECIFIC AMENITIES PLANNED FOR THAT AREA.
IT IS ADDITIONAL GREEN SPACE FOR NOW, BUT A WALKING PATH IN THAT LOCATION JUST DOESN'T REALLY MAKE SENSE WITH THE SITE LAYOUT.
>> THANKS, COMMISSIONER DUNNING.
>> WELL, I THINK IT'S A BEAUTIFUL BUILDING.
I REALLY DO LIKE IT A LOT AND I THINK IT'LL BLEND IN VERY NICELY.
I LIKE THE LIVING WALL THERE, THAT'S GREAT.
I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT THE APPLICANT'S TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT THE WATER POINTE CONDO ASSOCIATION MENTIONED ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING.
THAT'S GOOD TO HEAR. YOU WANT TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR.
MY CONCERN IS THE SAME AS YOURS MR. CASSATLY ABOUT THE ACCESS POINT, AND I'M INTERESTED TO SEE HOW THAT'S GOING TO PLAY OUT.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
>> THANK YOU. I JUST HAD A COUPLE QUICK QUESTIONS.
THE GENERATOR, IS THAT JUST LIFE SAFETY, OR IS THIS FOR THE ORS? IS THERE IMAGING, MRI, CAT SCAN? WHAT IS THAT GOING TO TAKE? [OVERLAPPING]
>> [INAUDIBLE] COME UP. THERE ARE SPECIFIC POWER REQUIREMENTS FOR OPERATING LIFE SAFETY EQUIPMENT WITHIN THE BUILDING, AND THIS GENERATOR HAS BEEN SIZED APPROPRIATELY FOR THAT, SO I'LL LET HIM SPEAK A LITTLE BIT MORE.
>> THE GENERATOR WILL SUPPORT THE THIRD FLOOR AMBULATORY SURGICAL CENTER, SO IT'S REQUIRED A LEVEL 1 EMERGENCY POWER SYSTEM FOR CRITICAL BRANCH, FOR CRITICAL OUTLETS IN THE OPERATING ROOMS, PATIENT CARE AREAS, AND SO FORTH.
THEN ALSO IT WILL PROVIDE EMERGENCY POWER TO THE BUILDING FIRE ALARM SYSTEM, MEANS OF EGRESS, ALL OF THOSE COMPONENTS.
>> THERE'S GOING TO BE ONE CATH LAB, AND ONE OPERATING ROOM AND ONE PROCEDURE ROOM, AND THEN 15 PATIENT CARE STATIONS FOR PRE-PROCEDURE POST PROCEDURE RECOVERY.
>> THAT'S HELPFUL. THANK YOU. I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT TO GET INTO THE ACCESS RIGHT NOW.
AS I SAID, BASED ON CONVERSATIONS WITH TOWN STAFF AND TOWN ATTORNEY, IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT WE MAY END UP DOING TONIGHT IF EVERYBODY'S IN AGREEMENT IS,
[00:55:03]
AGAIN, IF WE'RE SUPPORTIVE TO CONSIDER PASSING THIS WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE TOWN STAFF WORKS WITH BOTH OWNERS TO COME UP WITH A REASONABLE SOLUTION REGARDING THE ACCESS.AS I SAID, BASED ON WHAT OUR TOWN ATTORNEY TELLS ME, I DON'T KNOW THAT WHAT'S IN PLACE IS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT.
>> THE APPLICANT TONIGHT IS BEING REQUIRED TO SHOW THE ACCESS POINT ON THAT PROPERTY.
THIS HAS BEEN DONE THROUGHOUT THE TOWN PRIMARILY ON INDIANTOWN ROAD IN US 1, AND THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THAT IS TO KEEP TRAFFIC OFF OF THE MAJOR ROADWAYS.
IF THERE IS A, CALL IT AN ACCESS DRIVE, IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT'S MUCH MORE URBANIZED, BUT IF YOU THINK OF PALM BEACH LAKES AND THE ACCESS DRIVE THAT THEY HAVE ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ROAD, SO THAT PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO GO IN AND OUT ON PALM BEACH LAKES.
THAT'S THE CONCEPT THAT HAS US.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT AN APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO DO AND WATER POINTE WAS REQUIRED TO DO THIS IS TO SHOW THAT ACCESS POINT ON THEIR SITE PLAN DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC.
THEY WERE ALSO REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE FIRST CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY TO RECORD A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT, WHICH WOULD THEN FACILITATE THAT CONNECTION.
SO MY QUESTION TO STAFF IS, AND TYPICALLY, I REVIEW THE EASEMENTS BEFORE THEY'RE RECORDED, WAS THERE A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT PREPARED, SUBMITTED, AND RECORDED FOR THE WATER POINTE PROPERTY?
>> I'M NOT SURE OF WHETHER AN ACTUAL INDEPENDENT EASEMENT SEPARATE FROM THE PLATE WAS RECORDED.
I WOULD HAVE TO RESEARCH THAT WITH ENGINEERING. [OVERLAPPING]
>> REALLY, CONDITION REQUIRES A EASEMENT, NOT SATISFIED BY THE RECORDING OF THE PLAT.
IF THERE IS NO TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT THAT WAS RECORDED, THEN WATER POINTE WOULD NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT ORDER.
THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT ALSO IF YOU'RE GOING TO PASS THIS ON, AND WE WOULD RESOLVE IT BEFORE IT GETS TO COUNCIL.
NORMALLY, IF WE HAD TIME TO DO THAT BEFORE TONIGHT, BUT THIS CAME UP AFTER THE AGENDA WAS PUBLISHED AND I THINK I GOT MY FIRST PHONE CALL OR EMAIL ON FRIDAY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
>> LET'S CONTINUE WITH THE QUESTIONS AND THE CONSIDERATION, AND PERHAPS PUT THAT TO THE SIDE FOR NOW.
WE CAN CERTAINLY ASK QUESTIONS, OBVIOUSLY, ABOUT THE ADEQUACY OF A SINGLE IN AND OUT OFF OF FEDERAL HIGHWAY FOR THIS PROJECT, AND IF THAT WORKS, THAT I WOULD ASSUME WOULD BE WORST CASE SCENARIO.
I GUESS THAT'S A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
ARE YOU COMFORTABLE IF THAT'S THE ONLY INGRESS AND EGRESS TO HIGHWAY 1 THAT THIS WOULD BE SUFFICIENT?
>> IT COULD BE SUFFICIENT TO SERVE THE NEEDS OF THE DEVELOPMENT FROM A VOLUME STANDPOINT.
HOWEVER, THERE ARE CONFERENCE TO PLAN POLICIES THAT SPEAK TO REQUIRING CONNECTIVITY, AND WE ARE INCLUDING THAT AND HAVE DONE THAT AS A MATTER OF PRACTICE ON MOST APPLICATIONS THAT YOU SEE COME BEFORE YOU.
WATER POINTE HAD THE REQUIREMENTS IN THEIR CONDITIONS TO DO SO.
THEY PROVIDED AT LEAST ON THE PLAT FOR THAT PURPOSE, AND INCIDENTALLY, THAT'S WHERE THE CONDITION ON THE FIRST PAGE OF THE SECOND HANDOUT.
THAT'S WHERE THE TOWN OF JUPITER IS REFERENCED SPECIFICALLY FOR THE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT, JUST AS A FOLLOW UP TO THE PRIOR COMMENTS I WAS MAKING.
WE HAVE RECOMMENDED THE CONDITION TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN FOR THE POLICIES.
>> LET'S CONTINUE ON. COMMISSIONER GUISINGER.
[01:00:01]
>> QUESTION ON THE LIVING WALL.
SINCE IT IS UNIQUE, WE DON'T SEE MANY OF THEM.
SINCE IT IS, YOU HAVE TO HIRE COMPANIES FAMILIAR WITH HOW TO MAINTAIN THESE WALLS, AND WILL YOU? AND HOW DO YOU NOTIFY WHEN SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE PLACED? JUST A MATTER OF PEOPLE SAYING, HEY, YOU GOT SOME DEAD PLANTS UP THERE OR IS THERE A PLAN TO HAVE A PROFESSIONAL COMPANY MAINTAIN IT AND LOOK AT IT AND PERIODICALLY TELL YOU WHEN THINGS NEED TO BE UPDATED?
>> THERE'S NO SPECIAL MAINTENANCE REQUIRED IN TERMS OF PLANT CARE.
>> THE WAY THAT THEY'RE PLANTED INDIVIDUALLY ON THE WALL, IT'S STANDARD MAINTENANCE.
THE PLANTS THAT WILL BE IN THOSE SCREEN WALLS ARE GOING TO BE RELATIVELY LOW MAINTENANCE.
IT'S NOT LIKE A HEDGE THAT YOU'VE GOT TO GET IN THERE AND TRIM IT REGULARLY.
IT'S GOING TO BE REGULARLY WATERED THROUGH THE INTEGRATED IRRIGATION SYSTEM, AND THE PROPERTY ITSELF WILL BE MAINTAINED ON A REGULAR BASIS, AND MOST LIKELY THAT MAINTENANCE COMPANY WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THAT WALL OR AT LEAST NOTIFYING THE PROPERTY OWNER IF A SECTION OF THE GREEN WALL NEEDS TO BE REPLACED.
>> WOULD THAT MAINTENANCE COMPANY BE FAMILIAR WITH THEY GOT TO REPLACE SOMETHING, HOW TO DO IT I GUESS?
>> THE WORKERS THAT WOULD BE THERE ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS MAY NOT BE FAMILIAR WITH THE SYSTEM, BUT IT'S PRETTY SELF-EXPLANATORY IN TERMS OF THE WAY THAT IT'S PUT TOGETHER.
THE PLANT CARE ITSELF WOULD BE EASY FOR THEM TO ACCOMPLISH.
AGAIN, IF A NEW SECTION NEEDS TO BE PUT IN, IT'S NOT THAT IT'S BAD, YOU JUST REPLACE THE PLANTS THAT ARE IN THAT SECTION.
>> MOST LANDSCAPE COME DOWN TO DEAL WITH HER.
NOT GOING UP 20, 30 FEET UP IN THE AIR TO REPLACE PLANTS.
THESE SO I ASSUME THEY HAVE TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF SPECIAL LIFT, GO UP AND REMOVE PANELS AND PUT THEM BACK IN, THOSE TYPE OF THINGS.
I'D LIKE TO GIVE SOME THOUGHT AS HOW THESE ARE GOING TO BE MAINTAINED BY A PROFESSIONAL COMPANY.
>> IT MAY REQUIRE SOME ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT LIKE YOU MENTIONED, IF IT'S A PANEL AT THE TOP, HOW DO THEY GET TO IT? HAVING A LIFT, MOST LIKELY.
BUT THE INSTALLATION OF A PANEL IS NOT COMPLICATED, AND PUTTING NEW PLANTS IN THAT PANEL, AGAIN, IS NOT A COMPLICATED PROCEDURE.
>> THEY'RE NOT COMPLICATED. DO THEY HAVE TO BE REMOVED IN A HURRICANE?
>> THEY'RE SECURED AND WIND-RATED.
I'M NOT SURE THE RATING OFFHAND.
BUT THEY WOULD NOT NEED TO BE REGULARLY REMOVED FOR STORMS.
>> QUESTION FOR STAFF, RELATIVE TO THE SCENIC CORRIDOR BEING LESS THAN FIVE FEET LESS THAN REQUIRED BY SECTION 27, DOES THAT REQUIRE SPECIAL VARIANCE ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT?
>> HOW WOULD THAT BE ALLOWED THEN PERMITTED-WISE?
>> IN THIS CASE, THE PORTION THAT DOESN'T MEET THE REQUIREMENT IS THE STATE PORTION WITHIN THE FDOT RIGHT OF WAY.
THEY HAVE MET THEIR MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 29 FEET ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY.
THAT'S WHY WE FOUND THE APPLICANT IN COMPLIANCE.
WE DO HAVE TURN LANES UP AND DOWN US 1 AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE, WE HAVE NEVER REQUIRED ANY VARIANCE.
WE HAVE JUST ACKNOWLEDGED THAT IT'S LESS THAN THE 21 FEET IN THOSE AREAS WHERE THERE ARE TURN LANES FOR NECESSARY DECELERATION.
>> THEN YOUR CONDITION OF APPROVAL, THEN, YOU REMOVE MINIMUM OF 50% OF THE SOD AND PUT MORE SHRUBBERY AND THAT TYPE OF THINGS OUT FRONT IN THAT SCENIC CORRIDOR?
>> THAT CONDITION IS STILL RELEVANT TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF SOD TO MAKE THE MOST OF THE AREA THAT IS THERE.
>> LET ME SEE IF WE CAN ANSWER THEM ALL.
I THINK ALL MY OTHER QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
>> I'LL CONTINUE. THIS IS ON? YOU GUYS CAN HEAR ME? NO. HOW ABOUT NOW? ANY BETTER?
>> GOOD. I'LL CONTINUE ON WITH THE GREEN WALL, WHICH SEEMS TO BE POPULAR IN JUPITER, GREEN WALL, WHAT FREE PARKING AT THE BEACHES AND DOG PARKS SEEM TO BE GOOD THINGS.
WITH THE GREEN WALL, HAS COTLER AND HEARING DONE ONE OF THESE ANYWHERE BEFORE?
>> WE HAVEN'T INSTALLED THIS SPECIFIC SYSTEM.
THERE ARE SEVERAL EXAMPLES IN THE STATE THAT WE'VE SEEN WHERE IT'S BEEN INSTALLED SUCCESSFULLY AND STILL LOOKS FANTASTIC.
>> ANYWHERE LOCALLY IN PALM BEACH COUNTY?
>> I THINK THE CLOSEST ONE WAS IN ORLANDO.
>> DIFFERENT CLIMATE. IT'LL BE INTRIGUING TO SEE THIS COME TO COMPLETION.
I SHARE SOME OF THE SAME CONCERNS ABOUT ONE WITH STORMS WITH IT AND HOW IT HOLDS UP AND SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND HOW EASILY IT'S CHANGED OUT IF THINGS DIE OFF OR LOOK LIKE THEY NEED TO BE FIXED, BUT I IMAGINE THAT THE GOOD DOCTORS THAT'LL BE IN THE BUILDING WILL PROBABLY POINT THAT OUT BEFORE ANYBODY ELSE DOES,
[01:05:01]
PROBABLY LONG BEFORE THE TOWN DOES.OTHER THAN THAT, I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BENSON.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME? HOW TALL IS THE ACTUAL BUILDING GOING TO BE?
>> I THINK THE MAX HEIGHT GOES UP TO THE TOP OF THE PENTHOUSE 53.5 FEET.
>> 53 FEET, SIX INCHES TO THE TOP VERY TIPPY POINT OF THE PENTHOUSE.
>> WHAT'S THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT OF BUILDING? IS 35 FEET?
>> THE AVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHT OF 35 FEET.
>> THOSE ELEMENTS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE HEIGHT LIMITATION BECAUSE THEY'RE SCREENING ELEMENTS DESIGNED TO ENCAPSULATE THE ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT.
AGAIN, A TRADITIONAL SCREENING METHOD, YOU MIGHT SEE A METAL PANEL GO UP FROM THE TOP OF THE ROOF ON SOME BUILDINGS THAT HAVE A FLAT ROOF SYSTEM.
THIS IS A MUCH MORE INTEGRATED OPTION TO DESIGN IT.
IT'S MORE EXPENSIVE TO DO, BUT YOU'RE DESIGNING IT TO INTEGRATE IT INTO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE BUILDING, RATHER THAN IT JUST BE AFTERTHOUGHT FEATURE ON THE ROOF TO THROW UP SOME SCREENING TO COVER SOME EQUIPMENT.
>> JUST MY OPINION AND I'M FAIRLY NEW AT THIS, BUT TO ME, THAT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE REALLY PUSHING THE BOUNDARIES ON THE HEIGHTS OF MANAGING TO GET BUILDINGS THAT ARE TALLER AND TALLER.
IT WAS MEANT FOR A SCREENING AND THAT'S NOT A SCREENING TO ME THAT IT APPEARS THAT A BUILDING IS LITERALLY THAT HIGH. JUST MY COMMENT.
SORRY. HOW TALL IS WATERPOINT? DOES ANYBODY KNOW?
>> THERE ARE TWO-STORY TOWNHOUSE UNITS.
>> I KNOW THAT YOU HAD A DISCUSSION AND YOU SAID THAT YOU WERE SETTLING WITH WATERPOINT.
HOW MUCH OF A DISCUSSION IS MADE BETWEEN THE DIFFERENCE AND THE HEIGHT AND THE FACT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO SEE THAT BUILDING OVER MOST OF YOUR LANDSCAPING BECAUSE IT'S SO HIGH?
>> IN TERMS OF MEETING THE CODE REQUIREMENTS, AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE BUILDING, THERE WAS AN OPTION TO HAVE IT SLIGHTLY LOWER, BUT IT DIDN'T FIT WITH THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING AND WE WENT BACK AND FORTH WITH THE TOWN TO MAKE SURE THIS WAS THE BEST-LOOKING BUILDING POSSIBLE.
RATHER THAN ONE OF THOSE OTHER OPTIONS THAT WOULDN'T LOOK AS GOOD TO THE NEIGHBORS.
WE SETTLED ON THIS DESIGN OPTION WITH THE TOWN TO MAKE SURE IT WAS THE BEST-LOOKING BUILDING POSSIBLE.
JUST HAVING A BUILDING THAT'S VISIBLE DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S A DETRACTION.
WE ARE ENHANCING THE LANDSCAPE ON THAT NORTHERN BOUNDARY, ADDING ADDITIONAL TREES AT CLOSER SPACING AT A LITTLE BIT TALLER HEIGHTS THAT AGAIN, WE'LL BE ABLE TO GROW INTO MORE OF A SOLID VISUAL SCREEN VERSUS INDIVIDUAL TREES WITH GAPS IN BETWEEN THEM.
THAT'S OUR COMMITMENT TO PROVIDING THAT ADDITIONAL SCREENING BASED ON THEIR CONCERN AND WANTING TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS AGAIN.
>> WATERPOINT HAS AGREED THAT WHAT YOU'RE PROJECTING TO DO IS OKAY WITH THEM.
>> WE HAVEN'T SHARED A SPECIFIC PLAN WHICH REFLECTS THOSE.
WE JUST HAD A DISCUSSION ACTUALLY YESTERDAY, I BELIEVE ABOUT IT TO WHERE WE BECAME AWARE OF THIS ISSUE, I THINK ON MONDAY.
WE REACHED OUT RIGHT AWAY, WANTING TO MAKE SURE WE COULD HAVE THAT CONVERSATION, BE GOOD NEIGHBORS AND SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE COMMITTED TO PROVIDING THAT ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE WHEN WE'RE NOT REQUIRED TO DO SO.
>> IS WATERPOINT HERE TO BE REPRESENTED TODAY TO FIND THEIR SIDE OF THIS?
>> THEY'VE SUBMITTED A COMMENT CARD.
YOU'LL HEAR FROM THEM AT THAT PORTION OF THE HEARING.
>> NO. I'M JUST ASKING IF WE'RE GOING TO HEAR THEIR SIDE OF IT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO VOTE ON SOMETHING IF I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE OTHER PERSON IF THEY'RE MAKING THIS TYPE OF A COMPLAINT.
THE ONLY OTHER THING IS THAT I JUST FEEL LIKE THAT IT'S REALLY STRETCHED BOUNDARIES ON PRECEDENT OF HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS WHEN IT'S ENCLOSED LIKE THAT, AND IT VERY APPARENTLY LOOKS LIKE IT'S A FOUR STORY BUILDING.
WHO WOULD PAY FOR THE MAINTENANCE ON THE EASEMENT THAT GOES BETWEEN?
>> BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES IT WOULD BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF OUR PROPERTY OWNER TO BUILD THE CROSS-ACCESS.
>> WHO WOULD UPKEEP THE COMBINED PROPERTIES LIKE THAT GENERAL?
>> I'M NOT SURE IT'S SPOKEN TO.
I BELIEVE THE DEFAULT WOULD BE EVERYTHING ON THE WATERPOINT PROPERTY WOULD BE MAINTAINED BY THEIR HOA AND EVERYTHING ON OUR PROPERTY WOULD BE MAINTAINED BY OUR PROPERTY OWNER.
>> THANK YOU. WE'LL GO, COMMISSIONER KEENAN, PLEASE.
>> ACTUALLY ALL MY QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED PREVIOUSLY.
[01:10:04]
KUDOS ON THE GREEN WALL.THEY'VE BEEN AROUND I THINK ABOUT 20 YEARS NOW WITH SOME IMPROVEMENTS OVER TIME, AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE GREEN, BY THE WAY.
KEEP THAT IN MIND. THERE'S SOME BEAUTIFUL ONES IN SHANGHAI, ACTUALLY.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER GEISINGER, YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION?
>> I HAD ONE LAST QUESTION ON THE LANDSCAPING BETWEEN WATERPOINT AND THIS DEVELOPMENT.
BOTH OF THESE LANDS ARE BEING DEVELOPED.
IT'S OPPORTUNITY FOR BOTH SIDES TO IMPROVE THE LANDSCAPING.
I SAW SOME OF THE VIEW OF THE LANDSCAPING AND WATERPOINT.
IT SEEMS VERY SPARSE ALONG THAT THIN WALL.
IT'S VERY CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
I EXPECT THERE'S GOING TO BE A COMPROMISE IN LANDSCAPING.
I LIKE TO SEE IT ON BOTH SIDES, NOT JUST ONE-SIDED.
I WANT TO THROW THAT POINT OUT THERE.
>> THANKS. ALSO, JUST A QUICK QUESTION JUST TO CONFIRM, EVERYTHING IN THIS BUILDING IS WITHIN CODE, HEIGHT, PARAPET SCREENING, ALL THE STUFF IS WITHIN ALLOWABLE LIMITS.
THERE'S NO DEVIATION FROM CODE FOR THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING OR THE MECHANICAL ROOM OR ANY OF THAT STUFF RIGHT?
>> NO. THEY HAVEN'T ASKED FOR ANY TYPE OF EXCEPTION OR A WAIVER, AND WE WILL, BASED ON THE CONCERNS, WE'LL GO BACK AND DOUBLE-CHECK EVERYTHING CERTAINLY, COUNCIL.
>> KAREN'S QUESTION IS AN INTERESTING ONE. I DON'T KNOW.
FROM A LANDSCAPING STANDPOINT, IS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION IN THE CODE REGARDING THE DIFFERENTIAL OF HEIGHT FROM ONE BUILDING TO THE NEXT BUILDING ADJACENT?
>> NO, THERE ARE SOME PROVISIONS IN THE CODE WHEN SOMEBODY INTRODUCES AN OPPOSING LAND USE.
THIS PROPERTY IS REDEVELOPING A COMMERCIAL LAND USE.
THERE'S NO EXTRA REQUIREMENT BURDEN ON THEM.
ESSENTIALLY, THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH DEVELOPED KNOWING THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH WAS COMMERCIAL.
IT DIDN'T GET CHANGED TO COMMERCIAL.
IT COULD BE ARGUED THAT THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH SHOULD HAVE DONE A BETTER JOB TO BUFFER THEMSELVES FROM THE ADJACENT COMMERCIAL USE THAT WAS THERE.
GRANTED, IT IS COMING IN FOR A CHANGE AND IT'S A TALLER BUILDING THAN THAT WAS THERE BEFORE.
SOME WORKING ON BOTH SIDES OF THAT MAY PROVIDE A BETTER BUFFER OVERALL BY USING BOTH BUFFERS ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
>> THANKS. THAT'S HELPFUL. ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC?
>> YES. IF I CAN HAVE MR. CRAIG RUBINSTEIN TO THE PODIUM.
YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.
>> GOOD EVENING. I'M CRAIG RUBINSTEIN.
I'M COUNSEL FOR WATERPOINT CONDOMINIUM.
I ECHO WHAT THE APPLICANT SAID, AND WE HAVE THE SAME OBJECTIVE BEING GOOD NEIGHBORS TO THE APPLICANT AND GOOD CITIZENS IN THE TOWN OF JUPITER.
FROM THAT STANDPOINT, WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.
THAT BEING SAID, THERE DOES APPEAR TO BE A DISCONNECT BETWEEN WATERPOINT AND THE TOWN STAFF AS TO EXACTLY WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE UNDER THE APPROVED AND RECORDED PLAT.
I KNOW THAT AN EXCERPT FROM THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU.
BUT WHEN YOU LOOK CAREFULLY AT THE LANGUAGE IN THAT SECTION, SECTION 4.1 IN PARTICULAR, WHAT THAT SAYS IS THE 24-FOOT WIDE CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT, AS SHOWN HEREIN, IS HEREBY RESERVED BY WATERPOINT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION.
THIS IS AN EASEMENT THAT BELONGS TO WATERPOINT.
IT'S NOT AN OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF WATERPOINT.
IT HAS NOT BEEN ASSIGNED OR DEEDED TO THE TOWN AND IF YOU CONTRAST 4.1 TO SECTION 3.1 JUST ABOVE IT IN THE RECORDED PLAT, WHICH SAYS THE PUBLIC CROSS-ACCESS EASEMENT WHICH IS A DIFFERENT ONE IS HEREBY DEDICATED TO THE TOWN OF JUPITER.
IF YOU GO OUT TO 5.1, THE PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT IS HEREBY DEDICATED TO THE TOWN OF JUPITER.
THAT'S DIFFERENT LANGUAGE THAN A 4.1 WHERE IT'S RESERVED BY WATERPOINT.
IT BELONGS TO WATERPOINT, NOT THE TOWN OF JUPITER AND IF YOU WANT IT, I HAVE HANDOUTS WITH A BLOW-UP OR A LARGER VERSION OF THAT, IF WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, LIKE I SAID, WE WISH TO BE GOOD CITIZENS AND GOOD NEIGHBORS AND WE'RE CERTAINLY WILLING TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT EITHER NOT HAVING AN EASEMENT OR HAVING AN EASEMENT THAT'S VERY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED, AND WE CERTAINLY WELCOME COMMISSIONER KAREN'S INVITATION TO ENGAGE IN CONTINUED DIALOGUE WITH THE STAFF AND THE APPLICANT ON THAT ISSUE.
HOWEVER, THERE ARE TWO VERY CONSIDERABLE POINTS YOU NEED TO CONSIDER.
ONE IS SAFETY, AND THE OTHER IS WHETHER THERE'S REALLY A NECESSITY FOR THE SECOND ACCESS POINT.
LET ME TAKE THOSE IN REVERSE ORDER IF I COULD.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE TRAFFIC STUDY SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT, PAGE 75 OF THE AGENDA FOR TODAY FROM THE TRAFFIC STUDY FROM SIMMONS AND WINE AT THEIR DIAGRAM,
[01:15:02]
THEY ONLY HAVE ONE ACCESS POINT AT THE SOUTHERN END OF THE PROPERTY WHERE IT CURRENTLY EXISTS.THE ENGINEER FOR THE APPLICANT IN TODAY'S PRESENTATION, INDICATED HIS WORDS, NOT A VERY LARGE BUILDING.
WHEN HE WAS ASKED ABOUT THE PARKING SPACES, HE SAID, WELL, HE ANTICIPATES MANY OF THE SPACES ARE GOING TO REMAIN EMPTY.
IT'S A SMALL PROPERTY ON A LITTLE BIT OVER AN ACRE, SMALL BUILDING, MANY SPACES WILL REMAIN EMPTY.
THE RESTAURANT ONLY HAD ONE ACCESS POINT.
ITS OWN ENGINEER OR TRAFFIC STUDY FIRM ONLY HAD ONE ACCESS POINT.
YOU HAVE AN ISSUE OF NECESSITY.
>> IN ADDITION, YOU HAVE AN ISSUE OF SAFETY.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE DIAGRAM OF WHERE THIS ACCESS EASEMENT IS PROPOSED, IT RUNS DIRECTLY INTO THE DRIVEWAY FOR WATER POINT JUST OFF OF US1, JUST TO THE WEST OF IT.
SO YOU'RE CREATING A NUMBER OF RISKS THERE.
NUMBER 1, BECAUSE YOU HAVE CARS COMING FROM THREE DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS IF YOU BUILD THIS EASEMENT, YOU'RE GOING TO CREATE A RISK OF ACCIDENTS, YOU'RE GOING TO CREATE A RISK OF CARS BACKING UP ONTO US1 BY CREATING A BOTTLENECK, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CUT ACROSS A EXISTING PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY TO CREATE THIS EASEMENT.
SO YOU'RE CREATING DANGERS TO PEDESTRIANS AND AND DANGER TO THE CARS ON THE ROADS, BOTH WITHIN THE EASEMENT WHICH IS NOT PARTICULARLY BIG AND US 1 ITSELF.
POINT ABOUT PALM BEACH LAKES BOULEVARD.
>> CERTAINLY. PALM BEACH LAKES BOULEVARD WITH THE ACCESS ROAD IS A LENGTHY ROAD THAT RUNS PARALLEL.
HERE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A VERY, VERY SHORT NUMBER OF FEET TO RUN FROM ONE PROPERTY TO THE OTHER WHICH DOESN'T SOLVE ANYTHING AND IT IS COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY AND CREATES A SAFETY HAZARD. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU. SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO DELIBERATIONS.
SO COMMISSIONER BLOOM, LET'S START DOWN HERE.
ANY COMMENTS OR DELIBERATION BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION?
>> I'D HAVE TO AGREE WITH HIM THAT I DON'T THINK THE EASEMENT ACCESS IN THIS CASE IS NECESSARY.
I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THE TOWN'S WANT OF HAVING THE FRONTAGE ROAD, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IN THAT AREA, THAT'S EVEN A PLAUSIBLE SITUATION.
SO I WOULD BE FINE WITH IT NOT BEING REQUIRED.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CASSATLY.
>> YEAH. I DO HAVE CONCERN ABOUT THE HEIGHT OF IT, BUT I GUESS IF IT FITS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TOWN, NOT SURE THERE'S MUCH THAT WE CAN DO.
IN TERMS OF THE ACCESS THAT YOU MENTIONED, I'M LOOKING AT THE PICTURE, I GUESS IT'S TAKEN FROM A DRONE.
AND MAYBE YOU COULD MOVE THAT ACCESS POINT FURTHER WEST IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT CURVE TO THE OTHER BUILDINGS, SO YOU CAN STILL HAVE THAT ACCESS POINT.
SO THAT THERE'S ALSO A SAFETY FACTOR FOR CARS PULLING OUT OF THERE GOING 30 FEET SOUTH AND PULLING BACK IN.
SO THERE'S A SAFETY FACTOR THERE, BUT MAYBE IF THERE'S A NICE WAY TO BE ABLE TO WORK OUT TO GET AN ACCESS POINT THERE WOULD BE HELPFUL IN MY MIND.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER DUNNING.
>> WELL, I LIKE THE BUILDING, I LIKE THE CONCEPT, I LIKE WHAT THE APPLICANT IS DOING TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS WITH THE LANDSCAPING.
I DO HAVE A PROBLEM THOUGH WITH THE ACCESS POINT AND I'M NOT SURE HOW TO RESOLVE THAT.
I THINK MR. KIRN, MY ASSOCIATE COLLEAGUE HERE HAD A GOOD SOLUTION MAYBE IF WE COULD APPROVE THIS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF COMING TO SOME SATISFACTORY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE TOWN ON THE ACCESS POINTS AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT LATER, BUT THAT IS A CONCERN OF MINE ALSO, ESPECIALLY WHEN I HEAR ABOUT SAFETY.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER GUISINGER.
>> YEAH. I LIKE TO THANK THE APPLICANT.
I LIKE THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE BUILDING AND ALSO LIKE THE LIVING WALL.
THAT'S GOING TO BE IN ADDITION TO THE AREA.
I'M A PROPONENT OF THE CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT.
I THINK WE SET A PRECEDENT IN TOWN OF JUPITER HAVING THAT CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN PROPERTIES.
I KNOW I'VE USED IT QUITE A BIT GOING UP IN IN TOWN ROAD, AND OTHER LOCATIONS.
GOOD EXAMPLES, HOME DEPOT AND ROYAL, WAS IT APT OR ROYAL WHATEVER.
>> IN THE POWER PLACE THERE, ON ROAD GETS YOU ACCESS TO ALL THREE.
SO I THINK THERE'S A PRECEDENT FOR THAT THAT WE OUGHT TO MAINTAIN IT, BUT I WOULD LIKE FOR THE TOWN STAFF TO WORK WITH BOTH APPLICANTS AND SEE WHAT WE COME UP WITH A PLAN THAT MEETS BOTH REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CROSS ACCENT EASEMENT AND MAYBE LIKE COMMISSIONER SAID EARLIER, MAYBE RELOCATING IT MAYBE FURTHER WEST, SO IT MIGHT BE A POSSIBILITY.
[01:20:01]
>> REGARDING THE ACCESS EASEMENT AGAIN, I THINK THAT LIKE MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES HERE, THERE SHOULD BE SOME ACCESS EASEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES.
I THINK IT IS A MATTER OF SAFETY ACTUALLY TO HAVE MORE THAN ONE ACCESS POINT TO THE PROPERTY.
I THINK YOU INCREASE THE RISK BY SIMPLY HAVING ONE FOR THIS NEW PROPERTY FOR THE NEW DEVELOPMENT.
AND THEN REFERENCING BEING ABLE TO ACCESS AND WITH ACCESS ROADS.
I MEAN, INDIAN TOWN VERSUS DONALD DOSS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE.
DONALD DOSS MOVES RELATIVELY SMOOTHLY BECAUSE OF MULTIPLE INTERIOR ACCESS POINTS VERSUS INDIAN TOWN THAT CAN BOTTLENECK AT EVERY SINGLE TRAFFIC LIGHT.
SO YEAH, ANYTHING THAT CAN BE DONE TO TAKE SOME OF THE TRAFFIC OFF THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARES IS, I THINK ALWAYS A GOOD THING.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER VINSON.
>> I WOULD SAY THAT I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ACCESS ROAD THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE THERE.
I WOULDN'T TAKE IT OUT BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ONE ENTRANCE, ONE EXIT INTO A FACILITY THAT HAS 80 SOMETHING PARKING SPOTS. THAT'S A LOT.
SO I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE A SAFETY HAZARD TO NOT HAVE IT THERE.
AND I THINK THAT THE TWO SIDES ARE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK WITH THE TOWN OF JUPITER TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION FOR THAT BECAUSE I DON'T REALLY FEEL LIKE THAT THAT'S A BENDING POINT I WOULD BE WILLING TO DO TO PASS IT.
AND MY OTHER POINT WOULD BE THAT I WOULD THINK THAT WATERPOINT AND THE NEW CONSTRUCTION WOULD NEED TO WORK ON THE LANDSCAPING TOGETHER.
I AGREE THAT IT SHOULD BE PROBABLY BOTH SIDES SINCE THEY ARE SPARSE ON THEIR SIDE TOO, THAT IT SHOULD BE A JOINT EFFORT.
BUT THOSE SHOULD COME TO RESOLUTION.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER KIRN. I BELIEVE THAT WHEN WE HEARD FROM COUNSEL, COUNSEL RAISED SOME GOOD POINTS WITH RESPECT TO THE AWKWARDNESS OF THE CURRENT LOCATION OF THE EASEMENT.
I WOULD THINK THAT OUR REMEDY MAY BE TO PROVIDE A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL CONDITIONED UPON ALL THREE PARTIES COMING TO AN AGREEMENT ON THE ACCESS.
I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY WAY TO GO AT THIS POINT.
>> SO IT'S INTERESTING, I THOUGHT THE CONCERN FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT WAS WITH THE ACCESS AND HAVING CARS COMING IN AND OUT OF THE WATER POINT AND ALSO COMING IN AND OUT OF THE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING PARKING LOT.
BUT ARE YOU ALL SAYING THE OPPOSITE THAT YOU WANT TO HAVE TWO ACCESS POINTS?
>> IS THAT WHAT I'M HERE AND HERE TOO? NO. SO BETH, ARE YOU THINKING THE WAY I AM THAT IT'S BETTER TO NOT HAVE TWO ACCESS POINTS?
>> YEAH, I DON'T THINK THIS IS THAT BIG OF A FACILITY.
AND TO ME, I'M THINKING WITH THE MEDICAL BUILDING, I'M THINKING IF I WERE THAT OWNER, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF THOSE RESIDENTS SHOOTING THROUGH THERE WHEN THEY'RE COMING HOME AT NIGHT AND AFTER THE MEDICAL BUILDING'S CLOSED.
AND I'M JUST THINKING OF THE LIABILITY FOR THAT PROPERTY OWNER AND HAVING THOSE PEOPLE GOING IN THROUGH THEIR PROPERTY, MAKING IT EASIER TO GET TO HOME WHEN THE BUILDINGS CLOSED.
>> SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES HERE.
PERHAPS WAY WE CAN THINK ABOUT THIS IS WE'VE GOT TOWN STAFF WHO CAN WORK ON IT.
THEY'RE CERTAINLY CREDIBLY COMPETENT AND THEY CAN WORK WITH THE TWO OWNERS.
AND THEN TOWN COUNCIL IS ULTIMATELY THE ONES WHO ARE GOING TO NEED TO DECIDE THIS.
MAYBE A WAY TO MOVE THIS FORWARD WOULD BE TO WELL, THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE ADAMANT ABOUT THERE BEING TWO ACCESS POINTS I GUESS YOU CAN VOTE THAT WAY TONIGHT.
I'M GOING TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF APPROVING THIS WITHOUT THE CONDITION THAT THERE BE TWO ACCESS POINTS WITH THE WORST CASE BEING A SINGLE ACCESS POINT, TRUSTING THAT TOWN STAFF AND TOWN COUNCIL WILL BE ABLE TO ULTIMATELY DECIDE THAT, SO I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY ELSE IS HAVING A SIMILAR THOUGHT TO THAT.
>> I'D LIKE TO SECOND THAT MOTION. I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA.
ARE YOU SAYING THE MOTION TO APPROVE IT WITH ACCESS.
>> ARE YOU SAYING JUST TO APPROVE IT, THAT IF AN ACCESS CAN BE AGREED UPON AND IF NOT, THEN JUST GO TO THE ONE?
>> SO YOU'RE SAYING CONDITIONAL, SO YOU'RE GOING TO TRY FOR THE TWO ACT?
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING FOR.
>> AND TRUST THAT THE STAFF AND TOWN COUNCIL WILL BE THE ULTIMATE.
>> ULTIMATELY, IT'S GOING TO BE THE TOWN COUNCIL.
SO I MEAN, WE COULD MAKE A PROVISION IN THIS SO THAT THEY CAN MOVE FORWARD.
I'M JUST CONCERNED IF WE MAKE THE PROVISION IF THEY CAN'T DO TWO, LET'S JUST MAKE IT ONE THEN.
>> YEAH. WELL, I THINK THE [OVERLAPPING].
>> THE TOWN STAFF WILL BE WEIGHING IN ON THIS.
[01:25:01]
SO THEY KNOW OUR FEELINGS.>> I FEEL LIKE IF THEY KNOW WHAT OUR FEELINGS ARE ABOUT IT, THEN THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO WORK TOWARDS AS BEST THEY CAN AND NOT GO TO ONE UNLESS THAT'S A LAST RESORT.
>> HOW ABOUT A MOTION THEN GO TO GET A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF THE REQUEST.
>> IS THE LANDSCAPING GOING TO BE A STIPULATION ON THERE TOO.
THEY SETTLE THEIR DISPUTE? OR IS THAT?
>> YEAH, I GUESS MY ONLY CONCERN ABOUT THAT IS I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S ANY CODE REQUIREMENTS.
>> I'M HOPING MAYBE THERE MIGHT BE SOME HORSE TRADING THAT GOES ON HERE PERHAPS.
>> NO, I JUST DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE NEEDED TO PUT IT IN THERE OR NOT. I'M FINE EITHER WAY.
I JUST WANT IT ON RECORD THAT THEY NEED TO WORK TOGETHER AND FIX THEIR PROBLEM.
>> I AGREE. AND AGAIN, THAT'S I WOULD DEFER TO TOWN STAFF ON.
MOTION. CAN I MAKE A MOTION? YES, PLEASE.
[LAUGHTER] I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE SUBMISSION.
>> EXCUSE ME. CHAIRS DON'T MAKE MOTIONS [LAUGHTER].
>> YOU CAN STATE A MOTION AND ASK, CAN I HAVE A MOTION.
>> SO I GUESS WHAT I WAS THINKING WOULD BE THAT WE APPROVE THIS SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE SUBMISSION TO THE APPLICATION WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE SECOND ACCESS POINT.
AND THAT WOULD BE WORK THROUGH WITH TOWN STAFF AND BOTH OWNERS TO TOWN STAFFS.
>> AND I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION AS THIS CHAIRMAN STATES.
>> WE GOT FIRST IN A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR.
DO YOU GUYS GET ALL THAT? THAT OKAY? SO [LAUGHTER] STAFF UPDATE.
[STAFF UPDATE]
THANK YOU.>> THE JANUARY 21 COUNCIL MEETING, THE TOWN COUNCIL PROVED AN AMENDMENT TO THE RITZ CARLTON PUD TO ALLOW THE GUEST COTTAGE THAT WAS REQUESTED AND THEN ALSO JUST AS AN FYI FOR INFORMATION.
THE TOWN COUNCIL ALSO APPROVED AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE THE TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL FOR PLANNING SERVICES RELATED TO THE WIDENING OF CENTER STREET.
AND SO WE WILL CONTINUE WORKING WITH THEM ON THAT PROJECT TO GET PUBLIC INPUT ON THE PALM BEACH COUNTY PROJECT TO EXPAND THE ROADWAY EAST OF LOXACHE, RIVER ROAD, I BELIEVE IT IS.
>> AND EXCUSE ME, QUICK QUESTION.
WIDEN IT TO HOW TO FOUR LANES.
>> THREE LANES. SO TO HAVE A TWO INNER LANE THAT'S.
>> TO BASICALLY EXTEND THE TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT THEY DID FROM INDIAN TOWN ROAD TO LOGACH RIVER ROAD, WHICH IS LIKE A CONTINUOUS LEFT TURN LANE IN THE OPPOSING DIRECTIONS.
THE TOWN HAS INDICATED A DESIRE TO DO SOMETHING MORE CONDUCIVE TO A NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND SO LOOK AT THAT MORE DELIBERATELY AS A COMPLETE STREET AND NOT JUST DO A STANDARD THREE LANE ROAD SECTION.
>> YOU'RE GOING TO HOT ON A SUICIDE LAY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE, PLEASE.
>> YOU'RE GOING TO PUT A TURN LANE IN THE MIDDLE.
>> I DIDN'T SAY IT [LAUGHTER].
>> THAT'S THEIR GENERAL. THAT'S THE PROJECT THAT'S IN THE WORK PROGRAM FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION OF STAFF.
I'VE PROBABLY RECEIVED MAYBE UP TO 20 EMAILS, ROL TO ABACOA.
WHAT IS THE STATUS? IS THAT BECOME BEFORE THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION?
>> YOU ALL ALREADY SAW THAT APPLICATION FOR THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOR AN INCREASE OF DENSITY, AND IT WAS A DENIAL.
>> YEAH, IT WAS A RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL FROM THIS BODY.
>> AND THEN THAT'LL BE GOING BACK TO THE TOWN COUNCIL IN MAYBE THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS.
THEY'VE CONTINUED TO WORK ON IT.
THE COUNCIL HAD A ROUND TABLE ABOUT DENSITY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TOWN CENTER.
I THINK IT WAS PROBABLY OVER A YEAR AGO.
>> IT WAS MORE THAN A YEAR AGO.
>> BUT I'M STILL GETTING E MAILS ON IT.
>> IF THE COUNCIL APPROVES THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE DENSITY, THE APPLICATION THAT THEY'VE SUBMITTED, WILL MOVE FORWARD AND YOU WILL SEE THAT IN THE FUTURE, AT LEAST A COUPLE OF MONTHS OUT AT THE EARLIEST.
[01:30:01]
IF THEY DON'T APPROVE THAT ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT, THEY CAN AMEND THEIR APPLICATION TO REDUCE THE DENSITY THEY PROPOSE TO MEET WHAT'S ALLOWED IN THE EXISTING CODE.>> VERY GOOD, I THINK WE CAN ADJOURN.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.